Honest Question

[random325nicaea]

"see, this is why people don't like talking on these evolutionist biased threads, there is evidence to support what I said and you dismiss it with mocking and insinuations of crazyness"

if you thought the entire lucid remark was a mocking,
you clearly have no idea of human psychology. you completely missed the point when it comes to the tricks our neurons can play with us and how to deal with them via logical reasoning and understanding the trickery.

"actually the train had to go around a big curve before it got to the road, the train was not visible, nor was I visible to the train, to complicate things even further, the train because of where the crossing was was not required to blow his horn and therefore did not."

so i take it there where no boom barriers and neither was there a warning signla required.
what safe roads you have...write to your congressman.

"bring him on..."

how about you provide him all the data he needs to run the simulation. im pretty sure some undergrad might be willing to aid in your request, hell if you put it up as a problem to one of the professors at a university near you you might even convince em to turn it into a homework assignment for points!

" So you are wrong in claiming it is personal testimony over hard evidence. The evidence to what I say is a matter of record."

then provide said record.

 

[razzelflabben]

"can and do are not the same thing..."

and that is the entire misunderstanding you people have with science.

"you people"? Who are "you people"? How many skeptics have you run into on this topic....?

when we talk about these complex things. we make predictions of possible outcomes.

yep

it is EXTREMELY hard to say exactly what happened. so we'd rather take the intellectually honest route of "can" instead of "do" when we aren't a 100% certain.

not sure how this refers to anything I said, but it has been some time since there was discussion.

"

So if one lives by evidence, they must throw it all away when it comes to the TOE because of the scientific method"

??
do you even knows how asinine that sounds to a person who actually does science?

yep, as insane as claiming the TOE is truth to a creationist.

"

Doesn't make an ounce of sense, "

indeed your comment doesn't "maybe you should try again."

"I have many, many, many, many times over....how about if you deal with what has already been done before asking me to provide it again?"

no you have NOT.
what you've provided constitutes as a vague "well somehting like this".
there is a WHOLE lot more you can do to specify your proposed experiment.
like name the species of organism your are planning to use, detail the procedures (methodology), give a list of the needed resources, hell i could go on.
THIS is how you propose an experiment to test your hypothesis.
NOT "we should test for design by testing for purpose", which says NOTHING when it comes to providing an experiment.

either you show your scientific literacy or you should shut up about being capable of scientifically testing for god.

When you figure out what we are testing for, we can move on...

 

[razzelflabben]

"see, this is why people don't like talking on these evolutionist biased threads, there is evidence to support what I said and you dismiss it with mocking and insinuations of crazyness"

if you thought the entire lucid remark was a mocking,
you clearly have no idea of human psychology. you completely missed the point when it comes to the tricks our neurons can play with us and how to deal with them via logical reasoning and understanding the trickery.

no longer a clue what or where this context is from.

"actually the train had to go around a big curve before it got to the road, the train was not visible, nor was I visible to the train, to complicate things even further, the train because of where the crossing was was not required to blow his horn and therefore did not."

so i take it there where no boom barriers and neither was there a warning signla required.

nope, it was a private road, those things were not required.

what safe roads you have...write to your congressman.

non private roads require there safe guards, private roads do not.

"bring him on..."

how about you provide him all the data he needs to run the simulation. im pretty sure some undergrad might be willing to aid in your request, hell if you put it up as a problem to one of the professors at a university near you you might even convince em to turn it into a homework assignment for points!

what were we talking about again????

" So you are wrong in claiming it is personal testimony over hard evidence. The evidence to what I say is a matter of record."

then provide said record.

check the records for yourself, your the one who claims that I don't know anything about science....scientific method, etc. If I know nothing, I am definately to stupid to provide the evidence you want...

 

[random325nicaea]

|yep, as insane as claiming the TOE is truth to a creationist."

fortunately we don;'t claim that.
we only claim that ToE is the best fitting explanatory mechanism we have available.
oh ya , and we claim that evolution happens since it's an observed phenomena.

"you people"? Who are "you people"? How many skeptics have you run into on this topic....?"

you have the most superficial idea of how science works.
you claim of being able to test for god proves that. you aren't a skeptic, you are an ID'er. you're merely still using the term skeptic for credibility.
anyone who would be a skeptic would realize the apparent flaws with trying to test for god, and NEVER adopt such a position.

so it's your kind of people who i am calling "you people".

"nope, it was a private road, those things were not required."

safe. VERY "safe" country you have there.
"non private roads require there safe guards, private roads do not."
then the person who owns the land is an idiot who has no regards to the safety of other people.

"what were we talking about again????"

don't run. you asked for a physicist to run the simulation. i gave you some advice where you could find em.

"check the records for yourself, your the one who claims that I don't know anything about science....scientific method, etc. If I know nothing, I am definately to stupid to provide the evidence you want..."

WAY TO WALK AWAY FORM THE PROOF OF BURDEN!
really, YOU MAKE THE CLAIM. YOU PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.
this has NOTHING to do with science btw, this has to do with you simply sifting through news articles and linking the relevant article that detailed your accident.

NO HYPOTHESIS REQUIRED.

notice, you also have YET to provide us with an experiment to test for god.

 

[razzelflabben]

|yep, as insane as claiming the TOE is truth to a creationist."

fortunately we don;'t claim that.
we only claim that ToE is the best fitting explanatory mechanism we have available.
oh ya , and we claim that evolution happens since it's an observed phenomena.

you haven't been around many evolutionists have you???? They claim the ToE to be fact all the time...in fact, when it comes to truth, I don't know any creationist (personally) that would deny that evolution, the mechanism isn't observable truth, the controversy comes in when evolutionists claim ToE to be truth/fact (depends on who you are talking to) Creationist for the most part, take objection to that and instead of scientists applauding the correction, they are reamed for 'not knowing how science works'. Seems to me they know how science works better than the evolutionist when the correction they offer is as sound as to say, ToE cannot be fact because it is a theory....but hey, that's another discussion for another day, they have some other problems with what they believe, I just wish both sides would stop being so emotional as to attack anything, and stick instead to the problems each holds...but that would be a fair and unbiased approach and we all know that isn't about to happen.

"

you people"? Who are "you people"? How many skeptics have you run into on this topic....?"

you have the most superficial idea of how science works.

and yet you just claimed that I haven't shown my scientific knowledge...so how can you make a judgment about what I know without knowledge of what I know??? Is that the same logic you bring into science???

you claim of being able to test for god proves that. you aren't a skeptic, you are an ID'er. you're merely still using the term skeptic for credibility.
anyone who would be a skeptic would realize the apparent flaws with trying to test for god, and NEVER adopt such a position.

so now we can't test our natural world scientifically because we might discover God?????? Wow is your idea of science messed up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so it's your kind of people who i am calling "you people".

right and I asked you how many skeptics you have met on the issue of origins???? How many people are in my circle???? I'm not sure I have met one yet...please introduce me....

"nope, it was a private road, those things were not required."

safe. VERY "safe" country you have there.
"non private roads require there safe guards, private roads do not."
then the person who owns the land is an idiot who has no regards to the safety of other people.

lots more to it than that, but I'm not worried your hatred and venom are still showing, which basically means your views are biased with hate and venom.

"what were we talking about again????"

don't run. you asked for a physicist to run the simulation. i gave you some advice where you could find em.

don't run???? what does that even mean???? Don't run????

"check the records for yourself, your the one who claims that I don't know anything about science....scientific method, etc. If I know nothing, I am definately to stupid to provide the evidence you want..."

WAY TO WALK AWAY FORM THE PROOF OF BURDEN!

look, I have run into people like you more than I care to, the hatred and venom force you to make unreasonable demands on people, their time, their evidence, etc. When you ask for evidence it is given, the evidence isn't enough for you...you want more evidence...that evidence is provided and for some reason you dismiss that, and round and round it goes...even went so far with one poster that when all the evidence was provided, his reason for not believing the evidence was that after the car stopped moving and I got out, a strange force (natural force don't forget) further compelled the car to collapse on itself. This natural force was like gravity, so the car stops moving, and further gravitational pull forces the metal to collapse in on itself in the footwell, so that it was more mangled by some magical gravitational force than it was by the force of the train, and this is suppose to be good science???!!!... so, I have come to the conclusion with people who are so blinded by hatred and bias that they can't accept evidence, to protect my privacy, therefore, I will give you enough information to look it up on public records, but not do the job for you, that way, you have to put down the venom long enough to consider what you find as real...when your ready to look it up, let me know, I'll give you all the info you need. In the meantime, don't claim to accept science when you aren't willing to look at and consider evidence.

really, YOU MAKE THE CLAIM. YOU PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.
this has NOTHING to do with science btw, this has to do with you simply sifting through news articles and linking the relevant article that detailed your accident.

see above

NO HYPOTHESIS REQUIRED.

notice, you also have YET to provide us with an experiment to test for god.

see previous posts

 

[random325nicaea]

"you haven't been around many evolutionists have you???? They claim the ToE to be fact all the time...in fact, when it comes to truth,"

and apparenlty you haven't either.
evolution is a fact.
the ToE is the only theory we have explaining it untill now and it hasn't once been falsified in 150 years.

" I don't know any creationist (personally) that would deny that evolution,"

well i see em all the time, and it's ridiculus everytime i hear em say "there are no beneficial mutations" and "the are limits to how far the DNA can change".

"Creationist for the most part, take objection to that and instead of scientists applauding the correction, "

no that is NOT what they are doing. they try and poke wholes in the theory (and their ignorance makes them fail so hard at this), or use fallacious arguments, and quotemined peer reviewed research to give their own religious views (yes creationism purely IS a religious conviction). no scientists will ever claim that a theory is "the truth". you're just settign up a strawman to batter here.

"they are reamed for 'not knowing how science works'."

i have yet to see a single one who actuall does know.
and neither do you because you keep insisting on being capable of providing a test for the supernatural and yet you haven't offered squat. not only that, you also seem incapable of understandign that it is impossible to test for anythgin supernatural as you can always ad hoc and objections it away.

"eems to me they know how science works better than the evolutionist when the correction they offer is as sound as to say, ToE cannot be fact because it is a theory"

fortunatly all those creationists do not say "theory of evolution" but "evolution". and that is when their ignorance is exposed, again. no scientist will ever claim a theory is a fact. they know the difference betwen a verifiably observation and an explanatory mechanism.

" they have some other problems with what they believe, I just wish both sides would stop being so emotional as to attack anything, and stick instead to the problems each holds."

sigh.
i don't like it when people lie and distort real science with fallacious arguments.
and creationists do not like to eb corrected on their mistakes and thus adopt the "LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!!" approach when ever they are exposed in their ignorance.
really.. look aroud the forum. there are countless examples where a creationists has no idea what he is discussing, then is corrected by soemoen who does, and then completely ignores the corection and repeats the false claim.

"but that would be a fair and unbiased approach and we all know that isn't about to happen. "

you have a fundemental misunderstanding to what bias means in these discussion.

