Frumious Bandersnatch said:
What a great business model, to put your book online for all to read for free. I sure haven't given Walt a cent.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Frumious Bandersnatch said:Supporters of Walt Brown might ask themselves why he has never even tried to publish his mega goofy hydroplate model in creationist pseudo peer reviewed journals. Could it be because he knows the model is so silly that even YEC publications would reject it and he wouldn't have the excuse of evolutionist bias? The only way he could get it published is to publish it himself. Walt doesn't want to have to defend the worldwide flood because he knows it can't be defended. He just wants to attack evolution and keep selling books and videotapes to the terminally gullible.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Physics_guy said:Meert has been posting here for quite some time - your thread had nothing to do with it. If you notice he has 225 posts on CF - more than you.
's called marketing.tyreth said:What a great business model, to put your book online for all to read for free. I sure haven't given Walt a cent.
JGMEERT said:JM: Actually, I gave you the specific post later in my answer. Apparently, option 'A' was purely superfluous on your part. If you don't want to be misread, don't add 'options' that have no meaning.
JM: You need to read responses. At least one answer was given on here with a link. If you want to close your eyes and pretend no one has answered, what course of action might I have? If you are not willing to read anything outside of that you can access on the net, then what else can I do for you? If you want to learn and understand the science, then go to the source and do the work yourself. Whining about your access problems does not help your argument. If you want to learn more, then read Gould's Structure of Evolutionary theory. Oops, you'd have to spend some money or drive to the library. Or you can wait until someone posts it on the net.
Ok, let's play the link game:USincognito said:Sigh. Here is the theory much modified since it was originally published. Here is the application of the Scientific Method to said theory including each evidences prediction, confirmation and potential falsification.
Why do people not investigate more before they make assertions like "{there's no} scientific theory of evolution?"
JM: Sounds familiar.
JM: You need to learn a little bit more about science then. Science is both, it's not either/or. If science were solely inductive, then science would never progress. If you want to argue a silly premise, find someone else.
JM: Do you think if you keep repeating this mantra, it will make it true?
JM: Then you're arguments will be poor. If you want to neglect primary sources and research, what's the point of discussion?
JM: It's also full of junk.
JM: I'm talking about the arguments put forth in Gingerich and Thweissen in their scientific articles. You've already stated you're not willing to read them if they are not free and insist that your internet sources are reliable. University libraries have open access. You can go there, get out the journals and read the articles at no cost.
JM: Learn what science is and isn't.
JM: You had (A) and (B). I'm glad you've accepted the correct definition. I see no point in belaboring this now that you've cleared up your position.
JM: Three that I can think of right off the bat. The first is taking an oath that predetermines the conclusions. AIG and ICR both acknowledge that all their science must harmonize with the bible. If the science and the bible are at odds, it is the science that is wrong. Any scientist who has ever done the most simple of experiments understands why this oath precludes sound science at the outset.
The second mistake that ye-creationists make is mostly refusing to submit their work to scientific journals for criticism and future testing.
All other scientists do this because they know that science advances only when ideas are presented in an open forum.
Thirdly, there is the problem of inventing data and misrepresenting science to make a point. Humphreys work on the magnetic field is an excellent example of someone willing to misrepresent science and invent data in order to get the conclusions to spin his way.
JM: I've answered. I am following Walt's rules. Is that so hard for you to grasp?
JM: No, I want to debate. That's why I've signed the agreement and agreed to abide by the rules in Walt's challenge. Apparently, this is very difficult for you to grasp.
JM: I'll ask you this question again. If the bible claimed the earth was destroyed by a meteorite and God commanded Noah to build a spaceship, would there be a hydroplate hypothesis?
JM: Yes it was. Walt admitted the conspiracy and you did not check your facts before mouthing off about it. When confronted with the obvious conspiracy theory verbiage, you tried to cover up by insisting that because the word 'conspiracy' was not used, a conspiracy was not implied. Your argument that one must use the word 'conspiracy' is specious.
I gave you a bunch of methods for testing. Common descent is very falsifiable, since there are a whole bunch of things you would not see if common descent is the case.tyreth said:Where is your scientific theory of common descent? Observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable. If you hold the creation model up to these standards, then hold your own fortress up to the same ones.
tyreth said:Ok, let's play the link game:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
Wasn't that fun? Still doesn't make it science. Why don't you tell me the scientific theory of common descent?
Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale, and each modern organism is the genetic descendant of one original species.
JM: I thanked you for clearing up your position. It was not clear from your post whether you accepted A or B. It is now.tyreth said:I have no clue what you are saying. I never said "option" A. I said there were two common uses of the word evolution which had different meanings. I listed those two meanings. What's this about options?
JM: I gave you article references and told you that University libraries have free browsing access. You could go to the library and do the same for Gould's book. My jabs are aimed at your unwillingness to learn about the subject you are so intent on criticising.You are so clever, with your jabs at my unwillingness to spend money on evolutionary material.
JM: Yes, if they were criticising a topic that they knew nothing about and they refused to consult the scientific literature on the subjects. I've not seen too much of that, but occasionally an atheist will make a silly claim about science. For the most part, I've found that people are willing to correct their mistakes.Would you dare speak a word against the many atheists on this forum who restrict themselves to debate of material they can find online for free?
JM: A link with an answer to your question and a book with an answer to your question were both given. I have no idea why you construe that to be a linking game.Wasn't that fun? Still doesn't make it science. Why don't you tell me the scientific theory of common descent?
JM: If you repeat this mantra three more times, while turning on your heels, you will end up back in Oz.Science is inductive! If you want to show me otherwise, be my guest. I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong if I am.
JM: Have you ever done any science? If so, the answer to your question is obvious.If you want to be specific about why science is deductive also, then tell me.
JM: Just as you've done nothing to show me that your statement is valid. Am I supposed to trust these words, just because it comes from your mouth?You have done nothing to show me otherwise about my statement. Am I supposed to trust these words, just because it comes from the mouth of Joe Meert?
JM: YOu chose to respond. If you don't like what I have to say, you can choose not to respond. Placing the blame on me for your own woes is quite a weak tactic.Because I'm talking about something very precise, which you have come and hijacked the conversation away from.
JM: People gave you references. You whined about not being able to find an internet site with all your answers. People gave you book and journal articles, told you how to access them for free and still you whine.. My discussion was primarily about whether evolution A is science or not. My challenge was for someone to produce a scientific theory of common descent - a falsifiable, observable, repeatable test to prove common descent.
JM: I brought it into the discussion and you responded with a request for references. I gave them to you and now you whine about the change of topic. If you thought whales were off topic, then why respond?If I was talking to you about whales or other things, then sure I would need to go look at primary resources and research. But that's not the topic of discussion!
JM: Duh! No one expected that you would. You do the same as any other creationist. Hide behind a wall of self-induced ignorance. Your choice.I'm not going to look up those articles you painstakingly referenced.
JM: Then why did you ask for the references? I suppose you're not going to read Gould either, are you?It's got nothing to do with the topic at hand.
JM: THen why did you ask about them? Your argument would be so much more convincing if your previous posts would disappear. Do you remember the following (a page or so back?):If it was the topic at hand, and I had involved myself in the discussion, then I would be very motivated to get my hands on these articles.
I have already seen some talk of whale transitionals, I wanted to know exactly what you referring to.
JM: Is this how you argue? Insist that it's only inductive and then change to 'primarily inductive'? I'm glad you've come around, I suppose we can now drop this 'science is only inductive' nonsense. Are you man enough to admit that science is both or are you going to twist your way out of your own words?Where do you suggest I learn that from? From all I can read people call science the inductive method. They likewise say that scientists sometimes engage in deductive tasks, but primarily science is inductive.
JM: YOu've been given the references. Read them, take notes and then come back and tell me it does not exist.Where is your scientific theory of common descent? Observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable.
JM: There is no creation model from which to demand standards.If you hold the creation model up to these standards,
JM: I never took such an oath.As opposed to scientists making a naturalistic oath,
JM: Don't lie to make a point.and rejecting all supernatural theories on that premise?
JM: Don't lie to make a point.Or rejecting all young earth ages on the premise that any dating method must reaffirm old ages?
JM: From the looks of things, you're not well-read either.I'm not convinced.
