Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Evidence and Faith"
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 13 of 303 (398862)
05-02-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
04-26-2007 8:52 AM


riVeRrat
But in all the years so far that creation science has been around, has there every been any solid (objective) evidence that the world was created?
What would have to be evidenced in order for us to determine that a planet has been created or not RR?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 04-26-2007 8:52 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by riVeRraT, posted 05-02-2007 10:57 PM sidelined has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 116 of 303 (400064)
05-10-2007 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by riVeRraT
05-09-2007 9:29 PM


Re: Ho Ho Hoax?
riVeRrat
It has come up more than once in our church, and I wish to expose the validity of it.
Do a double blind experiment yourselves on water at a remote distance.
Have someone not affiliated with your church in another state train a webcam on a glass of water and then you do the prayers as you will and see if an effect actually occurs.
Of course there is always an out as hinted at on the web page since one could always claim the person{s} praying were not "pure" enough or some such rubbish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by riVeRraT, posted 05-09-2007 9:29 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2007 10:40 AM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 142 of 303 (400273)
05-11-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by riVeRraT
05-10-2007 10:40 AM


Re: Ho Ho Hoax?
riVeRrat
What would the lack of reproducibilty indicate to you? Regardless , by performing the experiment yourself you can absolutely verify the validity of the claim itself.
AN excerpt from Richard Feynman may be of service to help you check things out.
"In general we look for a new law by the following process.
First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right.
Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.
It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is - if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
It is true that one has to check a little to make sure that it is wrong, because whoever did the experiment may have reported incorrectly, or there may have been some feature in the experiment that was not noticed, some dirt or something; or the man who computed the consequences, even though it may have been the one who made the guesses, could have made some mistakes in the analysis. These are obvious remarks, so when I say if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong, I mean after the experiment has been checked, the calculations have been checked, and the thing has been rubbed back and forth a few times to make sure that the consequences are logical consequences from the guess, and that in fact it disagrees with a very carefully checked experiment.
This [analysis] will give you a somewhat wrong impression of science. It suggests that we keep on guessing possibilities and comparing them with experiment, and this is to put experiment into a rather weak position. In fact experimenters have a certain individual character. They like to do experiments even if nobody has guessed yet, and they very often do their experiments in a region in which people know the theorist has not made any guesses. .
You can see, of course, that with this method we can attempt to disprove any definite theory. If we have a definite theory, a real guess, from which we can conveniently compute consequences which can be compared with experiment, then in principle we can get rid of any theory. There is always the possibility of proving any definite theory wrong; but notice that we can never prove it right. Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, and discover every time that the consequences you have calculated agree with experiment. The theory is then right? No, it is simply not proved wrong. .
One of the ways of stopping science would be only to do experiments in the region where you know the law. But experimenters search most diligently, and with the greatest effort, in exactly those places where it seems most likely that we can prove our theories wrong. .
Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.
If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and rather vague, and the method that you use for figuring out the consequences is a little vague - you are not sure, and you say, ”I think everything’s right because it’s all due to so and so, and such and such[,] do this and that more or less, and I can sort of explain how this works . ’, then you see that this theory is good, because it cannot be proved wrong! Also if the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the expected consequences. . . "
{emphasis mine}

" Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!!What a ride!"
-----------------------------------------
What delightful hosts they are-Love and Laughter!
Lingeringly I turn away at this late hour,yet glad
They have not withheld from me their high hospitality.
So at the door I pause to press their hands once more
And say,"So fine a time!Thank you both...and goodbye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2007 10:40 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-11-2007 11:31 PM sidelined has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 144 of 303 (400299)
05-11-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Adminnemooseus
05-11-2007 11:31 PM


Re: Reference please
Adminnemooseus
That quotation should have a source reference.
My apologies Moose. You are quite correct.
The source is from the book "The Character of Physical Law" By Richard Feynman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-11-2007 11:31 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024