"and yet you just claimed that I haven't shown my scientific knowledge...so how can you make a judgment about what I know without knowledge of what I know??"

because your posts say more then you will care to give away up front.
a person with a sound understandign of science and it's subjects will never write the type of posts or claism that you do.

"so now we can't test our natural world scientifically because we might discover God?????? Wow is your idea of science messed up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

sigh...really, i cannot understand how this point hasn't sunk into you yet.

you can ad hoc ANYTHING away with a supernatural explination, this makes the actual test unfalsefiable and thus not a real scientific test.

"right and I asked you how many skeptics you have met on the issue of origins???"

plenty but none of them ever think of somehting like ID and creationism. because the skeptics are in science, not pseudoscience. just read the dam journals, theres always debate about what the specifics are about commen ancestory, but there is no discussion whether or not there was a common ancestor.
like the new evidence that changing the way we look at the theropod dinosaurs -> birds transition hypothesis.

"lots more to it than that, but I'm not worried your hatred and venom are still showing, which basically means your views are biased with hate and venom."

what does this have to do with someone NOT making a traincrossing safer? but instead leaving it so unsafe as to actually allow you to have such an accident?

"don't run???? what does that even mean???? Don't run????"

you tried to run away from the proposition that we woudl gave your miraculous accident rerun in simulator. and you did it by posting ""what were we talking about again????""" when i offered a way how you could get that done.

"look, I have run into people like you more than I care to, the hatred and venom force you to make unreasonable demands on people,"

again you play the victim card when you shoudl actualy just own up to the proof of burden and show some intelectual honesty.
"their time, their evidence, etc."

NO, there is no "their time, their evidence" there are onyl claims, hypothesi, experiments and data.

" When you ask for evidence it is given, the evidence isn't enough for you"

when it's fallacious or doesn't support your position at all, yes, ofc it won't be enough. i have yet to see any creationist actually beign capable of providing some data to support their position.

"that evidence is provided and for some reason you dismiss that,"

you have given 0 evidence, outisisde your own personal anecdote to actually support you position. the sources you have prodived did not properly understand what the data supported and misrepresented it, or you did not understand what the data supported.
but you also seem to feel really insecure about actually explainign what your position is anyway, instead relying on saying you are a skeptic and not specifiying what your beef is with the ToE.
and then you try and strawman my side and say that we would actually be dumb enough to claim a theory is a fact, while we know full well how to distiungish the fact of evolution and the ToE.

"even went so far with one poster that when all the evidence was provided, his reason for not believing the evidence was that after the car stopped moving and I got out, a strange force (natural force don't forget) further compelled the car to collapse on itself."

love your use of the word compelled here.
perhaps if you had stayed put it would have also collapsed?

", so that it was more mangled by some magical gravitational force than it was by the force of the train,"

ooooh magic..nah, structural interity, heat and waekenign of the fixtures.

" and this is suppose to be good science???!!!... "

what you just descbribed couldn't evne be considered pseudo science.
now if you actualy gave data so we could recreate that event in an experiment, now THAT would be science.

" I have come to the conclusion with people who are so blinded by hatred and bias that they can't accept evidence,"

oh yes...blame it on the hate. you seem incapable of distiungishing critical objections from hatefull remarks...

"to protect my privacy, "
....really. i could have traced your IP adress already. what are you worried for about privacy in this day and age while you are postign on the internet !? do you really think people will come to your house is they read this? please, there are better things to do.

"I will give you enough information to look it up on public records, but not do the job for you, that way, you have to put down the venom long enough to consider what you find as real."

waaaaay to walk away form the prooooof of burdennnnnn.
you make the claims, you back it up.

"when your ready to look it up, let me know, I'll give you all the info you need."

instead of making such a useless "safety check". how about if you just did what i aksed you and just provided the links and data?

"In the meantime, don't claim to accept science when you aren't willing to look at and consider evidence. "

i've been willing this ENTIRE TIME. the only problem is YOU HAVEN"T BEEN PROVIDING IT.

oh, and im STILL waitign for your experiment to test for the effects of the supernatural.
a methodology and materials would be nice, and so would an accurate hypothesis.

 

[razzelflabben]

"you haven't been around many evolutionists have you???? They claim the ToE to be fact all the time...in fact, when it comes to truth,"

and apparenlty you haven't either.
evolution is a fact.
the ToE is the only theory we have explaining it untill now and it hasn't once been falsified in 150 years.

sounds like what I said to you....ah well,there are none so blind as those whose blindness is willful.

" I don't know any creationist (personally) that would deny that evolution,"

well i see em all the time, and it's ridiculus everytime i hear em say "there are no beneficial mutations" and "the are limits to how far the DNA can change".

put what I said in context, it makes much, much, much more sense.

"

Creationist for the most part, take objection to that and instead of scientists applauding the correction, "

no that is NOT what they are doing. they try and poke wholes in the theory (and their ignorance makes them fail so hard at this), or use fallacious arguments, and quotemined peer reviewed research to give their own religious views (yes creationism purely IS a religious conviction). no scientists will ever claim that a theory is "the truth". you're just settign up a strawman to batter here.

you really do need to put what I said in context, making sense of it, rather than show your ignorance and willful hate by taking it out of context and twisting it so that you have an argument against what I say.

"

they are reamed for 'not knowing how science works'."

i have yet to see a single one who actuall does know.
and neither do you because you keep insisting on being capable of providing a test for the supernatural and yet you haven't offered squat. not only that, you also seem incapable of understandign that it is impossible to test for anythgin supernatural as you can always ad hoc and objections it away.

see above, your hatred is once again ruling your arguments and it is a pathetic argument when hatred rules.

"eems to me they know how science works better than the evolutionist when the correction they offer is as sound as to say, ToE cannot be fact because it is a theory"

fortunatly all those creationists do not say "theory of evolution" but "evolution".

wrong.

and that is when their ignorance is exposed, again. no scientist will ever claim a theory is a fact. they know the difference betwen a verifiably observation and an explanatory mechanism.

scientists maybe, evolutionists not so much.... which is the problem...

"

they have some other problems with what they believe, I just wish both sides would stop being so emotional as to attack anything, and stick instead to the problems each holds."

sigh.
i don't like it when people lie and distort real science with fallacious arguments.

join the club

and creationists do not like to eb corrected on their mistakes and thus adopt the "LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!!" approach when ever they are exposed in their ignorance.

you mean the same excuse you and other evolutionists use here?????...

really.. look aroud the forum. there are countless examples where a creationists has no idea what he is discussing, then is corrected by soemoen who does, and then completely ignores the corection and repeats the false claim.

same on the evolutionist side of the argument....it's human nature for someone guided by belief not science, not logic, but belief.

"

but that would be a fair and unbiased approach and we all know that isn't about to happen. "

you have a fundemental misunderstanding to what bias means in these discussion.

"and yet you just claimed that I haven't shown my scientific knowledge...so how can you make a judgment about what I know without knowledge of what I know??"

because your posts say more then you will care to give away up front.
a person with a sound understandign of science and it's subjects will never write the type of posts or claism that you do.

try again, more pathetic attempts at arguments that don't hold water...

"so now we can't test our natural world scientifically because we might discover God?????? Wow is your idea of science messed up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

sigh...really, i cannot understand how this point hasn't sunk into you yet.

you can ad hoc ANYTHING away with a supernatural explination, this makes the actual test unfalsefiable and thus not a real scientific test.

and when we remove that possible, limiting the variables, we have a whole new ball game...why can't you understand that by now, why isn't it sinking into your head? It isn't hard to figure out....

"r

ight and I asked you how many skeptics you have met on the issue of origins???"

plenty but none of them ever think of somehting like ID and creationism. because the skeptics are in science, not pseudoscience. just read the dam journals, theres always debate about what the specifics are about commen ancestory, but there is no discussion whether or not there was a common ancestor.
like the new evidence that changing the way we look at the theropod dinosaurs -> birds transition hypothesis.

what does that have to do with what I believe????

"

lots more to it than that, but I'm not worried your hatred and venom are still showing, which basically means your views are biased with hate and venom."

what does this have to do with someone NOT making a traincrossing safer? but instead leaving it so unsafe as to actually allow you to have such an accident?

I'm still waiting for you to explain any of your objections....or how any of your objections fit the discussion.

"don't run???? what does that even mean???? Don't run????"

you tried to run away from the proposition that we woudl gave your miraculous accident rerun in simulator. and you did it by posting ""what were we talking about again????""" when i offered a way how you could get that done.

say what????? simulate all you want....no problem...let me know the results...

"look, I have run into people like you more than I care to, the hatred and venom force you to make unreasonable demands on people,"

again you play the victim card when you shoudl actualy just own up to the proof of burden and show some intelectual honesty.
"their time, their evidence, etc."

NO, there is no "their time, their evidence" there are onyl claims, hypothesi, experiments and data.

try again.

" When you ask for evidence it is given, the evidence isn't enough for you"

when it's fallacious or doesn't support your position at all, yes, ofc it won't be enough. i have yet to see any creationist actually beign capable of providing some data to support their position.

wow, you need to listen better...

"that evidence is provided and for some reason you dismiss that,"

you have given 0 evidence, outisisde your own personal anecdote to actually support you position. the sources you have prodived did not properly understand what the data supported and misrepresented it, or you did not understand what the data supported.

sure, whatever you say, since you aren't willing to examine the evidence, you are free to dismiss it without cause...isn't that how it works, the god of the gaps theology??? Only this time it isnt' about god, but about you not willing to look at evidence.

but you also seem to feel really insecure about actually explainign what your position is anyway, instead relying on saying you are a skeptic and not specifiying what your beef is with the ToE.

On the issue of origins, both ToE and creation, I AM A SKEPTIC, how can I be more specific? How is that insecure, if I was insecure, it would be much easier to aline myself with one side or the other for the support I would get against people full of hate, people like yourself. Actually, being a skeptic in a field that has very few skeptics, is a brave and shows a great deal of confidence and security in who I am and what and why I believe what I do.

and then you try and strawman my side and say that we would actually be dumb enough to claim a theory is a fact, while we know full well how to distiungish the fact of evolution and the ToE.

I've heard it so many times, it is no longer funny.

"even went so far with one poster that when all the evidence was provided, his reason for not believing the evidence was that after the car stopped moving and I got out, a strange force (natural force don't forget) further compelled the car to collapse on itself."

love your use of the word compelled here.
perhaps if you had stayed put it would have also collapsed?

?????

", so that it was more mangled by some magical gravitational force than it was by the force of the train,"

ooooh magic..nah, structural interity, heat and waekenign of the fixtures.

right, the car stops, it is no longer moving, no longer bending, and the integrity, and heat of the metal is such that suddenly it begins to bend again....please show that in a simulator...thanks...

" and this is suppose to be good science???!!!... "

what you just descbribed couldn't evne be considered pseudo science.
now if you actualy gave data so we could recreate that event in an experiment, now THAT would be science.

see previous post, it contains much more detail.

" I have come to the conclusion with people who are so blinded by hatred and bias that they can't accept evidence,"

oh yes...blame it on the hate. you seem incapable of distiungishing critical objections from hatefull remarks...

read your posts as if they were written by a creationist and tell me what you see in them...

