uh ... what?
Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
aharvey
New member
Well, I've seen the pictures you've drawn to illustrate ideas that you like, so I wouldn't recommend it here!
Just quickly, you're still doing the create-a-strawman-then-mock-it thing here; is it just part of your essential Christianity or what?
Variety itself is not evidence. There are patterns in that variety (it's not just random variation); that's the part that always seems to trip you guys up. I have a game that can illustrate this nicely; let me think about how to convert it to web form.
By the way, don't forget to explain why it's okay for you to assert without justification that something is impossible when that assertion is demonstrably not "perfectly obvious," and more so why it is necessary for others to demonstrate that this empty assertion is incorrect.
And I know it's not this thread, but given that Walt is Bob's "favorite scientist," I'm sure he won't mind if I remind you here not to forget about resolving your latest set of hydroplate contradictions.
OK, OK, so it's 8 month's later, but Supersport wrote:
OK, OK, so it's 8 month's later, but Supersport wrote:
Supersport, on Dec. 6, 2008 commenting on RSF Caterpillar Kills Atheism in another forum, wrote:
Wow, Supersport, that's humbling. I shared your comment with Fred Williams. You equally encourage us! Thanks!
In Christ,
Bob Enyart
OK, OK, so it's 8 month's later, but Supersport wrote:
Supersport, on Dec. 6, 2008 commenting on RSF Caterpillar Kills Atheism in another forum, wrote:
Wow, Supersport, that's humbling. I shared your comment with Fred Williams. You equally encourage us! Thanks!
In Christ,
Bob Enyart
Last edited by a moderator:
One word: flatfish.
By another forum do you mean another Bob Enyart thread or another forum entirely? If the latter can you give a cite to the particular forum? I've seen supersport post in other fora. He tends to flame out when hit with real facts by real scientists.
Or oysters.
Just more of the fundamentalist, "I don't see how this is possible, therefore Goddidit".
Nope. It's one. :banana:
I am as much of an "evolustionist" as I am a "gravitationalist", but I'll answer your question if you like.
In the same way that gravity can be disproven, yes. Evolution is an observation...Do you mean disprove "natural selection" which is currently the best scientific explanation there is for the observation of evolution? Sure, in theory, natural selection can be disproved.
This kind of quip I find most droll. As if the scientist cares before hand what mode of operations his observations take. In other words, science is about observing and explaining truth phenomena, so your statement is much of the kettle calling the pot, a "kettle".
:e4e:
You don't have to give up your faith to be a scientist, or an engineer. But if you wish to be one of my peers, you might have to resign your views on the "bias" nature of the scientific method which I addressed above. You can't just look at the evidence that you think suits your fancy. And this is exactly what creationists and ID'ers do. They don't wish to do science, they just wish to attempt to throw sticks into the proverbial gears of people who really do wish to do science, but who's findings may compete with the asserted dogmatic claims of the religious.
How so? Are you an exact replica of your father and mother? Suppose that you lived in a "dog eat dog" type environment in the wild. And suppose that you lived off of a certain type of moss that grows between damp rocky area's just barely large enough for a small hand to slide in to rub some of that moss off to eat. Now imagine your brother was born with a gene that made his hand slightly larger than your father or yours. His mutation for a slightly larger hand would be completely random, but due to it, he would be naturally selected to not be able to feed himself, and therefor die (most likely before passing his large hand genes on). Now imagine that your genes made your hand slightly smaller than the norm, and therefore allows you to feed yourself with greater ability. You would most likely survive in order to pass your small hand gene's on.
By this logic, the same random mutation that your brother received naturally brought his life, and genes, to an end. Whereas you were naturally selected as more suitable for passing your genes on in your environment...
So tell me how they are "clashing concepts" again...?
Mary,
Simply put, just because an observed phenomena has yet to be explained in full, does not mean that it cannot be explained. If one wishes to debate science and science philosophy, you might want to refresh yourself on how science works.
Science is not about making random claims and then searching for evidence to fit the claim. The important first step that most people miss, who are ignorant of the scientific method, is "observation".
The scientific method proceeds thus:
1) Observation - a phenomena is witnessed/observed in which no explanation is existing
2) Hypothesis - An educated guess is made about the natural events that surround the observed phenomena.
3) Vigorous testing - A testing procedure is designed in order to validate or reject the hypothesis in step 2.
4) If multiple different tests suggest validity to the hypothesis, then you have a "theory". If not, reformulate the hypothesis and begin testing (step 3) again.
This is far different than:
1) Make claim regardless of observation
2) Only search for evidence that (you think) validates your claim
3) (part a) If none is found, then imply that a competing hypothesis/theory has holes. (part b) Do this because it doesn't agree with your own assertions.
4) Do no research, but insist that you have enough understanding to invalidate the research of others because of an unanswered "question". If question is answered go back to step 3 (part b).
As a person of science and research myself, I've stood in front of a review board giving presentations for research that I and my colleagues had done. There were many questions that went unanswered in the review process, but this only implied that we were yet to explore those domains. Our reviewers did not say "Oh, you have many major holes in your research!"
Last edited:
- Status