Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,605 Year: 4,862/9,624 Month: 210/427 Week: 20/103 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 1725 (501593)
03-06-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
03-06-2009 9:30 PM


Re: Evidence
Sounds like there would be no problem if they called it the "String hypothesis" then.
The common usage of "theory" invades most all of the sciences.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 9:30 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by onifre, posted 03-07-2009 2:53 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 03-07-2009 3:07 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 30 by cavediver, posted 03-07-2009 5:06 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 38 of 1725 (501800)
03-07-2009 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Sarawak
03-07-2009 7:11 PM


Welcome!
Welcome!
I'm sure you'll be able to contribute a lot with that background.
There are a lot of highly edjumacated folks here, which makes for good discussions.
My fields are archaeology and physical anthropology.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Sarawak, posted 03-07-2009 7:11 PM Sarawak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Sarawak, posted 03-07-2009 8:15 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 168 of 1725 (521302)
08-26-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by RAZD
08-26-2009 8:53 PM


Re: Gun Control and Cognitive Dissonance?
This is obviously an emotional issue for many people, but I have yet to see a rational reason to have a gun presented.
Here's a deal for you.
You stick to the cities, where you have police, and hope they arrive in time.
I'll stick to the hills where I can have guns for self protection.
You mind your business, and I'll mind mine.
Deal, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2009 8:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by onifre, posted 08-27-2009 12:09 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 170 of 1725 (521315)
08-27-2009 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by onifre
08-27-2009 12:09 AM


Re: Gun Control and Cognitive Dissonance?
You stick to the cities, where you have police, and hope they arrive in time.
I'll stick to the hills where I can have guns for self protection.
You mind your business, and I'll mind mine.
You, Hannity, OReilly and Limbaugh... Hiding from the liberal left, who wants to take your guns and turn you gay, with the same blue pill.
- Oni
The rules pertaining to guns that apply to the inner cities don't necessarily apply to the outback.
For example, what would with a horse that just broke its leg in the wilderness miles from the nearest road?
Edited by Coyote, : Grammar. Time to call it a night.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by onifre, posted 08-27-2009 12:09 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by onifre, posted 08-27-2009 12:30 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 172 of 1725 (521318)
08-27-2009 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by onifre
08-27-2009 12:30 AM


Re: Gun Control and Cognitive Dissonance?
For example, what would with a horse that just broke its leg in the wilderness miles from the nearest road?
Well, what did horses do before humans had guns?
Lets just go back to that.
Sorry, no. Wrong answer. Very wrong answer.
Better you just stay in the city and leave the wilderness to those of us who are capable, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by onifre, posted 08-27-2009 12:30 AM onifre has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 190 of 1725 (535098)
11-12-2009 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by RAZD
11-12-2009 7:50 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias and Cognitive Dissonance
Good essay, RAZD.
But you left out "willful ignorance."
The simple definition: deliberately ignoring anything that doesn't fit with one's a priori beliefs.
This is similar to willful blindness in law:
quote:
Willful blindness (sometimes called willful ignorance or contrived ignorance) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable (from Wiki).
Creationists simply ignore, and thus can deny, that which doesn't fit their a priori beliefs. They tend not to study science for that very reason, and frequently dispute the scientific method because it leads to the "wrong" answers.
They don't have to study science--they just know its wrong. Believing this, they don't need to confront evidence. The evidence or assumptions or something there is wrong because the answer is wrong. That's all one needs to know.
Willful ignorance leads to such gems as "the second law of thermal documents" and "the odds against evolution are 1720" (examples from another website).
If it wasn't so funny it'd be laughable!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2009 7:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2009 9:15 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 197 of 1725 (536662)
11-24-2009 12:04 PM


In the debate thread Arphy writes...
In the debate thread Arphy writes:
While biological arguments can certainly be used as corroborative evidence, many arguments can be used for creation in general. Geologic evidence and Anthropological evidence gives more direct biblical evidence as it provides evidence for one of the most significant events in the bible. Namely The Flood.
You've got to be kidding!
A global flood about 4,350 years ago is among the most thoroughly discredited ideas in history!
It has been disproved worldwide by many different fields of investigation.
Data from my own archaeological research disproves it based (at minimum) on: 1) continuity of human cultures; 2) continuity of genetic lineages; 3) continuity of fauna and flora; and 4) continuity of stratigraphy.
The only folks who believe in the flood are biblical literalists practicing religious apologetics.
You mention geological evidence: that doesn't work because geological strata are older than 4,350 years! Forget the Cambrian explosion and all the rest of geology; for evidence of what happened 4,350 years ago you need to look to the soils, not the rocks. And there is no evidence for a global flood in the 4,350 year old soils.
You also mention anthropological evidence, presumably myths of floods. Fine. All you have to do is prove that all of those myths refer to the same flood, then explain how those folks are alive to tell the tales after such a flood. (Don't you realize that most of the world's population lives very close to water? Don't you think floods are common? Just ask the folks in New Orleans, or along the Mississippi River.)
Sorry, the battle to document a global flood about 4,350 years ago was lost in the early 1800s.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2009 8:16 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 199 of 1725 (536767)
11-25-2009 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by RAZD
11-24-2009 8:16 PM