"to protect my privacy, "
....really. i could have traced your IP adress already. what are you worried for about privacy in this day and age while you are postign on the internet !? do you really think people will come to your house is they read this? please, there are better things to do.

so what is your problem then, if it is so easy, look it up, it's a matter of record....

"I will give you enough information to look it up on public records, but not do the job for you, that way, you have to put down the venom long enough to consider what you find as real."

waaaaay to walk away form the prooooof of burdennnnnn.
you make the claims, you back it up.

"when your ready to look it up, let me know, I'll give you all the info you need."

instead of making such a useless "safety check". how about if you just did what i aksed you and just provided the links and data?

see previous post and the details of the reasons I give, and instead of pretending to be something you are not, put forth the effort, you will get more out of the experience if you do....you might even learn something, aren't they teaching you in school to put forth any effort in your persuit for truth and knowledge?

"In the meantime, don't claim to accept science when you aren't willing to look at and consider evidence. "

i've been willing this ENTIRE TIME. the only problem is YOU HAVEN"T BEEN PROVIDING IT.

if you were willing, you would dismiss with the hatred and actually allow this discussion to become interesting and challenging.

oh, and im STILL waitign for your experiment to test for the effects of the supernatural.
a methodology and materials would be nice, and so would an accurate hypothesis.

done...anxious to do more....

 

[random325nicaea]

"you really do need to put what I said in context, making sense of it, rather than show your ignorance and willful hate by taking it out of context and twisting it so that you have an argument against what I say."

want to know what your argument is?
it's strawmanning laymen who take ToE for granted because of all it's validity in the scientific community and it's inclining that creationists are just and justibiably attacking this strawman when in fact they have extreme ultirior motives and do not bring the objection you say they bring in any way shape or form that it is intelectually honest or scientifically respectable.

"see above, your hatred is once again ruling your arguments and it is a pathetic argument when hatred rules."

rly. i have yet to see a creationists, or an ID'r who actually knows how science works.
even Behe, the most secular supporter of ID, had to admit he had to change the very definition of science in order to make ID, let alone creationism, science.

face it, most creationists and ID'rs lack a critical understandign of science.
you included with your "we can test for the supernatural claim". and any evidence that you DID, you are unwilling to provide. namely the actual experiment you claim to have.

"wrong."

look all all the creationists sources? look at all the ID sources.
they all seem to equate the actual robustness of the theory these last 150 years, with a sort of conspiracy against all dissidents, no matter what their ulterior motives are.
this card has been played and it fell flat on it's face in the light of the scientific illiteracy of the opponents.

"scientists maybe, evolutionists not so much.... which is the problem..."

well...if you redefine the term "evolutionists" to making it mean:
"all laymen that accept if on regards of their awe at science, and are to lazy to actually learn what it is, instead takign it on facevalue. but then lack the knowledge and training to scientifically explain it when some creationist pops along" instead of
"people who accept ToE" then ya...otherwise...

no. all (the overwhelming majority) scientists in the relevent fields accept ToE, and are thus evolutionists. face it, there is no despite within the scientific comminity and there is no confusion of the terms they use.

"you mean the same excuse you and other evolutionists use here?????..."

..now you're just blaming us of bias again. really you should learn the difference between ignoring data, and simply pointing out it's incorrect use.

"same on the evolutionist side of the argument....it's human nature for someone guided by belief not science, not logic, but belief."

auw....AUW.
are you accusing that people ignorant in their relevent fields of science are bedatign in the scientific arena on subjects they don't have a conprehensive knowledge on?
because that IS what you just wrote.
ToE's validity isn't decided by a layman with a superficial knowledge or a stron belief in the accurateness of contemporary science.
ITS DECIDED IN THE SCIENTIFIC ARENA, WHERE IT"S BEIGN AND HAS BEEN TESTED FOR 150 YEARS NOW.

"try again, more pathetic attempts at arguments that don't hold water..."

try again with such a weak rebuttal.

'and when we remove that possible, limiting the variables, we have a whole new ball game...why can't you understand that by now, why isn't it sinking into your head? It isn't hard to figure out...."

BECAUSE IT"S NOT A PRACTICAL POSSIBILITY BECAUSE IT"S IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY! how the HELL do you still not understand this.
science say's NOTHING about the supernatural BECAUSE THE SUPERNATURAL CANNOT BE VERIFIED BY SCIENCE BY DEFAULT.
god, ghosts, pixies...all of them hold no explanatory power and cannot be dismissed on account of their supernatural maker.
or to make it easier. disprove that we aren't living in the stomach of an invisible, allpowerfull space duck.

see the point now?

"what does that have to do with what I believe????"
it has to do with your attidute to the subject of ToE and your selflabeling of a "skeptic".

"I'm still waiting for you to explain any of your objections....or how any of your objections fit the discussion."

ehm...ok what is that referrign to in response to my "that traincrossing wasn't safe: remark? perhaps you migth want to outline to WHAT i was objecting, so i can further explain these objections.

"say what????? simulate all you want....no problem...let me know the results..."

[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].....HOW CAN I SIMULATE WHEN YOU WILL NOT SUPPLY ME WITH THE DATA AND THE PARAMETERS!
THOSE ARE WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR AND THOSE ARE WHAT ANY PHYSICIST WILL NEED FOR SUCHA SIMULATION.
perhaps writing this in caps would drive the point home..for the 3rd time..

"try again."

you still HAVE to try. i'm stil w8ing. walkign away form the burden of proof will not add to your credibility.

"wow, you need to listen better..."

it appears you need to learn more about the data and the studies that you're sourcing.

"sure, whatever you say, since you aren't willing to examine the evidence, you are free to dismiss it without cause...i"

will you stop this ***** already. i hav etold you SOOOOO many times to provide your evidence already. i have been open to all your data this entire time. and you have yet still to provide a single peach that actually supports ID in your skeptical viewpoint.

" Only this time it isnt' about god, but about you not willing to look at evidence."

PROVIDE ME, AND I WILL CONSIDER.

"On the issue of origins, both ToE and creation, I AM A SKEPTIC,"

no, you are ignorant and you've labeled your indescisiveness "skeptic".
really, learn more on ToE, THEN come back.

"How is that insecure,"

do i see you outline any of the claims you seem to support from either side? (what is relevant to me is what you disagree with in ToE and what you agree with in creationism).
no.

"f I was insecure, it would be much easier to aline myself with one side or the other for the support I would get against people full of hate, people like yourself."

no if you where insecure you would say "nescio" and say nothign of the matter. only choosing to discuss it when you have studied more about the subject.
intelectual honesty 101.

'Actually, being a skeptic in a field that has very few skeptics, is a brave and shows a great deal of confidence and security in who I am and what and why I believe what I do."

no, because you aren't really a skeptic.
don't put your ignorance of the science behind ToE and your natural affiliation to a supernatural agent on a pedastal.

"?????"

sigh.
if you had died, would it wtill have been a miracle?
if you had stayed in the car and it had collapsed and you did survive, would it still have been a miracle?
if you had stopped before the tracks and the train would ahve missed you, would it stil have been a miracle?

probabilty isn't special, what is special is that you eqaute the outcome with some outiside purpose.

"right, the car stops, it is no longer moving, no longer bending, and the integrity, and heat of the metal is such that suddenly it begins to bend again....please show that in a simulator...thanks..."

lawl...ehm from your description you'd probably also call this a miracle.
"fire in a tin can. i extingues the fire with a short burst of CO2, no more fire.
20 seconds later, the fire spontaniously starts again".
if you can explain that, i'll adress your remark.
oh and still, we gotot have parameters and startign data before we can even run the simulation, you're the one with that data tho..

"see previous post, it contains much more detail."

ergo

"read your posts as if they were written by a creationist and tell me what you see in them... "

not a creationist. because he would't hold this position. and ALSO not a creationists because apparently i'm aware of such things like "falsefiability" in science, and how science is done.

really, if i had been a creationist, i would have called the "2 ways to look at the evidence" or the "you're just biased/hate god" card. care to review the average creationists response and prove me wrong?

"so what is your problem then, if it is so easy, look it up, it's a matter of record.... "

FFS.
YOU HOLD THE BURDEN OF PROOF-> YOU PROVIDE THE SOURCES!!!
hw the hell do i even know where to look?
do i have you name, what type of car you where driving, what kind fo train it was, what day it was, what the wheather condition were?

no

and no, im not actually gonna trace your IP. that remark was just to explain to you that your little appeal to privacy, is useless in the internet, when making extraordinary claims AND trying to use them to support a point and then NOT OWNING UP TO THE PROOF OF BURDEN BECAUSE YOU'RE SCARED FOR YOUR PRIVACY!"

"see previous post and the details of the reasons I give"

moot, i really could care less who you are, where you live or who your family is.
all i care about is data and supported claims. and so far, you've been unwilling to provide either.

"and instead of pretending to be something you are not"

i do science, what do you do?

" put forth the effort, you will get more out of the experience if you do"

problem is, ithe effort isn't mine to put into it for the sole intelecctual honest reason of proof of burden is on the maker of the claim.

"aren't they teaching you in school to put forth any effort in your persuit for truth and knowledge?"

well fortunately, the DID teahc me to critically think in school. and they also told me to be able to pick a camp and support it with arguments. what they did knowledge wise, is simply provide me with what work has been compiled till now, have me study it, reproduce it,understand it's mechanisms. and then force me to comprehen them in the bigger picture of things.

what they teahc me in university is how to properly do science (but i know that already), further details on the subjects i chose to study, and they train me on how im supposed to conduct experiments.

"if you were willing, you would dismiss with the hatred and actually allow this discussion to become interesting and challenging."

hatred doesn't affect the truth of statements and claims.
hatred will not stand in my way of learning.
and it's time to got that through your skull.

"done...anxious to do more...."

eeehm no.
not done.
not even close.
first you come up with the what, how and why of your experiment, then you run it, ,THEN you analyze the data, and THEN you see if it supports your hypothesis. and only then, can you say it supports your point or not.

you haven't even gotten past the what step yet.

 

[random325nicaea]

"done...anxious to do more...."

or to better explain it to you.
you, are going to put forth e an experiment that you, i or anyone else, can put together and run to test your hypothesis. and you're going to explain what you are doing and with what you are doing it, step by step.

 

[razzelflabben]

"you really do need to put what I said in context, making sense of it, rather than show your ignorance and willful hate by taking it out of context and twisting it so that you have an argument against what I say."

want to know what your argument is?
it's strawmanning laymen who take ToE for granted because of all it's validity in the scientific community and it's inclining that creationists are just and justibiably attacking this strawman when in fact they have extreme ultirior motives and do not bring the objection you say they bring in any way shape or form that it is intelectually honest or scientifically respectable.

I no longer will be responding to your hate filled and false accusations, so my best advice, stop trying to make them the center of your argument, they will be ignored....!