JM: Off topicIf I tried to jump over a gap, and three times I fell in and broke my leg, why would I try a fourth time?
JM: Don't lie to make a point.Coincidently these scientists affirm orthodoxy of evolution and old earth. Big surprise.
JM: So, if the biblical story changes, the earth changes with it. Interesting.You can ask this question all you want, it changes nothing about what I said. It's irrelevant. The theory would not exist, but the earth would also be different, so it's a stupid question.
JM: In your mind, I suspect that's true. Walt's own words tell us otherwise.Where did Walt ever say anything that indicated something like a conspiracy? Conspiracy was not even implied.
JM: He faked data and invented reversals where none exist.What are your specific objections to Humphreys magnetic field
If you honestly believe that, then you should write a careful rebuttel directly to him, and publish it elsewhere at the same time. Even if he avoids the problems, at least you will have an answer for others to point them to.
He's responded to other critics, so I can't see why he'd avoid you.
This is a blatant lie. Scientists do not make any sort of "naturalistic oath". Creationists, on the other hand, have a conclusion to which all data must be made to fit. This is precisely why creationism is not any sort of science.tyreth said:As opposed to scientists making a naturalistic oath, and rejecting all supernatural theories on that premise? Or rejecting all young earth ages on the premise that any dating method must reaffirm old ages?
But first a couple of smaller comments, rather than a full response, to wind down.JM: YOu chose to respond. If you don't like what I have to say, you can choose not to respond. Placing the blame on me for your own woes is quite a weak tactic.
Because you made a vague reference to something you said was relevent. I wanted to know what on earth you were talking about so I could see if it was on topic. I never asked for reams of references - I wanted you to summarise what the argument was. How am I supposed to comment on something that hasn't been described, or even referenced?JM: Then why did you ask for the references? I suppose you're not going to read Gould either, are you?
Tell us if you think that this description of the scientific method is accurate:JM: Is this how you argue? Insist that it's only inductive and then change to 'primarily inductive'? I'm glad you've come around, I suppose we can now drop this 'science is only inductive' nonsense. Are you man enough to admit that science is both or are you going to twist your way out of your own words?
It was a play on words. It would be a real conspiracy if you took such an oath in secret. But today people say that any scientific theory must be naturalistic. Iirc, such has been said in this thread. Unless you disagree? And if naturalism is presupposed, then I was not lying when I said "rejecting all supernatural theories on that premise".JM: I never took such an oath.
JM: BUt of course, you could not resist one last attempt at a jibe.tyreth said:I had decided before you wrote your reply that I would stop talking with you if this continued on in the same way. So I'm going to follow your advice:
JM: Did you get wound up somewhere?But first a couple of smaller comments, rather than a full response, to wind down.
JM: Re-read the thread. If you thought whales were off topic, then you should not have responded at all.Because you made a vague reference to something you said was relevent. I wanted to know what on earth you were talking about so I could see if it was on topic. I never asked for reams of references - I wanted you to summarise what the argument was.
JM: Well, most people debating the subject know about whale evolution and where to find the material relating to whale evolution.How am I supposed to comment on something that hasn't been described, or even referenced?
JM: It would be a very good thing for you to do. It might help clear up your misunderstandings of science and evolution.As for Gould, I may read him. I have no reason not to. It could be an interesting read.
JM: I think it is an interesting piece and not wholly accurate, but not bad either. The 'idealized method' does not exist except in middle and high school classes. Your attempt to minimize the importance of deductive reasoning in science is laughable. Without deductive reasoning, scientists would be nothing more than engineersTell us if you think that this description of the scientific method is accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I don't believe I have changed my stance at all. The method of science itself is inductive. Forming of predictions or other peripheral parts may involve deduction, but the actual process of science is itself inductive. Earlier I was not so clear that deduction was a part of the creation of predictions, but it seems obvious now. But I see no need to recant, because science is called the inductive method, precisely because it is inductive.
JM: It makes your earlier assertions that science is only inductive look silly. I wonder if you truly read through the link particularly the part at the bottom where it is noted:It changes nothing about what I've been saying.
Despite these philosophical problems the hypothetico-deductive method remains perhaps the most popular and best understood theory of scientific method.
JM: It was a false statement.It was a play on words.
