|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2007 : 16:22:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Yet again, your belief is based on speculation and assuming and not on a known. You've demonstrated my whole point on belief in fish-to-philosophere evolution in a nutshell.
|
Apparently your whole argument is built upon throwing out unsupported assertions, dodging and failing to back up your leading statements, denying things you said earlier, and expecting that repetition and hand-waving will somehow win the day.
And you're winning converts for whom?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 01:51:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Hawks
Here's the million dollar question: What do you call it when your conclusion is also your assumption?
|
Unscience?
|
A theory.
|
My question was rhetorical, something most people realized - but thanks everyone who chipped in anyway. Could I also recommend that Bill Scott tries to give the real answer to the question. He could actually learn something by doing it. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 06:16:35 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| If I go back to your example of a gascan and matches at an arson, and I find that the soot is correct for a gasoline fire, and I find a witness who puts Joe Blow at the scene, and I find some of Joe's clothes in his garbage, and I find the same soot in Joe's clothes as at the scene, and a search warrant produces a monogrammed pocket watch in Joe's house which belonged to the owner of the arsoned property, then you're telling me that because we don't know whether Joe entered the property with his left foot or right foot first, we cannot convict him of the crime. |
I never said that we could not convict him. I only said that our conviction would be based on a belief, which we based on our interpretation of the evidence. If we now can get a jury to believe the reasoning behind our interpretation of the evidence then we have a conviction. It still does not give us 100% certainty that Joe Blow did in fact start the blaze. Many innocent people have been found to be sitting in jail cells and they were placed there by a jury's belief that the most reasonable explanation for the evidence was that the accused did commit the crime. Many guilty people walk the streets free for the same reason. A consensus does not negate the fact that the man was convicted on a belief that he was guilty. Science works in much the same way. A consensus of scientists that support fish-to-philosopher does not negate the fact that the consensus is a belief of what is thought to be true. But, just as in many jury's, we see that a consensus, which is arrived at using evidence and scientific methods, is still not the 100% slam dunk that fish-to-philosopher supporters like to think that it is.
| The "big picture" is clear with regard to evolution, Bill. You're looking at all the details that have yet to be filled in, and claiming that the theory is "based on" them. It's not, because you've got things backwards. |
I am not claiming the theory is based on them, if I implied that then that was not my intention. What I am saying is that because of the endless amounts of unknowns that would go into such a vast subject that it would be unreasonable to challenge the notion that the conclusion is a belief of that which is thought to be the most reasonable explanation based on the interpretation of the evidence.
I only added to this by pointing out that even a consensus, which was based on a strict interpretation of the scientific evidence, can still come to a wrong conclusion. I used a jury as an example.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 06:18:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Here's the funny part....
Bill, are you or are you not 100% certain that your god exists?
I already know your answer, because you have made it quite clear in the past.
So now, if you really agree that there can be "no real knowledge", you must also admit that your certainty in a deity is based upon an assumption, and therefore (as you claim with ToE) it must be speculative.
Billscott admits that his deity belief is speculative.... who'd a thunk?
|
Why are you getting so giddy over something that is already know and of which I have never denied?
Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists. Meaning, I believe God created the universe but I can't perform an experiment for you that proves this belief.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 06:52:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
|
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Coelacanth who went on at some length about speculations. |
He did say this:
In the end as skeptics, we must realise. There is no real knowledge. There is only what is most reasonable to believe.
| Well, ID looks to be right up his alley. |
I don't believe he ever denied this. His point, if I'm not mistaken, was that in reality, both sides have no real knowledge and only have what is most reasonable to believe. We both look at the same evidence and come away with what we both find as more reasonable to believe. It's all speculation and assumptions. This is why I believe most might take offence when the other position labels their position as "insane." The one doing the labeling is holding onto an assumed position whilst making this deceleration.
I will go ahead and dismiss dude and HH's definition of empirical as being: what is most reasonable for them to believe, as unacceptable.
|
Letīs get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions. HOWEVER, when new evidence is found, when new technology and new knowledge are available, science DOES look at the assumptions it made in the past AND corrects them.
Does Religion do that? ...no?
I thought so.
Case dismissed!
(edited to fix quoted post and spelling) |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
| Edited by - perrodetokio on 10/30/2007 09:08:03 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 07:11:15 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by perrodetokio |
| Letīs get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions. |
Now if we can just get dude to acknowledge this.
| HOWEVER, when you evidence is found, when new technology and new knowledge are available, science DOES look at the assumptions it made in the past AND corrects them. |
And then they assume that they got the revision correct. Making your conclusion in fish-to-philosopher evolution a belief that you hold.
| Does Religion do that? ...no? |
Not that I am aware of.
As did I.
What case?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 09:16:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by perrodetokio |
| Letīs get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions. |
Now if we can just get dude to acknowledge this.
| HOWEVER, when you evidence is found, when new technology and new knowledge are available, science DOES look at the assumptions it made in the past AND corrects them. |
And then they assume that they got the revision correct. Making your conclusion in fish-to-philosopher evolution a belief that you hold.
| Does Religion do that? ...no? |
Not that I am aware of.
As did I.
What case?
|
The case of passing ID as science...
The case of (Theists) trying to argue that science is like religion....
The case that: itīs just the same to believe in the bible or to "believe" in evolution.
The case that on either side (bible literalist or science) itīs just a question of "faith".
The case that skepticism is dogmatic.
I could go on an on if you donīt get the point.
I mean lots of things regarded by scientist as correct have later on, and sometimes by the same scientists, been corrected when new evidence is found and new data is available. And that is something that I have never heard of happenning in religion.