"

see above, your hatred is once again ruling your arguments and it is a pathetic argument when hatred rules."

rly. i have yet to see a creationists, or an ID'r who actually knows how science works.
even Behe, the most secular supporter of ID, had to admit he had to change the very definition of science in order to make ID, let alone creationism, science.

face it, most creationists and ID'rs lack a critical understandign of science.
you included with your "we can test for the supernatural claim". and any evidence that you DID, you are unwilling to provide. namely the actual experiment you claim to have.

"wrong."

look all all the creationists sources? look at all the ID sources.
they all seem to equate the actual robustness of the theory these last 150 years, with a sort of conspiracy against all dissidents, no matter what their ulterior motives are.

we're not talking about creationist sources, but rather science....

this card has been played and it fell flat on it's face in the light of the scientific illiteracy of the opponents.

"

scientists maybe, evolutionists not so much.... which is the problem..."

well...if you redefine the term "evolutionists" to making it mean:
"all laymen that accept if on regards of their awe at science, and are to lazy to actually learn what it is, instead takign it on facevalue. but then lack the knowledge and training to scientifically explain it when some creationist pops along" instead of
"people who accept ToE" then ya...otherwise...

no. all (the overwhelming majority) scientists in the relevent fields accept ToE, and are thus evolutionists. face it, there is no despite within the scientific comminity and there is no confusion of the terms they use.

"you mean the same excuse you and other evolutionists use here?????..."

..now you're just blaming us of bias again. really you should learn the difference between ignoring data, and simply pointing out it's incorrect use.

"same on the evolutionist side of the argument....it's human nature for someone guided by belief not science, not logic, but belief."

auw....AUW.
are you accusing that people ignorant in their relevent fields of science are bedatign in the scientific arena on subjects they don't have a conprehensive knowledge on?
because that IS what you just wrote.
ToE's validity isn't decided by a layman with a superficial knowledge or a stron belief in the accurateness of contemporary science.
ITS DECIDED IN THE SCIENTIFIC ARENA, WHERE IT"S BEIGN AND HAS BEEN TESTED FOR 150 YEARS NOW.

"try again, more pathetic attempts at arguments that don't hold water..."

try again with such a weak rebuttal.

'and when we remove that possible, limiting the variables, we have a whole new ball game...why can't you understand that by now, why isn't it sinking into your head? It isn't hard to figure out...."

BECAUSE IT"S NOT A PRACTICAL POSSIBILITY BECAUSE IT"S IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY!

not at all and I have shown you how, but all you can argue is the god of the gaps that every evolutionist loves because it means they don't have to look at real evidence.

how the HELL do you still not understand this.
science say's NOTHING about the supernatural BECAUSE THE SUPERNATURAL CANNOT BE VERIFIED BY SCIENCE BY DEFAULT.
god, ghosts, pixies...all of them hold no explanatory power and cannot be dismissed on account of their supernatural maker.
or to make it easier. disprove that we aren't living in the stomach of an invisible, allpowerfull space duck.

see the point now?

oh, you point is clear....wrong, but clear....the thing your missing is that we are not testing something supernatural but rather we are testing our natural world for a supernatural intervention, or touch if you will. Take for example your stomack of a large duck...we can test our atmosphere for gastric juices, we can test for a lot of other things as well. The theory can be tested because it is part of our natural world. If God indeed is part of our natural world, we can absolutely test for that God.

"

what does that have to do with what I believe????"
it has to do with your attidute to the subject of ToE and your selflabeling of a "skeptic".

????? so you ask me what I believe, I tell you I am skeptic and in our discussion, offer a balanced argument for and against both the ToE and the ToC and all you can argue is that I didn't present what I actually believe...wow, I guess that is another of your hate filled, false accusations I will be ignoring from now on....

"

I'm still waiting for you to explain any of your objections....or how any of your objections fit the discussion."

ehm...ok what is that referrign to in response to my "that traincrossing wasn't safe: remark? perhaps you migth want to outline to WHAT i was objecting, so i can further explain these objections.

"say what????? simulate all you want....no problem...let me know the results..."

[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].....HOW CAN I SIMULATE WHEN YOU WILL NOT SUPPLY ME WITH THE DATA AND THE PARAMETERS!
THOSE ARE WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR AND THOSE ARE WHAT ANY PHYSICIST WILL NEED FOR SUCHA SIMULATION.

be specific, what do you want that wasn't provided....be specific now....

perhaps writing this in caps would drive the point home..for the 3rd time..

"try again."

you still HAVE to try. i'm stil w8ing. walkign away form the burden of proof will not add to your credibility.

"wow, you need to listen better..."

it appears you need to learn more about the data and the studies that you're sourcing.

"sure, whatever you say, since you aren't willing to examine the evidence, you are free to dismiss it without cause...i"

will you stop this ***** already. i hav etold you SOOOOO many times to provide your evidence already. i have been open to all your data this entire time. and you have yet still to provide a single peach that actually supports ID in your skeptical viewpoint.

I asked you, even begged you to discuss the fossile record with me, the strongest evidence against creation, and you refused, only to falsely accuse me repeatedly....so I'll do some more ignoring here and move on.

" Only this time it isnt' about god, but about you not willing to look at evidence."

PROVIDE ME, AND I WILL CONSIDER.

"On the issue of origins, both ToE and creation, I AM A SKEPTIC,"

no, you are ignorant and you've labeled your indescisiveness "skeptic".
really, learn more on ToE, THEN come back.

"How is that insecure,"

do i see you outline any of the claims you seem to support from either side? (what is relevant to me is what you disagree with in ToE and what you agree with in creationism).
no.

"f I was insecure, it would be much easier to aline myself with one side or the other for the support I would get against people full of hate, people like yourself."

no if you where insecure you would say "nescio" and say nothign of the matter. only choosing to discuss it when you have studied more about the subject.
intelectual honesty 101.

'Actually, being a skeptic in a field that has very few skeptics, is a brave and shows a great deal of confidence and security in who I am and what and why I believe what I do."

no, because you aren't really a skeptic.
don't put your ignorance of the science behind ToE and your natural affiliation to a supernatural agent on a pedastal.

"?????"

sigh.
if you had died, would it wtill have been a miracle?
if you had stayed in the car and it had collapsed and you did survive, would it still have been a miracle?
if you had stopped before the tracks and the train would ahve missed you, would it stil have been a miracle?

who said miracle? I said and intervention of God....different things....my claim was that it was a point in our natural world where the supernatural touch was apparent and as such could be tested for the claims the superantural would make in reguards to His intervention....if you can't even understand the claim, how can you hope to know if it is testable or not????? Talk about needing to study before attempting such an intellectual discussion...wow!

probabilty isn't special, what is special is that you eqaute the outcome with some outiside purpose.

"right, the car stops, it is no longer moving, no longer bending, and the integrity, and heat of the metal is such that suddenly it begins to bend again....please show that in a simulator...thanks..."

lawl...ehm from your description you'd probably also call this a miracle.
"fire in a tin can. i extingues the fire with a short burst of CO2, no more fire.
20 seconds later, the fire spontaniously starts again".
if you can explain that, i'll adress your remark.
oh and still, we gotot have parameters and startign data before we can even run the simulation, you're the one with that data tho..

"see previous post, it contains much more detail."

ergo

"read your posts as if they were written by a creationist and tell me what you see in them... "

not a creationist. because he would't hold this position. and ALSO not a creationists because apparently i'm aware of such things like "falsefiability" in science, and how science is done.

really, if i had been a creationist, i would have called the "2 ways to look at the evidence" or the "you're just biased/hate god" card. care to review the average creationists response and prove me wrong?

to what end??? this discussion isn't about the average response of anyone, it's about science and the scientific method.

"so what is your problem then, if it is so easy, look it up, it's a matter of record.... "

FFS.
YOU HOLD THE BURDEN OF PROOF-> YOU PROVIDE THE SOURCES!!!
hw the hell do i even know where to look?
do i have you name, what type of car you where driving, what kind fo train it was, what day it was, what the wheather condition were?

see your previous post where you brag about what all can be found about me because I am on a public forum....

no

and no, im not actually gonna trace your IP. that remark was just to explain to you that your little appeal to privacy, is useless in the internet, when making extraordinary claims AND trying to use them to support a point and then NOT OWNING UP TO THE PROOF OF BURDEN BECAUSE YOU'RE SCARED FOR YOUR PRIVACY!"

interesting that that is all you took from my explaination....not very honest of you.....interesting but more ignoring on my part

"see previous post and the details of the reasons I give"

moot, i really could care less who you are, where you live or who your family is.
all i care about is data and supported claims. and so far, you've been unwilling to provide either.

"and instead of pretending to be something you are not"

i do science, what do you do?

" put forth the effort, you will get more out of the experience if you do"

problem is, ithe effort isn't mine to put into it for the sole intelecctual honest reason of proof of burden is on the maker of the claim.

"aren't they teaching you in school to put forth any effort in your persuit for truth and knowledge?"

well fortunately, the DID teahc me to critically think in school. and they also told me to be able to pick a camp and support it with arguments. what they did knowledge wise, is simply provide me with what work has been compiled till now, have me study it, reproduce it,understand it's mechanisms. and then force me to comprehen them in the bigger picture of things.

what they teahc me in university is how to properly do science (but i know that already),

if you are already so intelligent to know how to do science properly, what the heck are you doing in university???? You should be teaching it, or doing science, heck you are some kind of genius, why don't we know your name???? Do you have some prestigious prize yet??? Can't wait to see what kind of intelligence comes out of your scientific endeavors....my guess however is that this statement is not only overstated, but based on arrogance and pride...in fact, I have known true genius in the field of science and married the grandson of a genius scientist and that is real genius, not arrogant claims of such.....

further details on the subjects i chose to study, and they train me on how im supposed to conduct experiments.

"if you were willing, you would dismiss with the hatred and actually allow this discussion to become interesting and challenging."

hatred doesn't affect the truth of statements and claims.

no, but it does affect how they are interpreted and responded to.

hatred will not stand in my way of learning.
and it's time to got that through your skull.

"done...anxious to do more...."

eeehm no.
not done.
not even close.
first you come up with the what, how and why of your experiment, then you run it, ,THEN you analyze the data, and THEN you see if it supports your hypothesis. and only then, can you say it supports your point or not.

you haven't even gotten past the what step yet.

actually I have, but only to those whose eyes are not clouded by hatred and anger...

 

[random325nicaea]

"I no longer will be responding to your hate filled and false accusations, so my best advice, stop trying to make them the center of your argument, they will be ignored....!"

translation :"i CRAIM VICTOLY!"
no, really. you need to start understanding how you're responses sound.

"we're not talking about creationist sources, but rather science...."

would you even know the difference between an ID source and a peer reviewed article?

"not at all and I have shown you how, but all you can argue is the god of the gaps that every evolutionist loves because it means they don't have to look at real evidence."

how can i, an atheist, argue god of the gaps?
i'll say NECSIO when i do not know. whereas any ID'r will say "gooooood".
don't believe me? look at all the proposed irreducible complexity arguments that have been debunked.

"the thing your missing is that we are not testing something supernatural but rather we are testing our natural world for a supernatural intervention,"

-_-
i really cannot fathom how this hasn't sunk in yet.,
let me adres it to you, by ad hocing your rebuttal to my explination.