JM: It would also be a lie.It would be a real conspiracy if you took such an oath in secret.
JM: You make the statement that 'naturalism is presupposed'. I think this is a clever misrepresentation, but perhaps you might explain your meaning for me (if you decide I am worthy of your valuable time). For all your discussion about science it seems you missed one of the key ideas. Basically, you're whining that science should include 'supernatural theories'. Such 'theories' do not exist. Can you provide me with a 'supernatural theory' that science can test? However, the argument you are trying to make is specious. You are basically whining about the fact that science is not willing to explore the possibility that your God did everything in the bible. If you require scientific confirmation of the Bible, what's the point of faith?But today people say that any scientific theory must be naturalistic. Iirc, such has been said in this thread. Unless you disagree? And if naturalism is presupposed, then I was not lying when I said "rejecting all supernatural theories on that premise".
JM: Well, that will certainly ruin my life. I think I'll go commit suicide now since you were my purpose for living.Anyway, that's enough of you for me. I'll respond to the others in time, but I don't have unlimitted amounts of it. It is very unlikely I will respond to you again.
Despite these philosophical problems the hypothetico-deductive method remains perhaps the most popular and best understood theory of scientific method
tyreth said:
I had, in fact, read this earlier, but I wonder if you did. The hypothetico-deductive method is "a theory about scientific method".
JM: I did not ask you what faith means. I asked what is the point of faith if you require scientific confirmation?If you want to talk about what I think faith means, you are welcome to read my thread on atheism in the philosophy&morality board.
tracker1875 said:I didn't realize this place censored outside links--I'll probably quit looking at this website because of that.
JM: It doesn't seem to be sinking in though does it?tracker1875 said:I've been lurking for a week or two, but boy have you got some very strange ideas about what is and is not science.
JM: He's slowly coming around. I suspect pride is preventing him from admitting he erred. By the way, you can post links after making relatively few posts. As someone else mentioned, it's to help prevent hit-and-run spam. Welcome to the board!Son, science works both ways! You're only making yourself and our fellow christians look foolish by continuing this absurdity!
Physics_guy said:Hate to break this to you Tyreth, but the scientific method is not as easily defined as many would like. The methods involved in astroonmy are very different fromt eh methods involved in chemistry for example. And though testing and predictions are important parts of science, all this really means is the testing of data - explanations are not always testable and may only be extrapolated from the data (for example in stellar spectroscopy we cannot test the stars themselves, but we can test the light coming off it).
To say that the Theory of Evolution and more the Theory of Common Descent are not science requires a laughably simplistic view of science. This method of argumentation used by creationists is devoid of value and can be summed up as nothing more than a distraction: "if the science is against us, then say the opponent isn't science either!"
Creationism is ridiculous religious fanaticism trying to pretend it is scientific by using ad hoc explanations that ignore their own problems and are only capable of convincing the already convinced laymen (for example: Humphrey's laughable butchering of General Relativity).
You would be far better off if you simply said like Kurt Wise that you believe in a literal Genesis because of your faith and despite the fact that the evidence is against you. At least such a position is honest and really beyond debate.
Primarily his argument rests on argueing that the copernican principle is invalid i.e. on large scales the universe is smooth, and that there is no preferred direction. He argues that in order for standard cosmology to be valid, this principle is always assumed. Firstly this is not the case, this principle does not have to be assumed for standard cosmologies - for example the inflationary cosmology does not assume it at all. He misrepresents Physicists in saying that they believe that this is the case, when it well known that many current cosmologies do not assume that the universe is flat and uniform on large scales. Secondly, the imposition of a spherical boundary has absolutely no effect whatsoever on in the gravitational and temporal properties inside the boundary.tyreth said:Well, I can't trust you on that until you've explained why Humphreys butchered General Relativity.
Well, I can't trust you on that until you've explained why Humphreys butchered General Relativity.
Why does it require a simplistic view of science? I am aware that there is no consensus of what science is, but it seems to me that most accept, at the very least, that a scientific theory is falsifiable, observable, testable, and wherever possible repeatable (if it is not repeatable then it is weak, since other scientists cannot verify the claims).
I do not believe my position is beyond debate, so why would I say that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?