In the debate thread Arphy writes...
In the debate thread Arphy writes:
On the age of the earth AS expects CMI to come out with some sort of research that uses a "clock" which says that the earth is 6000 years old. This is just not possible, because every such natural clock is based on big assumptions. The date of approx. 6000 years comes from simple calculations using the dates and ages provided in the bible and other historical sources. Although even here certain assumptions are used, variancies if source information still do not allow for an excessive increase beyond this age.
Your use of the term, "big assumptions" is meaningless unless you can show that those assumptions are inappropriate. Calling the assumptions supporting radiometric dating "big assumptions" is not scientific evidence of any kind. It is nothing more than "well, I don't believe it so its not true." In other words, of no value whatsoever.
What I do find legitimate is when research is done that takes a wide variety of assumptions and possibilities into account. This type of research allows us to calculate maximum or minimum ages for the earth. CMI certainly provide evidence to support a "young" earth by using research (including references to the RATE project) which shows that the maximum age of the earth does not fit with the naturalistic ideas such as long-age geology or evolutionary biology. Yet the evidence does fit within Biblical creationist geology and biology. Note, that this doesn't necessarily completly negate a naturalistic explanation, but to say that naturalistic biology and geology will someday find a way to incorporate the "young-ness" of the earth, is really just special pleading. Therefore I think it is reasonable to say that evidence for a "young" earth is evidence for Biblical creation.
Don't cite the RATE project in support of a young earth. The RATE project concluded that there was evidence for several hundred million years of radioactive decay--and this is from their own data!
They could not support the "young-ness" of the earth with their study, but they fell back on that religious belief even when their data showed a much older earth than they wanted or expected to see. They showed that they were doing religious apologetics, not science.
Face it: a young earth is as discredited an idea as the global flood about 4,350 years ago.
Two reviews of the RATE project:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
Assessing the RATE Project
Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
Page not found - Reasons to Believe
Arphy--Are you going to respond to any of these posts or is this going to be a monologue?
Edited by Coyote, : Post directed to Arphy, not RADZ

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2009 8:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-25-2009 12:46 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 201 by NosyNed, posted 11-25-2009 12:53 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 11-25-2009 5:00 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 204 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2009 2:09 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 205 of 1725 (537279)
11-28-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by cavediver
11-27-2009 2:09 PM


Re: In the debate thread Slevesque writes...
But could it be that it reveals that there is a common faulty assumption behind all these dating methods ?
Besides, creationist also have multiple lines of evidence that all show a maximum age smaller then the common dates of the earth, solar system, etc. It would seem both sides sit on their 'correlation'.
No. Not even close.
The faulty assumption is that 3,000 year old scriptures suggest or document a young earth.
And the multiple lines of evidence cited by creationists have all been disproved. None of this convinces creationists, who keep pushing the same flawed arguments, though. That's because they don't rely on evidence, just on belief, so evidence that contradicts those beliefs has no effect.
Fine, but don't try to pretend it is science. It is the exact opposite.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2009 2:09 PM cavediver has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 208 of 1725 (537500)
11-29-2009 2:02 AM


Arphy in the Debate Thread
Trying to pinpoint specific years with geological "clocks" has too many assumptions attached.
"Assumption" does not mean "wrong" no matter how many times creationists imply that it does.
And claiming that various dating methods rely on assumptions does not cast their results into doubt--except in the minds of creationists, who rely on belief rather than evidence in the first place.
If you have evidence that these dating methods, that correlate with one another, are actually wrong present that evidence.
Crying "assumptions" is not evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by JonF, posted 11-29-2009 8:42 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 212 of 1725 (538205)
12-04-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Jazzns
12-04-2009 1:19 PM


Re: Arphy in the Debate Thread
Two good reviews of the RATE project:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
Assessing the RATE Project
Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
Page not found - Reasons to Believe
Those RATE boys found that science is correct, but refused to believe their own data, falling back to dogma and scripture instead. So much for creation "science"!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Jazzns, posted 12-04-2009 1:19 PM Jazzns has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 243 of 1725 (572748)
08-07-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Blue Jay
08-07-2010 11:13 AM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
I definitely think a simpler approach would be better.
And shorter. When the reply goes on for three pages, quoting every line in the previous post and responding in detail, I just ignore it all.
Brevity...

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Blue Jay, posted 08-07-2010 11:13 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 403 of 1725 (582916)
09-23-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by RAZD
09-23-2010 9:02 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
The original thread, and this Peanut Gallery thread, have both become so pickily pedantic or pedantically picky that I have given up following them.
If you want your stuff to be read, make it readable and interesting.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2010 9:02 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 562 of 1725 (593313)
11-26-2010 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by RAZD
11-26-2010 12:27 AM


Re: amusing
I don't know of any single branch of legitimate science that is based on made up data -- that is what constitutes frauds, hoaxes, deceptions, fakes and pseudoscience.
Made up data--frauds, hoaxes, deceptions, fakes and pseudoscience, eh?
Sounds like the basis of theology.
Or as Heinlein noted:
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.
Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2010 12:27 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 566 of 1725 (593409)
11-26-2010 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 565 by RAZD
11-26-2010 8:57 PM


Re: making up stuff?
But it is precisely bluegenes' claim - not mine - that HE has ruled out supernatural truth in determining that all supernatural entities are the product of human invention, and his claim that the human mind is the only source of information.
All I am doing is demonstrating that he has absolutely failed thus far to show this to be so in any way shape or form.
What you are doing is stretching logic beyond all reason to support your particular brand of woo.
It pays to remember Kettering's Law:
Logic is an organized way of going wrong, with confidence.
In all of these debates you have not once provided any evidence for supernatural critters, large, small, or otherwise.
Don't you think that would be a good place to start?
Logic is great, but it is no substitute for evidence. So far you have none, so all the logic dripping from the philosophers' fevered brains isn't going to help your case.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2010 8:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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