How can science "explain" miracles?

[Huram Abi]

No. You made a mistake in your analogy by saying "Imagine I'm driving to the grocery store, and I see a man walking beside the road.

I arrive at my destination, do my shopping, and on my way back to my car, I see he same man walk across the parking lot and into a shop."


That's not an analogy of an observation of macroevolution.

 

[The Paul]

No. You made a mistake in your analogy by saying "Imagine I'm driving to the grocery store, and I see a man walking beside the road.

I arrive at my destination, do my shopping, and on my way back to my car, I see he same man walk across the parking lot and into a shop."


That's not an analogy of an observation of macroevolution.

No, no, your criticism was that my analogy involved time travel.

Your analogy includes a single observer in a time machine. Essentially you are saying that macroevolution was invented through time travel.

See? If you change your story midway through an argument online your opponent just quotes your original claim.

 

[Huram Abi]

It does.

I haven't changed my story.


Your analogy has nothing to do with macroevolution. It has to do with time travel.

 

[AV1611VET]

It does.

I haven't changed my story.


Your analogy has nothing to do with macroevolution. It has to do with time travel.

I say it's an analogy of microevolution.

 

[Huram Abi]

I say it's an analogy of microevolution.

You would be closer.

 

[The Paul]

It does.

Hrm, let's recap.

-I conceded that it might seem to involve time travel to a person who holds the ridiculous notion that time travel is the only way to learn something about the past.

-You claimed that it would have to involve time travel because there was only a single observer.

-I pointed out to you that because this is an analogy there is not literally only a single observer.

-You made the vague statement "That's not an analogy of an observation of macroevolution."

-I reminded you your original claim was that my analogy claimed time travel.

-You re-adopted this position, despite our already having established this belief was based on your inability to recognize entities in the analogous story are not literal.

So... do you have a new reason to claim I'm talking about time travel, or are you just blathering?

 

[Huram Abi]

Hrm, let's recap.

-I conceded that it might seem to involve time travel to a person who holds the ridiculous notion that time travel is the only way to learn something about the past.

I stopped reading after this.


Your analogy wasn't talking about learning something about the past.

Your analogy was about learning about something AS IT IS HAPPENING.

Since macroevolution takes much longer than a human lifetime, the only way for such an observation to take place is with a time machine.


You aren't going to pigeonhole me into the ridiculous position that the only way to learn something about the past is through time travel. My response is simply to the errors in your analogy.

Figure that out and we'll talk about the rest.

 

[Orogeny]

Gentlemen, what say we get back to the thread topic?

 

[The Paul]

Okay, so...

You aren't going to pigeonhole me into the ridiculous position that the only way to learn something about the past is through time travel. My response is simply to the errors in your analogy.

You understand that it's possible to learn thing about the past without building a time machine.

Are you able to understand that we do this be observing things in the present? That since we can't travel back in time in order to learn things about the past we must do and observe things now or in the future?

 

[Huram Abi]

Obviously. Which is why the "I passed the guy while he was walking" doesn't work.

 

[Huram Abi]

Gentlemen, what say we get back to the thread topic?

Give us a segwey.

 

[Upisoft]

Gentlemen, what say we get back to the thread topic?

Miracle by definition is something unexplainable, so science cannot explain miracle. After something is explained it stops being a miracle, so asking science to do something impossible... well... is not wise...

 

[Huram Abi]

Miracles aren't exactly unexplainable as they are extraordinary.

In terms of probability models, these are called "statistical outliers."

 

[AV1611VET]

Give us a segwey.

He said, 'gentlemen', so that leaves me out --

 

[Belk]

Give us a segwey.

 

[Huram Abi]

He said, 'gentlemen', so that leaves me out --

I've seen you have your moments.

 

[Huram Abi]

Ah, yes... the synthesis of the scientific and the miraculous.

 

[Upisoft]

Miracles aren't exactly unexplainable as they are extraordinary.

In terms of probability models, these are called "statistical outliers."

Rare events are not miracles. If something has known natural cause it is not a miracle, no matter how rare it happens. And "explanation" in science terms is "finding natural cause".

For example tellurium-128 has extremely long half life, thus probability of decay of nuclei is extremely low, much lower than say winning lottery. Yet it happens and it is not a miracle.

 

[Huram Abi]

I'll recognize yours as one of the definitions for a miracle if you'll recognize mine as another.

 

[Upisoft]

I'll recognize yours as one of the definitions for a miracle if you'll recognize mine as another.

As long as you not claim your definition is scientific I will agree. But the topic includes both "science" and " miracle" in one sentence, thus discussing non scientific definitions of "miracle" is not for this thread.