"What I want anyone to see in the evidence, no matter what the evidence is, is truth, be that a natural process, a god, God, no god, no God, an alien monkey whose playing handball with the planets....so, this is one of the problems with your hostility, you fail to grasp that I am not asking you to see anything special in the evidence, only that you allow your eyes to see and consider the evidence presented." all the evidence can be explained by natural means.
then have at it, in this particular discussion the evidence we are looking at is my train acccident, explain it through natural means, as I said before, so far the most intelligent explaination is that a sudden and powerful gravitiational force was exerted after the car came to a complete stop...I think I remember a Eureka episode something like that.....so far that is the only evidence that has been presented in this discussion for a supernatural being...
again, WHY would this evidence then be used in and ID argument?
HUMMM I'm missing something, why would my being hit by a train be used as evidence in an ID argument???? I don't have a clue, but I guess that is just more of you bias coming out.
" Bias doesn't allow us to see the evidence for what it is, which is why the goal of science is to remove bias" noo, the goal of peer review is to remove bias.
isn't peer review part of the scientific method??? Wow, they must have really changed things over the last few years, when I was studying science, peer review was part of the whole process. Either things have changed dramatically, or you aren't learning this stuff very well.
scientists are respected to be non biased and always intellectually honest. but to ensure that, we got peer review.
that is what I said, science attempts to be without bias...so why do your disagree....if in reality you agree? Where is the intellectual honesty in that?
, understanding that natural explanations say nothing about the existence or the intervention of a deity is NOT bias,
you really don't have a clue as to what I am saying do you?
it's understanding simple occam's and having the intelectually honesty to understand that natural explanations do not require a supernatural agent behind the scenes,
since I never suggested they did, I don't see what your objection to my actual comments could possibly be, so let's call that, your agreeing with me and move on...
and therefor cannot be used as evidence for the existence of such an agent.
I wonder what would make you think that any evidence with a natural explaination would be viewed as evidence for a supernatural explaination...you really are a confusing dude....
but from all your responses it appears that this is: "something you fail time and time again to grasp...." "you are the one who keeps inserting god of the gaps" i am not inserting a deity into an unknown.
neither am I, I am looking at evidence that does not have a viable natural conclusion, suggesting that a deity is possible, and exploring further to identify if any deity fits the markers of further testing...wow, where do you go to university? I need to caution my kids away from that school.
i simply explained that ID is a simple relabeling act. but what you are doing is something else. you are inserting god into a FILLED gap. by proposing his "divine hand" behind the structure of biological systems, instead of the natural explanations that explain them perfectly well, and make accurate predictions on top of that! " Which is something that always amazes me, why it is the evolutionist that insists on using the god of the gaps theory FALLACY " emphasis mine. "why not just dismiss that argument and deal with what evidence shows?
that is exactly what I have been begging you to do this whole entire time, instead, you keep inserting the god of the gaps theory and pretending to be something you are not. with knowledge you don't have.
" which is what i, and all of science has been doing every second of the way. "Why is it so hard for an evolutionist to just look at the evidence without making some nonsense argument like god of the gaps? " because i'm not? and because you're doing the "god of the explained phenomena". which is even MORE fallacious.
well, we're back to more false accusations, so instead of commenting, I'm going to ask you if you know how to use quotes here? [ /quote ] and [ quote ] of course no extra space.
"you said it was a giant duck, we can test for that." aGHEM. omnipotend magical invisable spaceduck. not the same thing as a big duck.
dear one, listen one more time...if the claim is a duck, then it is a duck we test for....each and every deity known to man has some kind of parimeter, now it is possible through belief to dismiss some of those parimeters, but they do exist. If we refuse to dismiss them (that is, refuse to accept god of the gaps theology) we are left with testable parimeters, just like we have with a duck...
see it this way, he's interchangeable with magic leprechauns, or yaweh.
see above, you still aren't listening to what I am saying...
if you can understand that, you can understand the fallacy. "either the evidence testifies to a creator, or it does not," PING PING PING~! jackpot. you are assuming there is an creator.
now, let's look at the logic you use when attacking science...above you admit that I want to test for a supernatural being...testing thus meaning there may or may not be evidence of such (that is the very definition of a test, to find out what is or is not known) and here you assert that I am assuming a creator into the equasion before testing....there is absolutely no logic to your conclusion here, all you are demonstrating is bias, hatred, and arrogence, along with unlearned, uneducated, false assumptions.
for you to assume that on the basis of no substantial evidence is intellectually dishonest.
which is why I don't make any assumptions without sufficient evidence...amazing that I have been telling you all this time that we need to look at the evidence and still, you refuse to look at it.
and for you to even use this on others you must first convince them of the existence of you specific "creator". something you utterly fail to understand. "no excuses, no bias, no adjusting to fit some belief" which is EXACTLY NOT what you've been trying to do for the entire thread. ".we look at the claims (HYPOTHESIS) and test it," emphasis mine. "look at the evidence and determine if the claims of the deity were fulfilled or falsified...no excuses, either the claims hold true," was god necessary in all these claims? no. end of discussion.
in all what claims, only one small bit of evidence was presented....are you even remotely in this discussion, or are you just playing games with yourself and pretending to be playing with me?