'we can test our atmosphere for gastric juices, we can test for a lot of other things as well."

well that's because his stomach doesn't contain juices. it contains all the matter in the universe.

" The theory can be tested because it is part of our natural world. If God indeed is part of our natural world, we can absolutely test for that God."

problem is he's not. unless you are willing to subject him to all the natural laws, in which case there has been no observation nor anything that would lead us to suggest something of it's caliber is manually tinkering on life and the universe.

"????? so you ask me what I believe, I tell you I am skeptic and in our discussion, offer a balanced argument for and against both the ToE and the ToC and all you can argue is that I didn't present what I actually believe...wow, I guess that is another of your hate filled, false accusations I will be ignoring from now on...."

you haven't presented ANYthing, outside fo accusations of bias, that would even nick ToE.

"be specific, what do you want that wasn't provided....be specific now...."

....and this is another one of those moments i facepalm and think to myself..
how does this person even think of claimign scientific literacy.

you cannot run a simulation if you haven't any parameters to put into it.

"I asked you, even begged you to discuss the fossile record with me, the strongest evidence against creation, and you refused, only to falsely accuse me repeatedly....so I'll do some more ignoring here and move on."

eehm rly? i didn't see that. mind if you quote the post to me? because that is a topic i wouldn't midn discussing.

"who said miracle? I said and intervention of God....different things"

nnnnooooooope.

"my claim was that it was a point in our natural world where the supernatural touch was apparent and as such could be tested for the claims the superantural would make in reguards to His interventio"

do you see how you are invokigna supernatural mechanism right now? how do you proposese we test for this mechanism ey?

"if you can't even understand the claim, how can you hope to know if it is testable or not????? Talk about needing to study before attempting such an intellectual discussion...wow! "

you DO understand that you are prone to connectin anythgin that woudl seem coincidental, and yet beneficial to you, as beign the intervention of god.. liek your survival of that accident, don't you? you are proposign we test for the natural mechanism that made you survive that accident, and then you wish to attribute them to a supernatural entitiy, while you JUST tested for the natural explination that required no supernatural agent whatsoever.

"to what end??? this discussion isn't about the average response of anyone, it's about science and the scientific method."

no it's about you inclining that my posts are structured he same way as a creationists. in response to which i demenstrated that they are NOT structured lieka creationist.

"see your previous post where you brag about what all can be found about me because I am on a public forum...."

...auw. the intelectual dishonest is jsut hurting here.
I AM NOT SUPPOSE TO TRACK DOWN YOUR DATA WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM.
either own up to the burden of proof. of retract the claim.
either give me the experiments setup, a formulated hypothesis, or stop claiming you have any experiment.

"interesting that that is all you took from my explaination....not very honest of you.....interesting but more ignoring on my part"

sigh.
-i ask data
-you refuse to provide
-i ask again
-you say you will only indirectly connect me but will not state me your name, then you ask me to aks when if i wanted the data reference (which i already asked twice)
- i point out i already asked for it, and that such precoutions are pretty useless on the internet, and that you have to dirctly source and not send me to do your work.
- you still refuse to provide data.

end.

"if you are already so intelligent to know how to do science properly, what the heck are you doing in university???? "

AUW! THE SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY BURNS!!!
i first have to get all the acedmeic degrees. or did that slip your mind????!
i need to spend more then 10 years before i will actually become qualified to teacha t a university.
but seeing as you didn't know this, i presume you have no idea how the system works.

"You should be teaching it, or doing science, heck you are some kind of genius, why don't we know your name???? Do you have some prestigious prize yet???"

stop with the childish BS, and cut to providing me the data i aksed for. you've bene trolling this long enough.

"Can't wait to see what kind of intelligence comes out of your scientific endeavors....my guess however is that this statement is not only overstated, but based on arrogance and pride"

you grab up a molecular genetics journal in 7 years and THEN make that statement.

"in fact, I have known true genius in the field of science and married the grandson of a genius scientist and that is real genius, not arrogant claims of such....."

then why even troll like you're ignroant of all the academic trails that needed to eb passed first? is it because you wanted to troll, or because you really didn't know?
btw, if you're baosting about knowing a genius scientists (like it gives you any credibility), then i find it odd that you still haven't provided me with an experiment.

"no, but it does affect how they are interpreted and responded to. "

you do understand that that doesn't happen in scientific literate people, don't you?

"actually I have, but only to those whose eyes are not clouded by hatred and anger..."

repeating such little trolling statements doesn't magically make a experiment apear on my hard drive.
really, provide me a methodology and a worked out hypothesis, or just admit it was a foolish bluff.

 

[random325nicaea]

if you do not provide me with a methodology or with the data a physisist would need for a simulation. then i'll end this right here.
i see no further need to keep on going with this pointless ocnversation where you keep beatign aroudn the bush and actuall think that the validity of a scientific theory is decided by layman. grab a science journal, or attent some courses.
it is becomign exceedingly frustratign to see you bluff anysort of credibility when you sorely lack in it.

oh and has your son started read those books i recommended yet?

 

[razzelflabben]

"I no longer will be responding to your hate filled and false accusations, so my best advice, stop trying to make them the center of your argument, they will be ignored....!"

translation :"i CRAIM VICTOLY!"
no, really. you need to start understanding how you're responses sound.

"we're not talking about creationist sources, but rather science...."

would you even know the difference between an ID source and a peer reviewed article?

"not at all and I have shown you how, but all you can argue is the god of the gaps that every evolutionist loves because it means they don't have to look at real evidence."

how can i, an atheist, argue god of the gaps?
i'll say NECSIO when i do not know. whereas any ID'r will say "gooooood".
don't believe me? look at all the proposed irreducible complexity arguments that have been debunked.

so all your objections are based on your religious views...thanks for admitting your bias right up front and explaining why you purposely close your eyes to evidence that challenges your ideas.

"

the thing your missing is that we are not testing something supernatural but rather we are testing our natural world for a supernatural intervention,"

-_-
i really cannot fathom how this hasn't sunk in yet.,
let me adres it to you, by ad hocing your rebuttal to my explination.

'we can test our atmosphere for gastric juices, we can test for a lot of other things as well."

well that's because his stomach doesn't contain juices. it contains all the matter in the universe.

then he isn't a duck now is he....

"

The theory can be tested because it is part of our natural world. If God indeed is part of our natural world, we can absolutely test for that God."

problem is he's not. unless you are willing to subject him to all the natural laws, in which case there has been no observation nor anything that would lead us to suggest something of it's caliber is manually tinkering on life and the universe.

"????? so you ask me what I believe, I tell you I am skeptic and in our discussion, offer a balanced argument for and against both the ToE and the ToC and all you can argue is that I didn't present what I actually believe...wow, I guess that is another of your hate filled, false accusations I will be ignoring from now on...."

you haven't presented ANYthing, outside fo accusations of bias, that would even nick ToE.

"be specific, what do you want that wasn't provided....be specific now...."

....and this is another one of those moments i facepalm and think to myself..
how does this person even think of claimign scientific literacy.

you cannot run a simulation if you haven't any parameters to put into it.

"I asked you, even begged you to discuss the fossile record with me, the strongest evidence against creation, and you refused, only to falsely accuse me repeatedly....so I'll do some more ignoring here and move on."

eehm rly? i didn't see that. mind if you quote the post to me? because that is a topic i wouldn't midn discussing.

"who said miracle? I said and intervention of God....different things"

nnnnooooooope.

"my claim was that it was a point in our natural world where the supernatural touch was apparent and as such could be tested for the claims the superantural would make in reguards to His interventio"

do you see how you are invokigna supernatural mechanism right now? how do you proposese we test for this mechanism ey?

I "invoke" supernatural mechanism because I tested it against the claims of the deity in question and there was only one viable conclusion.

"if you can't even understand the claim, how can you hope to know if it is testable or not????? Talk about needing to study before attempting such an intellectual discussion...wow! "

you DO understand that you are prone to connectin anythgin that woudl seem coincidental, and yet beneficial to you, as beign the intervention of god.. liek your survival of that accident, don't you? you are proposign we test for the natural mechanism that made you survive that accident, and then you wish to attribute them to a supernatural entitiy, while you JUST tested for the natural explination that required no supernatural agent whatsoever.

not a clue how any of this dribble addresses what I have acutually said, so not sure whether I need to ignore it or address it....

"to what end??? this discussion isn't about the average response of anyone, it's about science and the scientific method."

no it's about you inclining that my posts are structured he same way as a creationists. in response to which i demenstrated that they are NOT structured lieka creationist.

"see your previous post where you brag about what all can be found about me because I am on a public forum...."

...auw. the intelectual dishonest is jsut hurting here.
I AM NOT SUPPOSE TO TRACK DOWN YOUR DATA WHEN YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM.
either own up to the burden of proof. of retract the claim.
either give me the experiments setup, a formulated hypothesis, or stop claiming you have any experiment.

"interesting that that is all you took from my explaination....not very honest of you.....interesting but more ignoring on my part"

sigh.
-i ask data
-you refuse to provide
-i ask again
-you say you will only indirectly connect me but will not state me your name, then you ask me to aks when if i wanted the data reference (which i already asked twice)
- i point out i already asked for it, and that such precoutions are pretty useless on the internet, and that you have to dirctly source and not send me to do your work.
- you still refuse to provide data.

end.

"if you are already so intelligent to know how to do science properly, what the heck are you doing in university???? "

AUW! THE SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY BURNS!!!
i first have to get all the acedmeic degrees. or did that slip your mind????!
i need to spend more then 10 years before i will actually become qualified to teacha t a university.
but seeing as you didn't know this, i presume you have no idea how the system works.

"You should be teaching it, or doing science, heck you are some kind of genius, why don't we know your name???? Do you have some prestigious prize yet???"

stop with the childish BS, and cut to providing me the data i aksed for. you've bene trolling this long enough.

I've been warned for using BS before, word of caution, you might not want to keep trying to call my comments BS especially when they are far from it. Any bull being slung here is easy to trace back to you and unfortunately you have admitted it when you admitted to bias, anger, and hatred.

"Can't wait to see what kind of intelligence comes out of your scientific endeavors....my guess however is that this statement is not only overstated, but based on arrogance and pride"

you grab up a molecular genetics journal in 7 years and THEN make that statement.

"in fact, I have known true genius in the field of science and married the grandson of a genius scientist and that is real genius, not arrogant claims of such....."

then why even troll like you're ignroant of all the academic trails that needed to eb passed first? is it because you wanted to troll, or because you really didn't know?
btw, if you're baosting about knowing a genius scientists (like it gives you any credibility), then i find it odd that you still haven't provided me with an experiment.

"no, but it does affect how they are interpreted and responded to. "

you do understand that that doesn't happen in scientific literate people, don't you?

"actually I have, but only to those whose eyes are not clouded by hatred and anger..."

repeating such little trolling statements doesn't magically make a experiment apear on my hard drive.
really, provide me a methodology and a worked out hypothesis, or just admit it was a foolish bluff.