(edited to add)
Bill, when youīre sick donīt go see a doctor. See, the evil materialistic pig is only assuming (since that what you say science does, and only that) that a certain medicine will cure you!!! Rather pray and GOD will save you... or not! he may have a plan for you to die and that reminds me: donīt take your kids (if you have) to the doctor since if they die theyīll go to heaven which is a much better place.
|
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
| Edited by - perrodetokio on 10/30/2007 09:22:12 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 09:54:37 [Permalink]
|
bill said:
Why are you getting so giddy over something that is already know and of which I have never denied?
Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists. Meaning, I believe God created the universe but I can't perform an experiment for you that proves this belief.
|
Because it illustrates the staggering degree of hypocrisy you exhibit.
Your goal with evolution is to be able to claim it is false.
You admit to the same speculation with your diety belief that you accuse most scientists of with evolution, yet you cling to it firmly, and you have the audacity to criticise skeptics and scientists for doing (so you claim) the exact same thing, in your mind, with regard to evolution!
Your dishonesty is shamefull Bill.
So, when can we expect your essay on how your religion is just speculative, and that people should consider a naturalistic explanation for the universe?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 11:06:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Why are you getting so giddy over something that is already know and of which I have never denied?
Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists. Meaning, I believe God created the universe but I can't perform an experiment for you that proves this belief.
|
What I don't understand about this is, why do you believe in God and not fish-to-man Evolution when there is so much more evidence pointing to the reality of fish-to-man Evolution than there is for the existence of God...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 11:45:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Bill scott
Why are you getting so giddy over something that is already know and of which I have never denied?
Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists. Meaning, I believe God created the universe but I can't perform an experiment for you that proves this belief.
|
What I don't understand about this is, why do you believe in God and not fish-to-man Evolution when there is so much more evidence pointing to the reality of fish-to-man Evolution than there is for the existence of God...
|
Because that's Bill's game. He has no problem admitting that he is a man of faith, but only if every other position is also an article of faith. See, he wants evolution vs. creationism to simply be a choice between two faiths. That way either choice is equally sensible.
Of course, the reality is that evolution vs. creationism is confirmed science vs. bronze age mythology. And that reality infuriates him, since it exposes him as the delusional religious kook that he really is.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:41:25 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by perrodetokio |
| The case of passing ID as science... |
I never clamed ID to be science.
| The case of (Theists) trying to argue that science is like religion.... |
Because they both require a belief?
| The case that: itīs just the same to believe in the bible or to "believe" in evolution. |
I never said that. And why are you quoting believe in relation to evolution? Do you know fish-to-philosopher evolution to be true?
| The case that on either side (bible literalist or science) itīs just a question of "faith". |
Are you saying that you know fish-to-philosopher evolution to be true?
| The case that skepticism is dogmatic. |
Huh?
| I could go on an on if you donīt get the point. |
Whatever you wish to do.
| I mean lots of things regarded by scientist as correct have later on, and sometimes by the same scientists, been corrected when new evidence is found and new data is available. |
Which means that you hold a belief that the current theory of the day is correct.
| And that is something that I have never heard of happenning in religion. |
Neither have I.
(edited to add)
Bill, when youīre sick donīt go see a doctor. |
I rarely do.
| See, the evil materialistic pig |
Do you have a personal beef with doctors?
| is only assuming since that what you say science does, and only that) that a certain medicine will cure you!!! |
Are you saying that doctors, who use science, are never wrong?
| Rather pray and GOD will save you... or not! he may have a plan for you to die and that reminds me: donīt take your kids (if you have) to the doctor since if they die theyīll go to heaven which is a much better place. |
Your just rambling now.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:45:52 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dude |
| Because it illustrates the staggering degree of hypocrisy you exhibit. |
This should be good.
| Your goal with evolution is to be able to claim it is false. |
Nonsense.
| You admit to the same speculation with your diety belief that you accuse most scientists of with evolution, |
Again, I have a belief in God while you have a belief in fish-to-philosophers. I have said this like 5 or 6 times now.
| yet you cling to it firmly, |
As you cling to your belief system, firmly.
| and you have the audacity to criticise skeptics and scientists |
Audacity? Are they above criticism?
| for doing (so you claim) the exact same thing, in your mind, with regard to evolution! |
I wasn't criticizing skeptics or scientists. I was agreeing with the evidence put forth that you were indoctrinated. And then I agreed with Ricky that you were demonstrating yourself to be a cynic.
| Your dishonesty is shamefull Bill. |
*yawn*
| So, when can we expect your essay on how your religion is just speculative, and that people should consider a naturalistic explanation for the universe? |
As soon as I see yours stating that fish-to-philosopher evolution is speculative, and that people should also consider a creator explanation for the universe. I have no problem asking one to consider both explanations and then come to their own conclusion. It kind of avoids the whole indoctranation thing.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 12:50:22 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by H. Humbert |
| Because that's Bill's game. He has no problem admitting that he is a man of faith, but only if every other position is also an article of faith. |
Wrong. I have no problem admitting my belief in God even when you refuse to admit your belief in naturalism. Everyone knows that it is a belief, why can't you just acknowledge this and move on instead of putting on the dog and pony show?
| See, he wants evolution vs. creationism to simply be a choice between two faiths. |
It is a choice between two faiths (beliefs).
| That way either choice is equally sensible. |
I never said that either choice would be equally sensible
| Of course, the reality is that evolution vs. creationism is confirmed science vs. bronze age mythology. |
Your indoctrination is on display again.
| And that reality infuriates him, |
And your speculating as well.
| since it exposes him as the delusional religious kook that he really is. |
Now your just being cynical. So your a speculating-indoctranated-cynic, cloaked as a skeptic.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 13:27:03 [Permalink]
|
You guys are SO beating a dead horse here. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 16:13:14 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, billy is so ridiculous. All he is capable of doing is creating strawmen and telling lies.
He and his fishy new friend are quite the pair.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ID predicts.......