in science you gotto trim down all those variables you know. you want to look at any specifc genisis claims?
right, reduce variables.
god made men from clay. ????? we're made form organic compounds...NOT clay minerals.
actually, scripture says dirt, but hey, we're making progress, don't let me stop you.
god created eve from adam's rib. meaning the only natural process here described is cloning from marrow.
no, the only natural process mentioned here is the raw materials used...
fortunately that would have cloned adam, and not produced eve. but be sure to say god used some other "special" way to do it.... and we can go on, and on on this. "why are you trying to make this so hard????"
what I am telling you is that the passage does not specify the method, only the raw material, now if you want to claim that the materials needed to make man are different than those needed to make woman, we can look at the science and know you are wrong, but as to the actual claim made in scripture, no method is identified, only the materials used...think like a scientist for once in this discussion, no mechanism is identified, only raw materials.
why are you still beating this dead horse? really, "It isn't rocket science, it's basic stuff, and you still don't get it." "you ask us to test for a duck, we do that and find the claim to be falsified" you inserted duck, and ignored all the rest of his attributes...it appears you did NOT get the mind experiment.... "I ask you to test for the touch of the supernatural on the natural and we do that and find evidence that supports the claim" o rly? not in any study i've ever read. care to provide those studies, and that "evidence"? "what makes that a double standard?" nothing to do with double standards, this is with you being unable to grasp why all those "evil scientists' are so focused on providing purely natural explanations,
I'm still waiting for a viable natural explaination for the one bit of evidence I managed to slip into the discussion.
and not choosing to invoke god in any of them. leading you to call all those scientist "biased". "
wow, more false accusations? I didn't call any scientist biased, the only person whose bias entered this disucussion is yours...does that mean you are having problems with mentally processing that you are not the center of the universe? Problems with illusions of granduer? There are people who can help you with that...if that isn't the problem, then what do you gain by such a gross misrepresentation of what I said?????
In both, we look at the evidence, in both we look for falsification," nope, the moment there was a working natural explanation, invoking god as an alternative was no longer necessary.
still waiting for that natural explanation in the only evidence I have been able to get in.
nothing to do with bias, but everything to do with keeping it intellectually honest. "surely in your university classes, you have been taught that the validity of an experiment IS determined by having the same outcome as all other SAME experiments," there i fixed that for you. it's called repeatability. "but rather the validity is in the quality of the experiment" yes, if it;s a very good experiment is will give the SAME RESULTS when run according to the procedures, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, regardless of who or where it's run.
ding ding ding, we have a winner, I didn't think you would ever get any of this, I guess the pain and time I put in will have some benefit to you in the end.
"Ah well, I have been told our universities are in shambles..." auch...that really hurt...not. 2009 University Rankings - Top 200 Universities in the world last time i checked twente, utrecht and delft (where i follow half of my courses) where still in the top 200 ARWU2008 and leiden was 76 in europe in 2008. now that wasn't that bad. "didn't we talk about this already, nothing in the test says clone," either you understand what natural processes that part of gen describes, or you don't. "like raw materials used to create something don't automatically make it a clone" it IS when you're USING THE DNA TEMPLATE.
okay, so let's do a little experiment, you go get a bible and find where it says that God used DNA to create Eve from Adam....I'm waiting....remember, without a testable method, we can't test for the method used, we can however test for evidence of raw materials...of which we have dirt and dirt that became man....so go find in scripture where the mechanism is identified....evidence your claim for us....
wow, you:"don't learn very fast, do you? " "why not simply start with whether or not the evidence suggests a creator, " because there needs to be a creator before we can even make that claim. prove that creator first, THEN make that claim. but ofc...you cannot prove that creator....since "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
exactly what I have been telling you...
this is where i can see the deep religious inspiration of your posts.
in where we agree?????? So what then does that say about your own deep religious inspirations? Didn't you claim to not have any?
you cannot for the life of you, understand that there really isn't a god observer or required in natural phenomena. yet you STILL insist on claiming he IS there.
not a clue what you think I am actually saying, sometimes it is as if you are just talking to yourself about the things you hate and ignoring everything that questions your ideas and religious beliefs....so please, before using any more dry dribble, explain what I actually have said, not what you want me to have said, I'll correct it, and if you are intellectually honest, we can move on from there.
"but not God as the creator...iow's don't put the cart before the horse, first look at the evidence and determine if it shows a creator, then test for who or what that creator is. " aah again with the ID experiment. how about if you actually PROVIDED THE EXPERIMENT??? "well since I didn't say scientists, but evolutionists, your wash your mouth nonsense is for your own mind, not my comment and as such is not mine to own...." since you again, fail to understnad this. SCIENTISTS ARE THE EVOLUTIONISTS.
every evolutionist is not a scientist???? News flash: not all scientists are evolutionists and not all evolutionists are scientists.
the work of the scientific community is what these layman "evolutionists" are basing their acceptance on. when you are taking on "evolutionists" in the context of ToE validity, you aren't taking on the laymen, you're TAKING ON THE SCIENTISTS. SO STOP INSULTING SCIENCE, OR BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS.
do you also have other personalities you talk to within yourself???? Not a clue what you think I said here...