I wonder when people are stumped for an intellectual response why they start claiming that others are trolling rather than just fess up to not having an intellectual answer, many people in this world live by none intellectual, none rational beliefs, it's not something to be ashamed of, not even for an atheist like yourself. Not being honest, that is something to be ashamed of....your beliefs are one's of religious preference, no problem, stop trying to pretend they are other....at least I can look at both sides and see problems with both as well as good answers from both, that is anything but an emotional response...you should try it sometime, might open your eyes up to a world of possibilities and scientific realities that you haven't even scratched the surface of yet....

 

[random325nicaea]

"so all your objections are based on your religious views...thanks for admitting your bias right up front and explaining why you purposely close your eyes to evidence that challenges your ideas."

no they are based on observable reality.
if there is no need for god (eg: no evidence to indicate it's exitacne or intervention) i will not make the mental mind flip to include him in the explination.
simple ochams really.

"then he isn't a duck now is he...."

didn't i say he's all powerfull? he doesn't NEED stomach juices, and his stomach can fit all of the universe. he just makes it appear like

do you see where this is going? ad hoc.

"I "invoke" supernatural mechanism because I tested it against the claims of the deity in question and there was only one viable conclusion."

you tested it to what a christian god would be expected to do?
how do you conclude it was the christian god?? it might just as well have been Zeus POSING as a chrisitan god. i really cannot see how you can make any kind of intelectually honest reasonign to conlcude it MUS have been Yaweh, and not some other superpowerfull entity. the onyl reason i can think of is that you want it to be yaweh and will not consider any other alternative.

or in othe wordss, a hindu would have claimed it was shiva's intervention and a buddist would have called it karma.

"not a clue how any of this dribble addresses what I have acutually said, so not sure whether I need to ignore it or address it...."

.....i'm really not going to repeat myself.

"I've been warned for using BS before, word of caution, you might not want to keep trying to call my comments BS especially when they are far from it"

woooaaw because i'm gettign frustrated at you makign such a childish remark i can't use a little abrev? bottem line of that remark was that if you know how it went on in the scientifci community, you would have made your remark, unless you intended to insult me. so either you were ignorant, or you decided to sling some mood.

"Any bull being slung here is easy to trace back to you and unfortunately you have admitted it when you admitted to bias, anger, and hatred."

because i hate cognative dissonance and willfull ignorance.

you seem to fail to understand that you're argument are only compelling to people who already believe in god. you first have to convince people that there is a god before they can accept any of your explinations. and seemign as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....a little relabelign "god" from ignorance isn't going to cut it.

"I wonder when people are stumped for an intellectual response why they start claiming that others are trolling rather than just fess up to not having an intellectual answer,"

i'v asked you now, repeatedly, to provide me with an actual experiment that can be conducted ina scientific format.
i've asked you for the data a physisist would require for a simulation of your accident, as you expressed you wanted that simulation to be done.

so far you've provided neither.
instead you beat around the bush, blamed me for bias, insinuated the validity of science is defined by how well layman can represent it, and calle dme arrogant.

what else can i conclude, but that you aren't troling here?

"many people in this world live by none intellectual, none rational beliefs, it's not something to be ashamed of, not even for an atheist like yourself."

no, they are.
because when you hold such positions and when you are forced to substanciate them and fail to do so. you MUST for your own intelectuall honesties sake, admit that you are wrong and change your mind.
i will gladly laugh a an atheists that believes in fairies in the same way i will laugh at a YEC. to me the absurdety and the unsubstantiability of the claism is nearly the same.

"your beliefs are one's of religious preference, no problem, stop trying to pretend they are other"

no.
my non acceptence of the claim of the existance of one or many god is NOT what is making my position. obervable and narutally explainable and predictable reality is.
the atheism just follows by defacto when no theist manages to convince me of the existance of a god or gods.
wheras your ENTIRE arguemtn rests solely on your religious convictions because you invoke your god as explination to phenomena, and then claim that these phenomena are reason to accept the god claim. which makes that, circular reasoning.

it's real simple. if you where an atheist. you could not hold the position you are holding. yet if you think there is a god, you can hold my position (which hasn't dealt with the existance of god yet, just wiht the fact that we cannot account for him in explaining observable reality).

many religious people would be glad to just slide god into the supernatural slot and just vaguely invoke him as some deeper purpose behind the patterns their brain sees.
only a portion (abeit vocal) will actually go as for as to claim he actually directly intervienes and has interviened in reality. but to then use this claim of intervention to support his existance is intellectual suicide, because he needed be invoked in the first place.

STOP TRYING TO PLAY THE "religious bias" card on me.
it does not work on an atheist.

"t least I can look at both sides and see problems with both as well as good answers from both,"

you have yet to show a single problem with ToE, outised of accusing the scientific community of ostrazising any religiously inspired mumbojumbo. failure to understand WHY these religious views aren't science IS " an emotional response.".

"you should try it sometime, might open your eyes up to a world of possibilities and scientific realities that you haven't even scratched the surface of yet...."

do still not have ANY idea how idiotic that sounds to someone who is actually beign trained to be a scientists? do you actually think i haven't considered all the agruments provided by ID'rs creationists or deists?
i have, and i've dealt with them all.

you on the otherhand have yet to delve deep enough into science, to understand why all ID claims are bunk and how it's demonstrably wrong to claim a supernatural agent for anythign and then claim it's "science".

 

[razzelflabben]

"so all your objections are based on your religious views...thanks for admitting your bias right up front and explaining why you purposely close your eyes to evidence that challenges your ideas."

no they are based on observable reality.
if there is no need for god (eg: no evidence to indicate it's exitacne or intervention) i will not make the mental mind flip to include him in the explination.
simple ochams really.

I don't know what happened to my post but at least you saw it and are responding to it...as to your response...no one is asking you to...what we are asking is that you look at the evidence and consider it for what it says, but unfortunately that request is left hollow in the eyes of "irrational belief syndrome" (commercial) (that is what happens when beliefs/emotions rule over all else in our lives.

"

then he isn't a duck now is he...."

didn't i say he's all powerfull? he doesn't NEED stomach juices, and his stomach can fit all of the universe. he just makes it appear like

do you see where this is going? ad hoc.

that is god of the gaps theory we desided to dismiss...your claim was we were in the stomach of a giant duck, if there are no stomach juices, then we can falsify the giant duck story you presented....which is the point isn't it!!!!! When you get rid of the hatred maybe you will understand this concept....we may not be able to test what others contribute to God, but we can test what claims God makes of Himself.

"

I "invoke" supernatural mechanism because I tested it against the claims of the deity in question and there was only one viable conclusion."

you tested it to what a christian god would be expected to do?
how do you conclude it was the christian god?? it might just as well have been Zeus POSING as a chrisitan god. i really cannot see how you can make any kind of intelectually honest reasonign to conlcude it MUS have been Yaweh, and not some other superpowerfull entity. the onyl reason i can think of is that you want it to be yaweh and will not consider any other alternative.

you believe in fairytales too much to be a good scientist....stop inserting the god of the gaps argument into everything you do....I think that is what gets most evolutionists messed up, they pretend what is not, therefore inject what they want to conclude without evidence to back up the claims.

or in othe wordss, a hindu would have claimed it was shiva's intervention and a buddist would have called it karma.

both are testable, which is the point....

"not a clue how any of this dribble addresses what I have acutually said, so not sure whether I need to ignore it or address it...."

.....i'm really not going to repeat myself.

"I've been warned for using BS before, word of caution, you might not want to keep trying to call my comments BS especially when they are far from it"

woooaaw because i'm gettign frustrated at you makign such a childish remark i can't use a little abrev? bottem line of that remark was that if you know how it went on in the scientifci community, you would have made your remark, unless you intended to insult me. so either you were ignorant, or you decided to sling some mood.

not a clue what you missed in my remarks to draw this conclusion, hopefully you learn to do science properly and don't use this same poor techniques in that science.

"Any bull being slung here is easy to trace back to you and unfortunately you have admitted it when you admitted to bias, anger, and hatred."

because i hate cognative dissonance and willfull ignorance.

so you hate yourself now???

you seem to fail to understand that you're argument are only compelling to people who already believe in god. you first have to convince people that there is a god before they can accept any of your explinations. and seemign as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....a little relabelign "god" from ignorance isn't going to cut it.

again, not what we are talking about, and again, I asked you to test for that God and then consider the evidence not just dismiss it....I really think you are in the wrong field of study when you respond like this....

"I wonder when people are stumped for an intellectual response why they start claiming that others are trolling rather than just fess up to not having an intellectual answer,"

i'v asked you now, repeatedly, to provide me with an actual experiment that can be conducted ina scientific format.
i've asked you for the data a physisist would require for a simulation of your accident, as you expressed you wanted that simulation to be done.

so far you've provided neither.
instead you beat around the bush, blamed me for bias, insinuated the validity of science is defined by how well layman can represent it, and calle dme arrogant.

what else can i conclude, but that you aren't troling here?

how many times must the experiement be done before you accept that it was done and evidenced that it was not a natural result???? The rest of this part is nothing more than hostile dribble of which I will ignore.

"many people in this world live by none intellectual, none rational beliefs, it's not something to be ashamed of, not even for an atheist like yourself."

no, they are.
because when you hold such positions and when you are forced to substanciate them and fail to do so. you MUST for your own intelectuall honesties sake, admit that you are wrong and change your mind.
i will gladly laugh a an atheists that believes in fairies in the same way i will laugh at a YEC. to me the absurdety and the unsubstantiability of the claism is nearly the same.

except I'm neither atheist nor YECist....so when will you take me seriously enough to at least listen to what I say, whether you find it obsurd or not is yet to be seen....

"your beliefs are one's of religious preference, no problem, stop trying to pretend they are other"

no.
my non acceptence of the claim of the existance of one or many god is NOT what is making my position. obervable and narutally explainable and predictable reality is.
the atheism just follows by defacto when no theist manages to convince me of the existance of a god or gods.
wheras your ENTIRE arguemtn rests solely on your religious convictions because you invoke your god as explination to phenomena, and then claim that these phenomena are reason to accept the god claim. which makes that, circular reasoning.

you really do need to listen instead of assume what I am saying...

it's real simple. if you where an atheist. you could not hold the position you are holding. yet if you think there is a god, you can hold my position (which hasn't dealt with the existance of god yet, just wiht the fact that we cannot account for him in explaining observable reality).

so now we can't test for God because your an athesist???? wow, that is terrible scientific thought process...seriously dude, consider a different line of study.

many religious people would be glad to just slide god into the supernatural slot and just vaguely invoke him as some deeper purpose behind the patterns their brain sees.
only a portion (abeit vocal) will actually go as for as to claim he actually directly intervienes and has interviened in reality. but to then use this claim of intervention to support his existance is intellectual suicide, because he needed be invoked in the first place.

good thing that isn't what I did then, huh? !!!!!!

STOP TRYING TO PLAY THE "religious bias" card on me.
it does not work on an atheist.

"t least I can look at both sides and see problems with both as well as good answers from both,"

you have yet to show a single problem with ToE, outised of accusing the scientific community of ostrazising any religiously inspired mumbojumbo. failure to understand WHY these religious views aren't science IS " an emotional response.".

you have insured that we can't discuss either scientifically yet, so that blame is yours.

