To Be a Darwinist or To Be a Darwinist

[CabVet]

Really? So how does memory go from the old atoms to the new atoms.

Before we answer that you have to prove there is something after death.

As stated, your question is as valid as this: how does Santa Claus fly his sleigh?

 

[Jamin4422]

Before we answer that you have to prove there is something after death.

That is only a problem for you. The question for most people is not if there is eternal life but the details of just what it means to have eternal life. Jesus was resurrected and the disciples thought he was a ghost or pure energy. Jesus ate fish to show that he was not spirit and He had a physical body. When Jesus returns His physical body will return to the earth. That is after the tribulation period.

 

[Jro]

How do you know ghosts can't eat fish?

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't have a hypothesis without the null hypothesis. That's Science 101.

Ya ... well, I've read the Null Hypothesis in Wikipedia 101 times, and I still can't make heads or tails of it. It's nothing but technoblab, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[pgp_protector]

Ya ... well, I've read the Null Hypothesis in Wikipedia 101 times, and I still can't make heads or tails of it. It's nothing but technoblab, as far as I'm concerned.

Try this link. (From the Wiki)
Null Hypothesis (1 of 4)

 

[CabVet]

That is only a problem for you. The question for most people is not if there is eternal life but the details of just what it means to have eternal life. Jesus was resurrected and the disciples thought he was a ghost or pure energy. Jesus ate fish to show that he was not spirit and He had a physical body. When Jesus returns His physical body will return to the earth. That is after the tribulation period.

Yeah, and because "most people" believe it, then it must be true, right? So, my statement remains, after you prove there is an afterlife we start talking about how memory is transferred between "bodies". Before that your point is irrelevant.

 

[CabVet]

Ya ... well, I've read the Null Hypothesis in Wikipedia 101 times, and I still can't make heads or tails of it. It's nothing but technoblab, as far as I'm concerned.

The principle is quite simple, you should start anything in science assuming that you are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

The principle is quite simple, you should start anything in science assuming that you are wrong.

And when do you start assuming you are right?

 

[CabVet]

And when do you start assuming you are right?

When the evidence (or data) tells you to.

 

[AV1611VET]

When the evidence (or data) tells you to.

So, according to the moon models, there are six different sets of scientists whose evidence tells them they have overcome the null hypothesis?

And if this null hypothesis is so effective, why isn't it called the Null Law (or Null Theory)?

Why is it still an hypothesis? are they looking for more data?

 

[CabVet]

So, according to the moon models, there are six different sets of scientists whose evidence tells them they have overcome the null hypothesis?

No, there are six different hypotheses that were proposed by different groups to explain the same phenomenom (the origin of the moon). Some of them have better support than others, but none can be completely rejected, so they remain out there as possibilities.

And if this null hypothesis is so effective, why isn't it called the Null Law (or Null Theory)?

You still don't understand what a hull hypothesis is (either that or you are just trolling). I will assume the best and try to explain it to you one more time.

The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position.

It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, the experiment fails to reject the null hypothesis)

Why is it still an hypothesis? are they looking for more data?

Yes. Just last week two papers were published in Science providing more support for the collision hypothesis:

BBC. Moon formation: New spins put on old questions

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya ... well, I've read the Null Hypothesis in Wikipedia 101 times, and I still can't make heads or tails of it. It's nothing but technoblab, as far as I'm concerned.

It's not that hard to figure out. The null hypothesis is a set of potential observations that either falsify the hypothesis or prevent the hypothesis from being supported.

For example, let's say that I find a loose hair on a murder victim. I collect DNA from both the suspect and the victim and compare them to the DNA from the hair. The hypothesis is that the suspect committed the murder, so a match would confirm the hypothesis. The null hypothesis is a match to the victim or a match to someone who is not the suspect or victim. If the hair is a match to the victim then this satisfies the null hypothesis, but it does not mean that the suspect is innocent. If the hair matches another person who is not the suspect or the victim then this pushes us towards the null hypothesis again, and could falsify the hypothesis.

Capiche?

 

[Jamin4422]

How do you know ghosts can't eat fish?