"you do realize after all this time I hope that I am not asking anyone to presume anything," yes, you are. you are asking them to presume the existence of a god,
so now you read minds???? Man, you must be one really messed up dude, no wonder we can't get into anything really good and interesting to talk about....
in order for them to then use their assumption to explain something to reaffirm the existence of god. perfect example of circular logic. either the quarter drops now, or you really need to have you "respected scientist in the family" explain it to you. "your attempts to belittle me will not work...your attempts at false accusations, though sad will not produce the responses you desire...." they are allmost all justified and backed up by corroborating evidence. and indeed they have the desired effect. you just don't see the lurkers laughing their asses off. "|got a hint for you, there was an accident a week before mine and a week after mine, same crossing, same peramiters (as far as the accident goes, not as far as variables like make of car)" TADA> not the same experiment.
I didn't say it was the same experiment....but pretend all you want..
GJ. now try again. really..they need to make that crossing safe. WRITE THAT CONGRESSMAN, or sue the guy who owns the land. "and that is only two experiments within a 3 week time period...same crossing same train speed, same location, etc. etc. etc." you haven't provided me with any sources to believe those claims you just made on the parameters...all you gave is your word....which is something i'm valuing less and less given all your posts lack of intellectual honesty.
I am still waiting for you to show your confidence by being hit by a train and showing us how you will walk away with very minor injuries....why aren't you doing a test for it?
btw, you seem to curiously elude of actually posting the numbers...weird ey?
what numbers?
how about you give those numbers...like i asked 6 posts or so ago for the so manyeth time. "what you think is irrelavent, what is relavent is what the evidence shows and the logical conclusion thereof..." you better first understand the fallacies you are clinging too, instead of repeating such remarks that utterly fall flat on their face in the sight of your fallacious reasoning and intellectual dishonesty. "well, there have been documented 3 in a three week period and you can bring your car over if you like and run it a fourth time, I'll take you over to the crossing as soon as you let me know you are here...." and you would be who and where do you live and what train was it,
well, look at my profile for a lot of the answers.
and what was your weight and build at the time and what car was it and what was it's condition....ect..ect. you still how so much to answer before you can even claim to be able to run this as an experiment. oh and , REALLY! MAKE THAT CROSSING SAFE! for the children! " when you get hit by a train, let me know...the experiment has been preformed many times over..." but you've already admitted that it wasn't the same experiment at all....
can't be, the car is totaled, even with all the variables we can control, there will be variables we cannot control....
mmm autoflame? "as long as that supernatural touches the natural, that intersection can be tested...that is the point...the supernatural cannot be tested, but that supernatural intersect can be...when will you grasp this." and when will you graps how fallacious that statement is in regard to the nature of the supernatural..
what nature? Are we talking about the nature others try to insert, the nature that the deity claims, the nature the religious claim, etc. What are the variables here? I laid out my variables, and you acted as if I didn't exist, so what variables are you insisting on testing, the god of the gaps variables? I right out refuse that as a variable.
really, THIS ISN'T THAT HARD! "not what I was referring to, but so much of what I am saying is escaping you, I'm not surprised that even in this you can't follow what is being said..." you still haven;t grasped the fact that i rejected your entire idea on the fact of it being utterly fallacious (which has been explained, over and over again), haven't you? "you still don't have a clue what I have been saying do you??? This is why you have to get rid of the hatred before you attempt to discuss what you don't know..." problem is i DO know a little more about biological systems then you do. so this entire remark is moot. "you yourself admit that we are not discussing the evidence so how then can a scientist who understands scientific method make such conclusions without any evidence to look at?" your remark amounts to nothing in the face of your obvious scientific illiteracy and your intellectual dishonesty. really, stop trying this...the lurkers are having a field day. "Not very scientific of you.... is this how you do all science?" pot.kettle.black? really this is hilarious coming from someone who hasn't provided the experiment she claimed she has.
I don't think you understand what I have claimed, but your dillusions are becoming more and more obvious....so I'll humor you.
"except I don't feel oppressed and harrassed, that is your imagination playing tricks on you again. " so i guess those remarks of "hate" and "venom" when it was actually founded criticism, had NOTHING to do with you feeling the least bit of intellectually pressured?
Now I'm going to be totally honest with you, so listen carefully...when I began this with you, I thought we could have a stimulating, interesting discussion, but after all this time, it is apparent that that will never happen, you are to comfortable with your dillusions and biases to listen to anything someone might offer of importance, relavence, or interest....so at this point, admittedly, I'm just playing cat and mouse with you....I have tried so long and so hard to get you to address the issues that I really did raise, that there is no since trying any more....at this point, the only significance to this discussion is watching you trip over yourself with false accusations, double standards, and controdictions that are laughable. I'm not proud of the fact, that I'm just playing with you, but it is the one redeeming quality with this discussion that I can find to take from this discussion. Now that is honesty....unfortunately, you could offer substance, but you are too interested in your own prejudices to do so...and that is indeed the sad part of this whole thing...
swing and a miss razzle. "when the anger, hostility, and hatred are in check, we will move on...until then, we can't because your bias and prejudice will not allow you to listen..." swing and a miss... /STILL WAITING FOR THAT EXPERIMENT!
"then have at it, in this particular discussion the evidence we are looking at is my train acccident, explain it through natural means, as I said before, "
THEN GIVE US THE PARAMETERS TO RUN THE MODEL!
how can you still post these remarks when you REFUSE to even let us adress them.
"so far the most intelligent explaination is that a sudden and powerful gravitiational force was exerted after the car came to a complete stop"
"now if you want to claim that the materials needed to make man are different than those needed to make woman, we can look at the science and know you are wrong,"
if you look at the materials , yes.
if you look at the way of how this material is put together, NO.
"think like a scientist for once in this discussion, no mechanism is identified, only raw materials. "
and a scientist doesn't consider all the possible natural mechanisms to get from 1 bonemarrow cell to another human being?
that or the explination by a physist who is able to run your model. but your seem to shy away from alllowing him to give an answer....
"I think I remember a Eureka episode something like that.....so far that is the only evidence that has been presented in this discussion for a supernatural being..."
wrong, you also said you had an experiment for god.
NOW GIVE IT.
"HUMMM I'm missing something, why would my being hit by a train be used as evidence in an ID argument???? I don't have a clue, but I guess that is just more of you bias coming out. '
can you PLEASE stay on topic.
"isn't peer review part of the scientific method??? "
and i said is wasn't, when?
are you really that reading impaired?
if your baised to a certain position, peer review will find you out.
that was all i said.
"that is what I said, science attempts to be without bias...so why do your disagree....if in reality you agree? Where is the intellectual honesty in that?"
will you quit trying strawmanning me.
"you really don't have a clue as to what I am saying do you? "
you really have no idea what the entire basis is of you're alledged axperiment.
quit moving running around and shoulder your burden.
"since I never suggested they did, I don't see what your objection to my actual comments could possibly be, so let's call that, your agreeing with me and move on..."
no, you DID suggest with that. you suggested it with your experiment, and you suggested it with the explination of your accident.
"I wonder what would make you think that any evidence with a natural explaination would be viewed as evidence for a supernatural explaination...you really are a confusing dude...."
sigh....-_-
"neither am I,"
well you are, (your accident) and you are also insertign god into the known (your experiment)
"I am looking at evidence that does not have a viable natural conclusion, suggesting that a deity is possible, and exploring further to identify if any deity fits the markers of further testing...wow"
and yet you are unwillin gto actually HEAR the natural explination to certain phenomena AND you are unwlling to even look for such evidence (your experiment).
"where do you go to university? I need to caution my kids away from that school. "
i already told you and i already told you to stop making these childish insults.
"that is exactly what I have been begging you to do this whole entire time, instead, you keep inserting the god of the gaps theory and pretending to be something you are not. with knowledge you don't have. "
ugh, hearign you repeat this baseless remark is ridiculus.
i actuall aksed you to stop using it and you STILL dreg it out of the cesspit.
YOU are the one who keeps brinign this up, NOT me.
now quit doing it, shoulder your burden, and move on.
"well, we're back to more false accusations, so instead of commenting, I'm going to ask you if you know how to use quotes here? [ /quote ] and [ quote ] of course no extra space. "
did you NOT READ the post DIRECTLY after that?
the forum bugged and i cannot fix it.
"dear one, listen one more time...if the claim is a duck, then it is a duck we test for"
again you miss the point. you're omitting "OMNIPOTENT SPACE DUCK". the point is simple. a theist can REDIFINE what his god is at any moment, and stil lclaim anythign can be evidence for him.
which is EXACTLY why there are so many versions of god.
"see above, you still aren't listening to what I am saying..."
and you still utterly fail to get the point, GJ!
"now, let's look at the logic you use when attacking science...above you admit that I want to test for a supernatural being...testing thus meaning there may or may not be evidence of such (that is the very definition of a test, to find out what is or is not known) "
nope, your missing the point, you are capable of redifining the explanatory mechanism (god) AFTER the test are done, why? because he's god. if you want to get aroudn this, you should give everyone a VERY CLEAR AND DEFINED god.
so i suggest you give it.
"there is absolutely no logic to your conclusion here, all you are demonstrating is bias, hatred, and arrogence, along with unlearned, uneducated, false assumptions. "
because missing the point, allows you to make baseless accusation....apparently.
"which is why I don't make any assumptions without sufficient evidence...amazing that I have been telling you all this time that we need to look at the evidence and still, you refuse to look at it. "
you did, right there, in your accident. you just inserted god and stopped looking for answers.
"are you even remotely in this discussion, or are you just playing games with yourself and pretending to be playing with me? "
having you alone playing games on this thread is enough.
"actually, scripture says dirt, but hey, we're making progress, don't let me stop you."
actually it's most commently translated as dust.
but that doesn't make it anyless ridiculus.
"no, the only natural process mentioned here is the raw materials used... "
which are....adams bonemarrow cells. and the only natrual process is?
"wow, more false accusations? I didn't call any scientist biased, the only person whose bias entered this disucussion is yours...does that mean you are having problems with mentally processing that you are not the center of the universe? Problems with illusions of granduer'
wow, i guess your screen is being a mirror here.
