Lines of Evidence (2)

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Say what you want to say. No more linking to obscure posts.

'....you shouldn't be on the science forums where evidence is used to test hypotheses.' - Loudmouth (post 1002 - Lines of Evidence)

'....'Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.'

Glossary Definition: Scientism ....' (post 34 - Lines of Evidence)

'....I found something pretty good to read on Biologos, which explains the difference between "species" and "kind" From the Archives: Speciation and Macroevolution | The BioLogos Forum ....' (post 46 - Lines of Evidence)

A. WHAT EXACTLY IS: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
B. WHAT IS THE PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF MACROEVOLUTION?

 

[Davian]

Welcome back.

Have some popcorn. I just made a fresh batch.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Welcome back.

Have some popcorn. I just made a fresh batch.

Ta, a good idea. The one thing I did not include on my shopping list. Microwave popcorn, yum!

 

[Davian]

Ta, a good idea. The one thing I did not include on my shopping list. Microwave popcorn, yum!

Hot air popped is better, and better for you.

The Proctor Silex Hot Air Popcorn Pumper® - "The cornpopper that uses hot air, not hot oil":

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

That's some nice big old popcorn you've got there, but it doesn't look very sanitary.

 

[crjmurray]

Welcome back.

Have some popcorn. I just made a fresh batch.

HOW HAVE YOU GOTTEN THIS MONOPOLY ON THE POPCORN?!?!?!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

HOW HAVE YOU GOTTEN THIS MONOPOLY ON THE POPCORN?!?!?!

It's better than a "."

 

[Loudmouth]

'....you shouldn't be on the science forums where evidence is used to test hypotheses.' - Loudmouth (post 1002 - Lines of Evidence)

'....'Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.'

Glossary Definition: Scientism ....' (post 34 - Lines of Evidence)

Not the same thing. Zosimus was trying to argue that the scientific method doesn't work because it is illogical. It isn't evolution or any theory in science that Zosimus is directly arguing against. Rather, he is arguing against the scientific method itself. He isn't arguing against the idea of only using science, but of using science at all.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Not the same thing. Zosimus was trying to argue that the scientific method doesn't work because it is illogical. It isn't evolution or any theory in science that Zosimus is directly arguing against. Rather, he is arguing against the scientific method itself. He isn't arguing against the idea of only using science, but of using science at all.

I knew I should have included the posts where he argued about species, and rejected macroevolution. But you must have seen that, right? (113 to 117)

 

[Davian]

That's some nice big old popcorn you've got there, but it doesn't look very sanitary.

The plastic does get a bit beat up over the 25 years we have had it, but then that is a wiki image, not mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

I knew I should have included the posts where he argued about species, and rejected macroevolution. But you must have seen that, right?

Macroevolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Take a sheet of paper and put a dot on it.

Label that dot CYANOBACTERIA.

Now make another dot and label it HOMO SAPIENS.

Now make some dots between them and label them:

• Pan troglodytes
• Pan paniscus
• Homo sapiens
• Gorilla gorilla

Put another dot and call it COMMON ANCESTOR.

Now just draw lines to each one and call it MACROEVOLUTION.

Notice the connect-the-dots in this video?

[youtube]yGy2es-KbK8[/youtube]

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Macroevolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

I'm glad you're finally presenting some of your own ideas, about what you think they mean. I hope you're going to own this one, and not hide behind yet another cut-n-paste post by someone else -- and then say it's what they think.
If this is what you think MACROEVOLUTION is, then I guess you have quite a bit to learn about EVOLUTION. I look forward to seeing you on the other side.

 

[Loudmouth]

Macroevolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Take a sheet of paper and put a dot on it.

Label that dot CYANOBACTERIA.

Now make another dot and label it HOMO SAPIENS.

Now make some dots between them and label them:

• Pan troglodytes
• Pan paniscus
• Homo sapiens
• Gorilla gorilla

Put another dot and call it COMMON ANCESTOR.

Now just draw lines to each one and call it MACROEVOLUTION.

Notice the connect-the-dots in this video?

So what should the dots really be if evolution is true?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm glad you're finally presenting some of your own ideas, about what you think they mean. I hope you're going to own this one, and not hide behind yet another cut-n-paste post by someone else -- and then say it's what they think.

