cDK Theory

[Loudmouth]

You left out a third group.

Sometimes the general public has to falsify products produced or misapplied by your theories as well.

The irony, of course, is that there is no way to determine that Thalidomide causes birth defects without using the very method that you reject.

Perhaps we could start a Thalidomide challenge for AV. How would you tell the difference between birth defects embedded by fairies that exactly mimic real birth defects and those that are caused by chemicals that were ingested by the mother? Since you can not tell the difference you have to throw out the theory that thalidomide causes birth defects, do you not?

 

[sandwiches]

Evidence is good, sure. Interpretation can be good, too.

Now with either YEC or Evolution people can point to evidence and make interpretations.

Philosophy and underlying metaphysical assumptions have a LOT to do with how such interpretations are made, and what is considered relevant and convincing evidence, and can have something to do with the determination of how to select and apply the relevant methodologies.

How can we tell the right interpretations of evidence from the wrong ones?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can we tell the right interpretations of evidence from the wrong ones?

It depends on what's being compared.

Which one of the two below came from the right interpretation of prenatal care?

 

[Loudmouth]

It depends on what's being compared.

Which one of the two below came from the right interpretation of prenatal care?

Where did you show that this was caused by Thalidomide instead of embedded birth defects caused by Leprechauns. It seems that Leprechauns own your crazy Thalidomide theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did you show that this was caused by Thalidomide instead of embedded birth defects caused by Leprechauns. It seems that Leprechauns own your crazy Thalidomide theory.

Three reasons:

1. They stopped when Thalidomide stopped being administered.
2. Science took the blame for it.
3. My Boolean standards tell me to agree with them.

And what do you mean by 'my crazy Thalidomide theory'? are you suggesting science had nothing to do with it?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Three reasons:

1. They stopped when Thalidomide stopped being administered.
2. Science took the blame for it.
3. My Boolean standards tell me to agree with them.

And what do you mean by 'my crazy Thalidomide theory'? are you suggesting science had nothing to do with it?

What's a Boolean standard

 

[sandwiches]

It depends on what's being compared.

Which one of the two below came from the right interpretation of prenatal care?

Hmmm... good point. We do use our senses and reasoning to arrive and understand evidence correctly. Very scientific of you AV!

 

[sandwiches]

[*]Science took the blame for it.

Post a link to and article or anything where "science too the blame for it."

 

[Loudmouth]

Three reasons:

They stopped when Thalidomide stopped being administered.

This is exactly what should happen if Leprechauns are embedding the evidence.

Science took the blame for it.

Blame for what? You are using science to argue that Thalidomide causes birth defects. You are claiming that it was science that discovered the link, are you not?

My Boolean standards tell me to agree with them.

That is perhaps the saddest statement I have ever seen.

And what do you mean by 'my crazy Thalidomide theory'? are you suggesting science had nothing to do with it?

Leprechauns own your Thalidomide theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's a Boolean standard

QV:

Then what is your basis for saying the Earth is both 4.57 billion years old and 6000 years old at the same time?

I have what I call Boolean standards* that allow me to agree with 95% of science, while at the same time maintain a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

* My Boolean Standards:

1. Whatever the Bible supports: support.
2. Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.
3. If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.
4. If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Leprechauns own your Thalidomide theory.

Nope -- as much as you'd like to shift the blame, it's not going to work.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope -- as much as you'd like to shift the blame, it's not going to work.

AV is now rejecting the idea of embedded evidence? Really?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV is now rejecting the idea of embedded evidence?

Ya -- how 'bout that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ya -- how 'bout that?

Then I would expect to never hear about embedded age ever again, correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then I would expect to never hear about embedded age ever again, correct?

Incorrect.

 

[Loudmouth]

Incorrect.

Then you have chosen hypocrisy. Great job.

 

[sandwiches]

Then you have chosen hypocrisy. Great job.

Wrong term. Remember that it's called "Boolean Standards" that AV uses.