"There are people who can help you with that...if that isn't the problem, then what do you gain by such a gross misrepresentation of what I said?????"
oooh irony, where would i be without you.
stop projecting yourself onto this screen, and shoulder your burden of proof.
'still waiting for that natural explanation in the only evidence I have been able to get in. "
STILL w8ing for you to give us any data whatsoever that would allow a physisist to run a simulation.
'okay, so let's do a little experiment, you go get a bible and find where it says that God used DNA to create Eve from Adam...."
rib.
"we can however test for evidence of raw materials"
you cannot even make this intoa test.
rib is way to vague, the onyl reasonable definition is that he used the genetic material, that way he'd have to do a slittle tinkerign as possible.
"of which we have dirt and dirt that became man"
what an extraordiary claim that is so utterly false.
"in where we agree?????? So what then does that say about your own deep religious inspirations? Didn't you claim to not have any? "
i have no religion, how can i have any religious inspirations then?
" ignoring everything that questions your ideas and religious beliefs"
you really have no idea do you?
i've been w8ing this ENTIRE TIME, for you to rpovide evidence.
and you haven't provided squat.
"every evolutionist is not a scientist???? News flash: not all scientists are evolutionists and not all evolutionists are scientists. "
newsflash.
the validity of a scientific theory is determined in the scientific community,
newsflash.
the VAST majority of all scientist in the relevent field accept ToE.
newsflash,
all the scientist in the relevent fields who do not accept ToE, do so on purely religious reasons.
newsflash.
when you pick on evolutionists in relation to the validity of ToE, you aren't pickign on the laymen, you're picking on the scientists.
newsflash,
gene homology.
__________________ My picture shows why creationists lose when they say T-Rex ate plants, not Adam.
"then have at it, in this particular discussion the evidence we are looking at is my train acccident, explain it through natural means, as I said before, "
THEN GIVE US THE PARAMETERS TO RUN THE MODEL!
how can you still post these remarks when you REFUSE to even let us adress them.
what parameters do you still want? You were given enough to know that it is extremely unlikely that I would not be killed much less walk away with little injury....you were provided with the evidence of what supernatural being would be consistent with a deity, and you have been told why I will not provided other information...in addition, you were provided the best explaination available, an explanation that would defy our logic based on physics...so what more parameters do you want? You suggest redoing the test, but as I have told you, that isn't going to happen because 1. we cannot recreate the exact same car, only the make and model, and year, and 2. you refuse to participate and allow yourself to be hit by a train as a test to what injuries you would be facing, instead your wise words are that our country should do something about the crossing....talk about scientific mind, wow, your scientific mind can only answer, fix the crossing....! I have gotten better scientific responses from lay people with no scientific background.
"so far the most intelligent explaination is that a sudden and powerful gravitiational force was exerted after the car came to a complete stop"
"now if you want to claim that the materials needed to make man are different than those needed to make woman, we can look at the science and know you are wrong,"
if you look at the materials , yes.
if you look at the way of how this material is put together, NO.
"think like a scientist for once in this discussion, no mechanism is identified, only raw materials. "
and a scientist doesn't consider all the possible natural mechanisms to get from 1 bonemarrow cell to another human being?
????
that or the explination by a physist who is able to run your model. but your seem to shy away from alllowing him to give an answer....
answer away, no problem.
"I think I remember a Eureka episode something like that.....so far that is the only evidence that has been presented in this discussion for a supernatural being..."
wrong, you also said you had an experiment for god.
NOW GIVE IT.
well I have many times now, and you always come back to anger and hatred rather than listening, so how then can I justify wasting my time yet once again?
"HUMMM I'm missing something, why would my being hit by a train be used as evidence in an ID argument???? I don't have a clue, but I guess that is just more of you bias coming out. '
can you PLEASE stay on topic.
I'm desperately trying to, how about if you do the same?
"isn't peer review part of the scientific method??? "
and i said is wasn't, when?
are you really that reading impaired?
if your baised to a certain position, peer review will find you out.
that was all i said.
"that is what I said, science attempts to be without bias...so why do your disagree....if in reality you agree? Where is the intellectual honesty in that?"
will you quit trying strawmanning me.
"you really don't have a clue as to what I am saying do you? "
you really have no idea what the entire basis is of you're alledged axperiment.
quit moving running around and shoulder your burden.
your bias and venom are especially apparent when your typing is hard to decipher.
"since I never suggested they did, I don't see what your objection to my actual comments could possibly be, so let's call that, your agreeing with me and move on..."
no, you DID suggest with that. you suggested it with your experiment, and you suggested it with the explination of your accident.
apparently you don't know how to address the person your talking to, only the anger and hatred you keep hold of so tightly...when your ready to address me, then we can move on.
"I wonder what would make you think that any evidence with a natural explaination would be viewed as evidence for a supernatural explaination...you really are a confusing dude...."
sigh....-_-
"neither am I,"
well you are, (your accident) and you are also insertign god into the known (your experiment)
"I am looking at evidence that does not have a viable natural conclusion, suggesting that a deity is possible, and exploring further to identify if any deity fits the markers of further testing...wow"
and yet you are unwillin gto actually HEAR the natural explination to certain phenomena AND you are unwlling to even look for such evidence (your experiment).
explain away, explain the train situation with natural explaination, better scientists than you have tried and failed.
"where do you go to university? I need to caution my kids away from that school. "
i already told you and i already told you to stop making these childish insults.
"that is exactly what I have been begging you to do this whole entire time, instead, you keep inserting the god of the gaps theory and pretending to be something you are not. with knowledge you don't have. "
ugh, hearign you repeat this baseless remark is ridiculus.
i actuall aksed you to stop using it and you STILL dreg it out of the cesspit.
YOU are the one who keeps brinign this up, NOT me.
now quit doing it, shoulder your burden, and move on.
"well, we're back to more false accusations, so instead of commenting, I'm going to ask you if you know how to use quotes here? [ /quote ] and [ quote ] of course no extra space. "
did you NOT READ the post DIRECTLY after that?
the forum bugged and i cannot fix it.
"dear one, listen one more time...if the claim is a duck, then it is a duck we test for"
again you miss the point. you're omitting "OMNIPOTENT SPACE DUCK". the point is simple. a theist can REDIFINE what his god is at any moment, and stil lclaim anythign can be evidence for him.
which is EXACTLY why there are so many versions of god.
I didn't miss the point, you, an athesist by admission, insist on applying god of the gaps theory instead of testing for the things we know are claimed, something I refuse to accept.
"see above, you still aren't listening to what I am saying..."
and you still utterly fail to get the point, GJ!
"now, let's look at the logic you use when attacking science...above you admit that I want to test for a supernatural being...testing thus meaning there may or may not be evidence of such (that is the very definition of a test, to find out what is or is not known) "
nope, your missing the point, you are capable of redifining
capable of redefing and willing to do so are completely different things, even for an evolutionist...I am not willing to redefine, and have told you so many times over now, to redefine would not be scientific.
the explanatory mechanism (god) AFTER the test are done, why? because he's god. if you want to get aroudn this, you should give everyone a VERY CLEAR AND DEFINED god.
wow...!!!! after all this time, you are finally beginning to grasp what I am saying.
so i suggest you give it.
I did many many days ago, it was what the bible actually said not what we want to read into it, got us into a discussion about creation, flood, etc. Things you argued about using the god of the gaps theory of which I told you I would not accept and you kept insisting just like above. When we limit our definition to the God of the bible, and allow the bible to interpret itself, we have the definition you are asking for, unfortunately for you, that definition is evidenced in science which is why you can't accept it as an answer and must insist on the god of the gaps theory, so that you can be right without challenge, unfortunate for you, I don't work that way.
"there is absolutely no logic to your conclusion here, all you are demonstrating is bias, hatred, and arrogence, along with unlearned, uneducated, false assumptions. "
because missing the point, allows you to make baseless accusation....apparently.
"which is why I don't make any assumptions without sufficient evidence...amazing that I have been telling you all this time that we need to look at the evidence and still, you refuse to look at it. "
you did, right there, in your accident. you just inserted god and stopped looking for answers.
you certainly didn't listen if that is the reply your going with, and you certainly don't know me and what I believe and why if you insist on holding to that conclusion.
"are you even remotely in this discussion, or are you just playing games with yourself and pretending to be playing with me? "
having you alone playing games on this thread is enough.
"actually, scripture says dirt, but hey, we're making progress, don't let me stop you."
actually it's most commently translated as dust.
but that doesn't make it anyless ridiculus.
check the chemical analysis....
"no, the only natural process mentioned here is the raw materials used... "
which are....adams bonemarrow cells. and the only natrual process is?
you just can't bring yourself to listen to me can you? All you want to listen to is yourself and your own hatred and bias....let me know when your ready to listen to me.
"wow, more false accusations? I didn't call any scientist biased, the only person whose bias entered this disucussion is yours...does that mean you are having problems with mentally processing that you are not the center of the universe? Problems with illusions of granduer'
wow, i guess your screen is being a mirror here.
"There are people who can help you with that...if that isn't the problem, then what do you gain by such a gross misrepresentation of what I said?????"
oooh irony, where would i be without you.
stop projecting yourself onto this screen, and shoulder your burden of proof.
'still waiting for that natural explanation in the only evidence I have been able to get in. "
STILL w8ing for you to give us any data whatsoever that would allow a physisist to run a simulation.
'okay, so let's do a little experiment, you go get a bible and find where it says that God used DNA to create Eve from Adam...."
rib.
so now rib is the same thing as DNA, should I call up websters for you?
"we can however test for evidence of raw materials"
you cannot even make this intoa test.
rib is way to vague, the onyl reasonable definition is that he used the genetic material, that way he'd have to do a slittle tinkerign as possible.
but now your applying the god of the gaps theory, we need to look at the text for the method used, not project something into the text that is not there, that is the only way to reduce the variables into a text for the deity that we are testing for....which is the point, no god of the gaps, only the deity and that deities claims...in this case, we have a deity that claims to have made woman from the ribs of man, therefore, we test for the chemical makeup of man and woman and see if they could have been made from those materials. If so, the deity cannot be falsified by that experiment...remember, if we can't falsify it, it remains a viable conclusion
"of which we have dirt and dirt that became man"
what an extraordiary claim that is so utterly false.
go for it, falsify it...
"in where we agree?????? So what then does that say about your own deep religious inspirations? Didn't you claim to not have any? "
i have no religion, how can i have any religious inspirations then?
everyone has a religious belief, yours is atheism, (I would give the definition, but I have been told many times that that doesn't really define athesim)
" ignoring everything that questions your ideas and religious beliefs"
you really have no idea do you?
i've been w8ing this ENTIRE TIME, for you to rpovide evidence.
and you haven't provided squat.
everything I have provided you have twisted into a different argument so that you had something you thought was intelligent to comment...unfortunately it just makes you soung biased and hollow. So once again, just for old times sake, when you get rid of the bias and hatred, and are ready to address me and my ideas, we'll have a go at it, until then, your just boring and dry.
"every evolutionist is not a scientist???? News flash: not all scientists are evolutionists and not all evolutionists are scientists. "
newsflash.
the validity of a scientific theory is determined in the scientific community,
never said or suggested otherwise.
newsflash.
the VAST majority of all scientist in the relevent field accept ToE.
I said nothing that disagreed with this either, you really do need to address what I am saying, instead of what you want me to say.
newsflash,
all the scientist in the relevent fields who do not accept ToE, do so on purely religious reasons.
now that is just plainly a lie, but hey, we're making progress.
newsflash.
when you pick on evolutionists in relation to the validity of ToE, you aren't pickign on the laymen, you're picking on the scientists.
say what????when the heck are you going to address me and what I am saying not what you want me to be saying....
I kinda wanna see the experiment to test if a god exists, too.
well, throughout this discussion I have been trying to get to more details, but to no avail, so the basic principal is this....take the claims of the deity, in this case, it would be God as stated in the bible...apply that claim to the tests, that is, if the deity claims X, then test for X. The deity usually gives a reason for X, which can also be tested...this applies to any place where the deity interacts with the natural world. Things outside our natural world cannot apply here. So, since we are suppose to be talking about evolution and creation here, let's start back at the beginning...what claims does the bible make about creation, not how we like to interpret it, not what is the common belief, not the extremes, etc., but rather very simply, what does the text tell us that God did or is responsible for in the ideas of creation? What we find, is not much beyond God created, but we do find a few testables, just not many...for example, we can test for order of creation, that is a specifically given...(example, not complete analysis)...
well, throughout this discussion I have been trying to get to more details, but to no avail, so the basic principal is this....take the claims of the deity, in this case, it would be God as stated in the bible...apply that claim to the tests, that is, if the deity claims X, then test for X. The deity usually gives a reason for X, which can also be tested...this applies to any place where the deity interacts with the natural world. Things outside our natural world cannot apply here. So, since we are suppose to be talking about evolution and creation here, let's start back at the beginning...what claims does the bible make about creation, not how we like to interpret it, not what is the common belief, not the extremes, etc., but rather very simply, what does the text tell us that God did or is responsible for in the ideas of creation? What we find, is not much beyond God created, but we do find a few testables, just not many...for example, we can test for order of creation, that is a specifically given...(example, not complete analysis)...
On the nature of God, I think it seems we have a bit of a incongruence. God is outside out natural means to test his existence, yet he is supposed to have a direct impact on people's lives every day, right? So, if he has a direct impact on us, then there is an observable effect. How can we measure and analyze this effect?
On the nature of God, I think it seems we have a bit of a incongruence. God is outside out natural means to test his existence, yet he is supposed to have a direct impact on people's lives every day, right? So, if he has a direct impact on us, then there is an observable effect. How can we measure and analyze this effect?
We start by identifying what claims can be tested for the intersection of God (in this case) on our physical world....let's see, an example...let's say that according to this newly discovered gas, when it comes into contact with water, the water will begin to boil within 5 seconds. According to many evolutionists, we can't test the gas because we can't see it, it functions outside our vision, so it can't be tested. We do know however, that gases can be tested and we do test them, even if we can't see them. We can observe how they behave in our visible world, therefore can test them. God is like that gas, we can't see Him, that doesn't mean He can't be tested for. What we need to know is that (in the case above) if we introduce that gas (God) into a visible environment (water) what happens (boiling) ....let's try it yet another way, if God claims that when HE touches the physical world X happens, we can test X when HE is introduced, even if we can't see HIm.
You see, when a deity, any deity claims to interact with our physical world, we can test that intersection and see if the claim is evidenced or falsified. So we first need to establish what the claim the deity makes is...keep in mind here that the next argument is something about all the different interpretations of the claims, something that is really quite wrong. We have lots of different interpretations based on traditions, translations, bias, etc. all of which are pretty easy to clarify....take traditions for example, when we remove our traditions, we are left with only a few testables in compared to the traditional beliefs out there, in fact, the differences are so important to the test that another poster got ticked at this point in the conversation because we couldn't test for traditional understanding, making the task of falsification much harder. The same is true for translations, it's an ancient text (in this case) thus questions of interpretation can be taken right back to the translation study and most of the time, that coupled with historical evidence usually clears up the matter. The problem is that few people are willing to approach the topic of God or the bible or religion in general without bias and traditions to guide them. When we apply the scientific method, we must do everything in our power to first remove the bias and tradition.