"you should try it sometime, might open your eyes up to a world of possibilities and scientific realities that you haven't even scratched the surface of yet...."

do still not have ANY idea how idiotic that sounds to someone who is actually beign trained to be a scientists? do you actually think i haven't considered all the agruments provided by ID'rs creationists or deists?
i have, and i've dealt with them all.

which is why we are having a problem, I'm not a ID'rs, Creationist, or deist, I'm a skeptic, therefore you don't listen, you don't think you have to, your own "intellect" tells you that I have nothing to present, not your willingness to find out. It is that bias and hatred that have prevented this discussion from moving forward.

you on the otherhand have yet to delve deep enough into science, to understand why all ID claims are bunk and how it's demonstrably wrong to claim a supernatural agent for anythign and then claim it's "science".

don't be too sure....

 

[random325nicaea]

"what we are asking is that you look at the evidence and consider it for what it says,"

yes, and what do you WANT me to see what it indicated? that's right. god instead of natural processes.

and that is NOT the way it works.

""irrational belief syndrome""

please stop playing this card.

"that is god of the gaps theory we desided to dismiss"

and see how it influences your proposed experiment? see how it bleed through your entire notion that we can test for a supernatural intervention in natural phenomena?

"your claim was we were in the stomach of a giant duck, if there are no stomach juices, then we can falsify the giant duck story you presented"

nope, i never said the space duck had any juices. like i said. omnipotent duck, he can do and be anything.

"which is the point isn't it!!!!! "

and lets see...you're capable of doing this for the duck, but are incapable of doing this for your own god?

"When you get rid of the hatred maybe you will understand this concept"

soooo close to getting the point, but just not there yet.

"we may not be able to test what others contribute to God, but we can test what claims God makes of Himself."

which come from...the bible....which means.
eve was created form adams rib, which means eve was clones from adams bonemarrow cells. or did he use magic to skip that part? or must we "interpret" that differently, if so, that opens the door to reasing all kind of stuff into the bible that isn't there. aka, making your myths fit with science.

"you believe in fairytales too much to be a good scientist"

noo, i happened to be versed on classical literature.
but you missed the point i think.

"stop inserting the god of the gaps argument into everything you do"

stop trying to insert god into natural explinations.

"I think that is what gets most evolutionists messed up, they pretend what is not, therefore inject what they want to conclude without evidence to back up the claims."

auw, you just [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]slapped all scientists around the world.
tnx...
but srly.
evidence-> conclusion.
and no ->god step in between. if natural can cut it, why presume god was behind it.

"not a clue what you missed in my remarks to draw this conclusion, hopefully you learn to do science properly and don't use this same poor techniques in that science."

hypocrit, you would be capable of writing up an experiment if your life depended on it. i've already asked you 4 times while your intelectual honesty depended on it. and so far you'd rather see that float away then to oblidge the proof of burden.

"so you hate yourself now???"

cheeky, but missed nonetheless.
the survival of your intellectual honesty is STILL pendign on whether you give me that experiment you said you had..

"again, not what we are talking about, and again, I asked you to test for that God and then consider the evidence"

you have yet to provide me with such an experiment that coclusively proves divine intervention was nessecary and did not require his insertion AFTER the natural explination had been given.

"I really think you are in the wrong field of study when you respond like this...."

and i really think you have no idea what happens ihn any field of scientific study.

"how many times must the experiement be done before you accept that it was done and evidenced that it was not a natural result???"

ehm FIRST give me such an experiment.
then have it give the same result EACH AND EVERY TIME we run it.
that is one of those cornerstones of science you know.
i'd guess i'll accept the results as valid when we ran it about 4 times, and once i ran it myself.

"The rest of this part is nothing more than hostile dribble of which I will ignore."

"closed eyes, claps hands over ears and screams :"....!!!!""

"except I'm neither atheist nor YECist"

i already KNEW that. but my example was to show you the HUGE SPECTRUM of intellectual dishonesty i ridicule when it gets exposed.
ID'ers claiming to test for god, is ONE OF those catagories.
and people who claim they have an experiment but then are unwilling to give it, are ALSO a catagory.

however you can easily solve #2 if you were to give em that experiment already.

"so when will you take me seriously enough to at least listen to what I say,"

i've been taking you serious THIS ENTIRE TIME, otherwise why would i be responding?

"whether you find it obsurd or not is yet to be seen...."

THEN give me the data! then we'll see if it's truly absurd or not!

"you really do need to listen instead of assume what I am saying..."

you really shouldn't keep distancing yourself to the incinuations you keep making.

you attempted to throw
""your beliefs are one's of religious preference, no problem, stop trying to pretend they are other""

at me to try and level out the field because your entire position relies on your religious convictions, while mine does not.

"so now we can't test for God because your an athesist"

no i'm sayign you cannot empirically test for god AT ALL, regardless of whether your a theist, deist, or atheist.
it just cannot be done. that is the very nature of a scientific test.
of course, you COULD prove me wrong by providign em with an experiment that does JUST THAT.
so...i'm w8ing..still..

" wow, that is terrible scientific thought process."

noooo, scientifically literate.
natural phenomena-> natural explinations soooo, we can only presume a natural expliantions. it's so simple.

"seriously dude, consider a different line of study."

seriously, gain a thurough understandign of the scientific method

"good thing that isn't what I did then, huh? !!!!!!"

no, that is EXACTLY what you proposed.

test for god's divine intervention in natural processess that appeared designed with a purpose.
in essence you wil then come up with a natural explination (how they work and what the evolutionary intermediates were) and THEN you inster god as explination because they "have a purpose".

"you have insured that we can't discuss either scientifically yet, so that blame is yours."

you have insured that you again cannot understand what the problem is by using science to support the supernatural.

"which is why we are having a problem, I'm not a ID'rs, Creationist, or deist, I'm a skeptic,"

no, you are ignorant on the subject.
skeptic wouldn't be the right word.
and YES you attest that the ID camp holds some merit, even going as far to claim to have a test for god's intervention. so i CAN treat you like an ID proponent in this discussion. and i cannot treat you like a "evolutionists' because you are sorely lacking on knowledge in that area.

" therefore you don't listen, you don't think you have to, your own "intellect" tells you that I have nothing to present, "

no, what you HAVE presented tells me you have nothign substantial to present.
ofc you could prove me wrong....experiment ey?

"not your willingness to find out."

willing the entire time,, but still nothign to seriously evaluate.

"It is that bias and hatred that have prevented this discussion from moving forward."

no, it's you beating aroudn the bush with this paranoid feeling of being opressed and harrased.

either you cut the crap and get to the meat. or you'll just keep stalling this discussion even longer.

"don't be too sure...."

your posts leave me with nothign else to conclude..provided you aren't knowingly trying this ID angle.

 

[random325nicaea]

"1. Select problem
In order to design an experiment, a problem has to be selected and phrased. It is the selection and the phrasing of the problem that will direct the design and outcomes of an experiment. The simplest and most concise way of phrasing a problem is by addressing the “Who, What, When, Why and How” questions. To illustrate the purpose of stating a problem, assume an experiment is designed in which data on automobile accidents is collected. Depending on how the problem is stated, the experiment could be serving to either design a new automobile, or design a new road surface. Thus, even though the same set of data is used, the purpose of the experiment is vastly different, depending on how the problem is stated. Many times, research or experiments have already been completed regarding this issue or similar to your question. In designing the experiment, you need to consider underlying models that have already been proven to make your research more in depth and accurate.
2. Determining dependent variables
The dependent variables are the variables that are being measured throughout the experiment. There can be many different dependent variables measured during an experiment.First, you need to split the dependent variables into two different subcategories, system level and individual level. On a system level, questions are taken into consideration regarding the experiment itself taking place. System level variables need to be created to ensure that when the conclusion is reached, it is backed up by as many different angles as possible to support the conclusion. This idea is known as converging operations. For example, a system level dependent variable is how many experimenters are used during a certain task. On an individual level, the dependent variables are measurements of a particular subject. Individual level dependent variables need to be a reducible and analyzable measurement. If the experiment were repeated identically, the individual variables need to provide identical data while removing all risks possible. For example, the amount of time it takes for a certain participant to complete a task. Both system-level and individual level dependent variables need to be concrete enough that the audience reading the experiment will accept the found data.Dependent variables can include performance measures, subjective measures, and physical response. Performance measures include examples such as how long it took for the participant to complete the task as well as the number of mistakes that were made. Subjective measures include whether or not the participants preferred the method used and how many scales were used during the experiment. Finally, physical responses include injuries that occurred or changes in physiological measurements.
3. Determining independent variables
The independent variables are the variables that are manipulated in the experiment. Independent variables include things related to people such as age, sex, vision, level of education or general work experience.This brings about the topic of obtaining suitable human subjects. To ensure that the specifications of the independent variables are met, subjects should be screened prior to running the experiment. Subjects may be offered an incentive in cash or kind in exchange for their cooperation.
4. Determining the number of levels of independent variables
The number of levels of independent variables determines the number of experimental conditions to be manipulated. This is important in determining the extent of the scope of the experiment. For example, if an experimenter were to design an experiment to examine the relative performance of 10 automobiles, the independent variable, in this case the type of automobile, would have 10 levels.
5. Determining the possible combinations
The types of combinations between the independent variables have to be established in order for the experiment to be valid. Using the earlier example of automobiles, it may not be feasible to compare Model A with an automatic transmission with Model B which has a manual transmission. Therefore, it is important to establish the possible types of combinations.
6. Determining the number of observations
It is insufficient to obtain one observation. Depending on the desired analysis, there are certain factors that need to be taken into consideration when deciding on the number of observations. This includes the number of trials before a subject becomes familiar with the experiment, the number of trials before fatigue sets in and the number of trials required to obtain statically significant data.
7. Redesign
Redesign is necessary in order to obtain the optimal design. When flaws or inconsistencies are found in the current experiment design, a redesign is necessary to correct them. Examples of flaws and inconsistencies include inaccurate statement of the problem, choosing the wrong variables and not being able to obtain the required apparatus. The recommended timeframe for redesign is as follows;

• 45% - Planning and scheduling
• 5-10% - Testing
• 45-50% - Reduction, analysis and writing

8. Randomization
A randomized, controlled trial is considered the most reliable and impartial method of determining necessary data. Randomization is a process that assigns research participants by chance, rather than by choice, to either the investigation group or the control group. Normally, groups of subjects are organized by age, sex, or education, depending on the experiment, to gather concrete data. This process ensures that the trials are not set to receive the preferred results.
9. Meet ethical and legal requirements
Infamous examples of the Tuskegee Experiment, the Milgram experiment and others have dramatized ethical issues involved with experimenting on humans; there are significant moral issues of experimenting on animals as well. Legal requirements have accordingly developed. In the United States, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a regulating authority on many experiments conducted on humans to ensure that they protect the rights and welfare of the research subjects. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Health and Human Services regulations have empowered the IRB to approve, require modifications in planned research prior to approval, or to disapprove research, for certain research such as intended for presentation in FDA drug approval processes. American universities receiving federal funding require researchers to obtain prior approval from institutional review boards before implementing studies of animal subjects, especially humans.
10. Mathematical model
In order to ensure that the experiment is valid, it is useful to develop a mathematical model to the entire system. By doing this, anomalies and infeasible ideas can be weeded out immediately. By basing the experiment upon valid mathematical principles, it ensures that all aspects of the experiment are practical and feasible.
11. Data collection
The data collection portion of experiment design must make sure that the experiment is supported by factual data. This involves collecting raw data while adhering to the experimental conditions. The data from this portion is expected to be large and chunky.
12. Data reduction
This portion involves cleaning up the raw data into manageable chunks which can then be utilized. Not all the data that was collected may be pertinent and thus should be excluded from the analysis.
13. Data verification
The most important part of the entire process is the data verification. This is often done by plotting the reduced data, allowing the experimenter to visually locate significant outlying points which may indicate erroneous data collection. If the data is skewed in any way, experimenters either look back at the methods used and redesign a phase of the experiment or they faithfully cite their findings."ok i just ripped this off Design of experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

keep these steps in mind when writing up your experiment you claim you have.

