razzelflabben
Contributor
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..."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.
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.again, WHY would this evidence then be used in and ID argument?
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." 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.
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?scientists are respected to be non biased and always intellectually honest. but to ensure that, we got peer review.
you really don't have a clue as to what I am saying do you?, understanding that natural explanations say nothing about the existence or the intervention of a deity is NOT bias,
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...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,
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....and therefor cannot be used as evidence for the existence of such an agent.
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.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.
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.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?
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." 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.
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..."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.
see above, you still aren't listening to what I am saying...see it this way, he's interchangeable with magic leprechauns, or yaweh.
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.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.
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.for you to assume that on the basis of no substantial evidence is intellectually dishonest.
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?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.
right, reduce variables.in science you gotto trim down all those variables you know. you want to look at any specifc genisis claims?
actually, scripture says dirt, but hey, we're making progress, don't let me stop you.god made men from clay. ????? we're made form organic compounds...NOT clay minerals.
no, the only natural process mentioned here is the raw materials used...god created eve from adam's rib. meaning the only natural process here described is cloning from marrow.
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.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????"
I'm still waiting for a viable natural explaination for the one bit of evidence I managed to slip into the discussion.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,
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?????and not choosing to invoke god in any of them. leading you to call all those scientist "biased". "
still waiting for that natural explanation in the only evidence I have been able to get in.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.
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.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.
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...."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.
exactly what I have been telling you...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".
in where we agree?????? So what then does that say about your own deep religious inspirations? Didn't you claim to not have any?this is where i can see the deep religious inspiration of your posts.
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.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.
every evolutionist is not a scientist???? News flash: not all scientists are evolutionists and not all evolutionists are scientists."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.
Upvote
0