We start by identifying what claims can be tested for the intersection of God (in this case) on our physical world....let's see, an example...let's say that according to this newly discovered gas, when it comes into contact with water, the water will begin to boil within 5 seconds. According to many evolutionists, we can't test the gas because we can't see it, it functions outside our vision, so it can't be tested. We do know however, that gases can be tested and we do test them, even if we can't see them. We can observe how they behave in our visible world, therefore can test them. God is like that gas, we can't see Him, that doesn't mean He can't be tested for. What we need to know is that (in the case above) if we introduce that gas (God) into a visible environment (water) what happens (boiling) ....let's try it yet another way, if God claims that when HE touches the physical world X happens, we can test X when HE is introduced, even if we can't see HIm.
You see, when a deity, any deity claims to interact with our physical world, we can test that intersection and see if the claim is evidenced or falsified. So we first need to establish what the claim the deity makes is...keep in mind here that the next argument is something about all the different interpretations of the claims, something that is really quite wrong. We have lots of different interpretations based on traditions, translations, bias, etc. all of which are pretty easy to clarify....take traditions for example, when we remove our traditions, we are left with only a few testables in compared to the traditional beliefs out there, in fact, the differences are so important to the test that another poster got ticked at this point in the conversation because we couldn't test for traditional understanding, making the task of falsification much harder. The same is true for translations, it's an ancient text (in this case) thus questions of interpretation can be taken right back to the translation study and most of the time, that coupled with historical evidence usually clears up the matter. The problem is that few people are willing to approach the topic of God or the bible or religion in general without bias and traditions to guide them. When we apply the scientific method, we must do everything in our power to first remove the bias and tradition.
This is essentially the "wind argument." First off you're equated "seeing" with "observing" in a scientific way. We used to not be able to directly "see" extrasolar planets. But we could observe their effects, such as stars wobbling, and therefore we knew they were there.
Now, while we can't see many gases, they produce pressure, they have mass, they might react with other substances, etc. So we can indeed observe gases and we can indeed test them. No "evolutionist" would ever claim that you can't test what you can't "see." However, all scientists will tell you that you can't test what you can't observe or detect.
Now, if you're sick with cancer and overnight you get well, is that God? What would be the telltale signs that God had intervened and it hadn't been just a natural occurrence? Now, remember, as you said, we can't use bias, traditions, or preconceptions to cloud our judgment. So, not knowing how you were cured overnight IS NOT proof that a god did it. It simply means you don't know. Again, if you do know that your god did it, HOW do you know and what's the evidence other than "we don't have any other explanation for it?"
This is essentially the "wind argument." First off you're equated "seeing" with "observing" in a scientific way. We used to not be able to directly "see" extrasolar planets. But we could observe their effects, such as stars wobbling, and therefore we knew they were there.
Now, while we can't see many gases, they produce pressure, they have mass, they might react with other substances, etc. So we can indeed observe gases and we can indeed test them. No "evolutionist" would ever claim that you can't test what you can't "see." However, all scientists will tell you that you can't test what you can't observe or detect.
hey, I don't really care, we can take things in outerspace as an example if you like, the point is that if the deity we are wanting to test for, is observable in our natural world, we can test for that deity....in the case of God, where God claims to touch our physical world is a testable intersection, just like you are talking about here when you say, "No "evolutionist" would ever claim that you can't test what you can't "see." However, all scientists will tell you that you can't test what you can't observe or detect." IOW's symantics about examples are nothing more than smokescreens to evade the point...the point is that if the deity claims to intersect with our natural world, we scientifically can test to see if that intersection happens and is consistent with the claim being made. We don't need an insturment that can "measure" God, to test for His existance in our world.
Now, if you're sick with cancer and overnight you get well, is that God?
not necessarily, not without testing the claims first, but okay, go on....
What would be the telltale signs that God had intervened and it hadn't been just a natural occurrence?
well that would be a matter of exploration, first we would need to run a host of experiments to see what happened, then we would need to identify what claims the deity makes for intervening in such matters. When all those tests are complete, then we use logic to reduce the possibles to one viable conclusion. If all the evidence fits God, then the logical conclusion is God, if all the evidence fits another deity, then the logical conclusion is that deity, and if all the evidence fits a natural process, then the logical conclusion is a natural process....we can't make the logical, viable conclusion without doing the tests!!!!
Now, remember, as you said, we can't use bias, traditions, or preconceptions to cloud our judgment.
exactly!
So, not knowing how you were cured overnight IS NOT proof that a god did it.
amen
It simply means you don't know.
which is why we test and see
Again, if you do know that your god did it, HOW do you know and what's the evidence other than "we don't have any other explanation for it?"
If there is no other viable conclusion than a supernatural occurance, we must then test for the deity that might have been involved. That test only comes when all other possibles have been falsified. When the only viable conclusion is supernatural force, we begin to test what force is responsible, that can be any deity (remember we have already at this point ruled out mental force and are left with only one viable, that of a deity) So we test each deity then, let's say that the test falsifies one deity A but not another B, then scientific conclusion would say that deity B is possible whereas deity A is not. Ect. ect. ect. It really isn't that hard of a concept....
Linear Mode