 

[razzelflabben]

"what we are asking is that you look at the evidence and consider it for what it says,"

yes, and what do you WANT me to see what it indicated? that's right. god instead of natural processes.

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. Bias doesn't allow us to see the evidence for what it is, which is why the goal of science is to remove bias....something you fail time and time again to grasp....

and that is NOT the way it works.

"

"irrational belief syndrome""

please stop playing this card.

"that is god of the gaps theory we desided to dismiss"

and see how it influences your proposed experiment? see how it bleed through your entire notion that we can test for a supernatural intervention in natural phenomena?

not at all, you are the one who keeps inserting god of the gaps, I insist it does not enter the discussion much less the argument. Which is something that always amazes me, why it is the evolutionist that insists on using the god of the gaps theory, why not just dismiss that argument and deal with what evidence shows? Why is it so hard for an evolutionist to just look at the evidence without making some nonsense argument like god of the gaps?

"

your claim was we were in the stomach of a giant duck, if there are no stomach juices, then we can falsify the giant duck story you presented"

nope, i never said the space duck had any juices. like i said. omnipotent duck, he can do and be anything.

you said it was a giant duck, we can test for that....you didn't make other claims...see that is the point. I am not interested in all kinds of excuses, only in what the evidence tells us, either the evidence testifies to a creator, or it does not, no excuses, no bias, no adjusting to fit some belief...we look at the claims (hypothesis-theory) and test it, and draw a viable conclusion....if you cannot bring yourself to dismiss the god of the gaps argument, then at least try this....look at the evidence and determine if the claims of the deity were fulfilled or falsified...no excuses, either the claims hold true, or they don't...leave the excuses up to the personal beliefs of each individual, only look at the evidence, the evidence will either show that the claims of the deity hold true or they don't....why are you trying to make this so hard???? It isn't rocket science, it's basic stuff, and you still don't get it.

"

which is the point isn't it!!!!! "

and lets see...you're capable of doing this for the duck, but are incapable of doing this for your own god?

?????????? you ask us to test for a duck, we do that and find the claim to be falsified....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...what makes that a double standard? In both, we look at the evidence, in both we look for falsification, in both we refuse to accept variables that have not been previously stated....etc. etc. etc. Just because conclusions are different doesn't mean the standards, methods, etc. are different...surely in your university classes, you have been taught that the validity of an experiment is not determined by having the same outcome as all other experiments, but rather the validity is in the quality of the experiment....Ah well, I have been told our universities are in shambles...

"

When you get rid of the hatred maybe you will understand this concept"

soooo close to getting the point, but just not there yet.

"we may not be able to test what others contribute to God, but we can test what claims God makes of Himself."

which come from...the bible....which means.
eve was created form adams rib, which means eve was clones from adams bonemarrow cells.

didn't we talk about this already, nothing in the test says clone, like raw materials used to create something don't automatically make it a clone....wow, you don't learn very fast, do you?

or did he use magic to skip that part? or must we "interpret" that differently, if so, that opens the door to reasing all kind of stuff into the bible that isn't there. aka, making your myths fit with science.

why not simply start with whether or not the evidence suggests a creator, we can add all this other stuff if and when we determine if a creator is consistant with the evidence.....we might discover that the evidence shows a creator, 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.

"you believe in fairytales too much to be a good scientist"

noo, i happened to be versed on classical literature.
but you missed the point i think.

"stop inserting the god of the gaps argument into everything you do"

stop trying to insert god into natural explinations.

"I think that is what gets most evolutionists messed up, they pretend what is not, therefore inject what they want to conclude without evidence to back up the claims."

auw, you just [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]slapped all scientists around the world.
tnx...

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....

but srly.
evidence-> conclusion.
and no ->god step in between. if natural can cut it, why presume god was behind it.

you do realize after all this time I hope that I am not asking anyone to presume anything, but rather asking that we look at the evidence and draw a logical conclusion based on the evidence and logic.

"not a clue what you missed in my remarks to draw this conclusion, hopefully you learn to do science properly and don't use this same poor techniques in that science."

hypocrit, you would be capable of writing up an experiment if your life depended on it. i've already asked you 4 times while your intelectual honesty depended on it. and so far you'd rather see that float away then to oblidge the proof of burden.

see previous posts, your attempts to belittle me will not work...your attempts at false accusations, though sad will not produce the responses you desire....

"so you hate yourself now???"

cheeky, but missed nonetheless.
the survival of your intellectual honesty is STILL pendign on whether you give me that experiment you said you had..

"again, not what we are talking about, and again, I asked you to test for that God and then consider the evidence"

you have yet to provide me with such an experiment that coclusively proves divine intervention was nessecary and did not require his insertion AFTER the natural explination had been given.

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), and both were fatalities....and that is only two experiments within a 3 week time period...same crossing same train speed, same location, etc. etc. etc. No need for a simulator, but that is only part of the experiment anyway...

"I really think you are in the wrong field of study when you respond like this...."

and i really think you have no idea what happens ihn any field of scientific study.

what you think is irrelavent, what is relavent is what the evidence shows and the logical conclusion thereof...

"how many times must the experiement be done before you accept that it was done and evidenced that it was not a natural result???"

ehm FIRST give me such an experiment.
then have it give the same result EACH AND EVERY TIME we run it.
that is one of those cornerstones of science you know.
i'd guess i'll accept the results as valid when we ran it about 4 times, and once i ran it myself.

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....

"The rest of this part is nothing more than hostile dribble of which I will ignore."

"closed eyes, claps hands over ears and screams :"....!!!!""

"except I'm neither atheist nor YECist"

i already KNEW that. but my example was to show you the HUGE SPECTRUM of intellectual dishonesty i ridicule when it gets exposed.
ID'ers claiming to test for god, is ONE OF those catagories.
and people who claim they have an experiment but then are unwilling to give it, are ALSO a catagory.

however you can easily solve #2 if you were to give em that experiment already.

when you get hit by a train, let me know...the experiment has been preformed many times over...

"so when will you take me seriously enough to at least listen to what I say,"

i've been taking you serious THIS ENTIRE TIME, otherwise why would i be responding?

"whether you find it obsurd or not is yet to be seen...."

THEN give me the data! then we'll see if it's truly absurd or not!

"you really do need to listen instead of assume what I am saying..."

you really shouldn't keep distancing yourself to the incinuations you keep making.

you attempted to throw
""your beliefs are one's of religious preference, no problem, stop trying to pretend they are other""

at me to try and level out the field because your entire position relies on your religious convictions, while mine does not.

"so now we can't test for God because your an athesist"

no i'm sayign you cannot empirically test for god AT ALL, regardless of whether your a theist, deist, or atheist.
it just cannot be done. that is the very nature of a scientific test.
of course, you COULD prove me wrong by providign em with an experiment that does JUST THAT.
so...i'm w8ing..still..

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.

" wow, that is terrible scientific thought process."

noooo, scientifically literate.
natural phenomena-> natural explinations soooo, we can only presume a natural expliantions. it's so simple.

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...

"seriously dude, consider a different line of study."

seriously, gain a thurough understandign of the scientific method

"good thing that isn't what I did then, huh? !!!!!!"

no, that is EXACTLY what you proposed.

test for god's divine intervention in natural processess that appeared designed with a purpose.
in essence you wil then come up with a natural explination (how they work and what the evolutionary intermediates were) and THEN you inster god as explination because they "have a purpose".

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...

"you have insured that we can't discuss either scientifically yet, so that blame is yours."

you have insured that you again cannot understand what the problem is by using science to support the supernatural.

"which is why we are having a problem, I'm not a ID'rs, Creationist, or deist, I'm a skeptic,"

no, you are ignorant on the subject.
skeptic wouldn't be the right word.
and YES you attest that the ID camp holds some merit, even going as far to claim to have a test for god's intervention. so i CAN treat you like an ID proponent in this discussion. and i cannot treat you like a "evolutionists' because you are sorely lacking on knowledge in that area.

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? Not very scientific of you.... is this how you do all science?

" therefore you don't listen, you don't think you have to, your own "intellect" tells you that I have nothing to present, "

no, what you HAVE presented tells me you have nothign substantial to present.
ofc you could prove me wrong....experiment ey?

"not your willingness to find out."

willing the entire time,, but still nothign to seriously evaluate.

"It is that bias and hatred that have prevented this discussion from moving forward."

no, it's you beating aroudn the bush with this paranoid feeling of being opressed and harrased.

except I don't feel oppressed and harrassed, that is your imagination playing tricks on you again.

either you cut the crap and get to the meat. or you'll just keep stalling this discussion even longer.

"don't be too sure...."

your posts leave me with nothign else to conclude..provided you aren't knowingly trying this ID angle.

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...

 

[random325nicaea]

"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. again, WHY would this evidence then be used in and ID argument? " 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. scientists are respected to be non biased and always intellectually honest. but to ensure that, we got peer review. but again, understanding that natural explanations say nothing about the existence or the intervention of a deity is NOT bias, 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, and therefor cannot be used as evidence for the existence of such an agent. 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. 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?" 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. "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 it this way, he's interchangeable with magic leprechauns, or yaweh. 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. for you to assume that on the basis of no substantial evidence is intellectually dishonest. 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 science you gotto trim down all those variables you know. you want to look at any specifc genisis claims? god made men from clay. ????? we're made form organic compounds...NOT clay minerals. god created eve from adam's rib. meaning the only natural process here described is cloning from marrow. 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????" 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, and not choosing to invoke god in any of them. leading you to call all those scientist "biased". " 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. 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. "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. 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". this is where i can see the deep religious inspiration of your posts. 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. "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. 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. "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, 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. 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. btw, you seem to curiously elude of actually posting the numbers...weird ey? 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, 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....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.. 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. "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? 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!

 

[random325nicaea]

??!??!?...what happened to my post format??? ok for some reason the forum bugged on me in that posts.. apologies for the unreadability. i tried to fix it, but id didn't seem to work.