The point that Jesus was trying to make was that He is NOT a ghost. That the resurrected body is a physical body. The Bible clearly teaches that the Body we have will be transformed and glorified. That is why they do all the mental gymnastics trying to figure out how to resurrect a body that had been cremated and the ashes scattered to the wind and ocean. Yet still the answer is that NOTHING is impossible with God.

 

[CabVet]

The point that Jesus was trying to make was that He is NOT a ghost.

I will try to make the question more clear: how would eating a fish prove that he was not a ghost?

 

[Loudmouth]

So, according to the moon models, there are six different sets of scientists whose evidence tells them they have overcome the null hypothesis?

There are many hypotheses that are falsified by the data. For example, radiometric dating of moon rocks falsifies a recent origin for the moon.

And if this null hypothesis is so effective, why isn't it called the Null Law (or Null Theory)?

In science, theories are positive statements. To put it generally, "This does that". That's a positive statement. Null hypotheses are not positive statements. They are negative statements in the general form of, "This doesn't do that". Scientists are ultimately interested in the mechanisms that do produce the observed phenomenon, not in mechanisms that have nothing to do with the phenomenon.

Why is it still an hypothesis? are they looking for more data?

Yep, for the hypotheses that have survived testing so far.

 

[verysincere]

Your point is what?

1) Read what I wrote in response to your "regathered atoms" theory until you understand it.

2) Then, answer the question which you keep dodging all along: How does your extra-Biblical theory of regathered atoms deal with the problem resulting from the fact that the SAME ATOMS were found in various physical bodies of Christians who died over the course of many centuries? [That is the point! Or are you going to claim that the resurrection bodies of Christians will be interlinked and shared because of the fact that their original bodies happened to utilize some of the same atoms? I consider that a bizarre idea but if that is what you truly believe, then at least admit that that is what you believe.]

YOU are the one who is claiming your "regathered atoms in resurrected bodies" theory makes logical sense. I simply reminded you that your extra-Biblical theory has a major logical problem in that you do NOT explain how the same atoms can be resurrected at the same time in different resurrected bodies.

If you are angry because you can't resolve the problem and defend your theory, that is not the intention. You should simply admit that this constitutes a major problem---and perhaps even "retreat" to a "non-atomic" and more traditional interpretation of the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection body.

(I'm not going to "repair" your pet theory for you! Dodging the problems in your theory by trying to get ME to fix it for you is not going to make your theory more sensible! It would be far more constructive if you researched some of the ways in which theologians have elaborated on the "regathered dust" concept without creating the illogical "shared atom" problem of your theory. However, a copy-and-paste of a famous preacher, no matter how much you revere him, is not an answer to the problem when that preacher fails to address the problem! Indeed, it is doubtful that Wesley's mathematical and scientific skills were sufficient for him to even notice the logical inconsistency of your atoms theory.)

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not that hard to figure out. The null hypothesis is a set of potential observations that either falsify the hypothesis or prevent the hypothesis from being supported.

For example, let's say that I find a loose hair on a murder victim. I collect DNA from both the suspect and the victim and compare them to the DNA from the hair. The hypothesis is that the suspect committed the murder, so a match would confirm the hypothesis. The null hypothesis is a match to the victim or a match to someone who is not the suspect or victim. If the hair is a match to the victim then this satisfies the null hypothesis, but it does not mean that the suspect is innocent. If the hair matches another person who is not the suspect or the victim then this pushes us towards the null hypothesis again, and could falsify the hypothesis.

Capiche?

There are many hypotheses that are falsified by the data. For example, radiometric dating of moon rocks falsifies a recent origin for the moon.



In science, theories are positive statements. To put it generally, "This does that". That's a positive statement. Null hypotheses are not positive statements. They are negative statements in the general form of, "This doesn't do that". Scientists are ultimately interested in the mechanisms that do produce the observed phenomenon, not in mechanisms that have nothing to do with the phenomenon.



Yep, for the hypotheses that have survived testing so far.

... I'm getting a headache.

 

[CabVet]

... I'm getting a headache.

Why? There is zero contradiction between the posts.

 

[Loudmouth]

... I'm getting a headache.

Learning takes effort. That's just the way of things.

 

[Jamin4422]

1)more traditional interpretation of the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection body.

Just what is a more traditional doctrine? If our physical body, cremated or otherwise is not resurrected, then just what is resurrected? (Or raptured as the case maybe)