I'm not hiding behind anything, chief.

Macroevolution is a lie of the devil, and it only works on paper.

It's nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

If this is what you think MACROEVOLUTION is, then I guess you have quite a bit to learn about EVOLUTION.

I'll pass.

I don't need to learn about evolution, since I believe evolution's antithesis -- the Bible.

A child should be able to look an evolutionist in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

Evolution runs on deep time; something the Bible doesn't accommodate.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm not hiding behind anything, chief.

Don't get to comfortable on your couch, Doc.

Macroevolution is a lie of the devil, and it only works on paper.

It's gone way beyond that, but why do you invoke the devil?

It's nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Dots? I think you need to upgrade your text book, son.

I'll pass.

I hope you do.

I don't need to learn about evolution, since I believe evolution's antithesis -- the Bible.

Of course you do. Why else would you invest so many hours a day, arguing on a SCIENCE FORUM?

A child should be able to look an evolutionist in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

It's hard to pull the wool over a child's eyes, but one thing is certain there has been way too much pseudo-scientific stuff preached over the pulpit!!!

Evolution runs on deep time; something the Bible doesn't accommodate.

I guess a lot depends on whether you believe that those old story tellers knew about real science. How about it, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess a lot depends on whether you believe that those old story tellers knew about real science. How about it, AV?

They don't need to know about real science.

All they need to believe is that the universe has been running for only about 6000 years.

Anything needing more time to operate then, would be automatically dismissed as wrong.

If you said you had a Formula One race car that has attained 450 mph on Highway 7, and Highway 7 is only ½ miles long, I would not believe you.

And I wouldn't need to know the intricacies of how your car works to believe you're wrong, either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They don't need to know about real science.

All they need to believe is that the universe has been running for only about 6000 years.

Anything needing more time to operate then, would be automatically dismissed as wrong.

If you said you had a Formula One race car that has attained 450 mph on Highway 7, and Highway 7 is only ½ miles long, I would not believe you.

And I wouldn't need to know the intricacies of how your car works to believe you're wrong, either.

AV, you do not seem to know what real science is. You do not make unfounded assumptions in science. One does not assume that the Bible story or the story of any other religion is true in science. The Bible never refers to a spherical Earth, it only refers to a flat one. Does that mean that the Earth is flat?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you do not seem to know what real science is.

I don't need to know what real science is.

Again, if I believe in something's antithesis, then it's safe to say I believe the antithesis of its antithesis is wrong.

If for example, I believe taking LSD is wrong, I don't need to know the molecular formula for LSD, its specific gravity, color, how it affects the human body, its side-effects, long-term effects, whether or not it is against the law, how to make it, where it's sold, etc.

Our greatest President who ever lived had a wife who used to say:

JUST SAY NO

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

AV, you do not seem to know what real science is. You do not make unfounded assumptions in science. One does not assume that the Bible story or the story of any other religion is true in science. The Bible never refers to a spherical Earth, it only refers to a flat one. Does that mean that the Earth is flat?

Hold on a minute, there is one passage in the Bible about 'the circle of the earth' and wasn't there something about that in the book of Job (near the end) ?
I think that in this case AV doesn't know what to do with ideas like the age of the earth. I never saw him post a single comment on RickG's 'Dating Methods'

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I don't need to know what real science is.

You are clearly wrong. I think that if St. Paul had been alive in our time, he might have written very differently to the way he did in his letters. Remember he was man who had studied many things and engaged in dialogue with many different sorts of people, because of this. He most certainly would have taken cognizance of the advances of science in his time. He was no Christian Fundy!!!!

Again, if I believe in something's antithesis, then it's safe to say I believe the antithesis of its antithesis is wrong.

If for example, I believe taking LSD is wrong, I don't need to know the molecular formula for LSD, its specific gravity, color, how it affects the human body, its side-effects, long-term effects, whether or not it is against the law, how to make it, where it's sold, etc.

Our greatest President who ever lived had a wife who used to say:

JUST SAY NO

LSD was actually quite an interesting drug. I only ever took it once and it had some rather interesting side-effects. Not everyone has been that fortunate.
Have you ever read 'The Cause and Cure of the Drug Epidemic' by Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith?