|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2007 : 21:54:43 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| We tried it my way and you didn't want to participate. We tried it your way and your dismissals began almost immediately. This is why you will never understand that "fish-to-philosopher evolution" isn't a belief or an assumption, and that evolutionary biologists aren't forced to "believe in" an old Earth. The problem is not that I'm not communicating; the problem is not with science, or with any assumptions or speculation. The problem is that you refuse to listen. |
Welp, I guess that is it then. You have said what you want to say and so have I. Now, as I have been saying all along, the folks will all have to come to their own conclusion as to what they believe is more reasonable.
|
"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.-
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 23:28:41 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: | Now, as I have been saying all along, the folks will all have to come to their own conclusion as to what they believe is more reasonable. |
Actually, you've shown conclusively that reason has nothing to do with your beliefs.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 04:08:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Bill scott
[Good advice from Mr. A...
|
Good advice for a christian. Too bad that the christian evolution-deniers don't listen to it...
|
I am Christian and do not deny evolution. I have explained that several times in this thread & fish fin alone.
|
So defensive. And yet you are a denier. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 05:35:15 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Nothing I said even depends upon mistakes being corrected, because if they weren't we'd never know they were mistakes |
Exactly, and you would also never know how many existed, because you do know they exist. After all:
| “The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science” |
| I can't help but remember that old thread wherein people here (myself included) patiently explained to you, Bill, what scientists mean when they say "transitional fossil," and you appeared to understand, but then afterwards you went back to the old creationist canard that there are no transitional fossils. |
And I recall a thread where you asked if I could prove that people I had cited had not changed their opinion since the date on which they were too have been quoted. I then asked if you did the same research and you refused to answer.
| Even when you appear to be listening, you're not listening. |
Demonstrating that you like for others to do as you say, but not as you…
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 07:33:49 [Permalink]
|
Me, I believe in knowledge but do not acknowledge belief. Think about it. 
Somewhere, back in the tedium of the thread, someone mentioned that mistakes in science are corrected, sooner or later, by scientists. That is true, although it might take a little time. The Piltdown Fraud is an excellent example, although it was in doubt in some quarters almost from the beginning. But it was some 40 years before the British Museum admitted it. Another is the Nebraska Man, a worn tooth from, correct me if I'm wrong, a javalina. That one got clobbered within the year.
Another fraud (that is not really all that fradulent) is Archeoraptor, which rubbed National Geographic's nose in the nasty end of the kitty box when it was examined by a professional paleontologist; Dr. Xu Xing. Further examination revealed that it was cobbled up from two previously unfamiliar species, making it a valuable specimen in it's own right.
Science is self-correcting simply because while research gets done, it is never finished. They keep going back to previous research to find out how it might correlate to newer findings. By the time Piltdown was debunked, there was so much new information from genuine fossils that the artifact was little more than a really good and long-running joke.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 08:12:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Your assuming that molecules-to-man is correct. That is why m-t-m scientists have a preconceived belief that the earth is millions of years old. They have to.
<snip>
What a minute, I never said that science was "just" a belief.
<snip>
| Whether something is "true" or not must just be another "belief," |
I suppose philosophically, yes.
| and so why I should I care at all what you think is "true" or not? |
You shouldn't. In the end all you have is that which you find most “reasonable.”
| The primary assumption upon which evolution and all other sciences rest is that the world and the things in it are objectively "real" and that we can learn about them. |
Even if that assumption is assumed that the value of it being incorrect is the closest positive value next to zero, it's still an assumption.
| This isn't a "belief" but just a working assumption that can't possibly be verified or refuted. |
Can you give me your definition of working assumption?
| It's not a "belief" because the other choices mean that science simply cannot function. |
Science and belief can/do coexist, no mater how many times you assert that they do not.
| It's not "knowledge," either, but a limit to knowledge. |
I agree.
| Given such a nasty constraint, what science provides is as "real" knowledge as possible. |
Nasty, or not, close to “real” knowledge is still not “real” knowledge.
| And it really doesn't matter if individual pieces of that knowledge are incorrect, |
It doesn't?
| that doesn't turn science into "belief." |
It already is a belief, now just an incorrect belief as well.
|
It is hard to argue against you, because you are mostly right.
From a solipsistic philosophical point of view, as Dave have indicated.
However, solipsism is not compatible with science. Since you seem to be unable to discuss anything regarding science from a temporarily differenet point of view and philosophy, it won't matter how much we try to explain things to you. You won't understand our point of view. That would also explain why you constantly make arguments based on misconceptions of what the theory of evolution says.
Will your misstep with using CreationWiki teach you anything? I don't know. I hope so. But I won't hold my breath. While you may memorise scientiffic knowledge, I seriously doubt you will understand how it was produced.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 11:09:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Welp, I guess that is it then. You have said what you want to say and so have I. Now, as I have been saying all along, the folks will all have to come to their own conclusion as to what they believe is more reasonable. |
If someone doesn't understand the evidence, then they are unable to come to a reasonable conclusion over which position is more reasonable.| Exactly, and you would also never know how many existed, because you do know they exist. |
Again: so what? Truth-with-a-capital-T is unattainable even if no human ever made a mistake. The mistakes are irrelevant to whether something is knowledge or belief.| And I recall a thread where you asked if I could prove that people I had cited had not changed their opinion since the date on which they were too have been quoted. I then asked if you did the same research and you refused to answer. |
Same thread. And I answered:Invalid comparison. Your creationist sources are well-known for their quote mining, intentional distortions and outright lies about evolution and evolutionary scientists. I'll chalk that up to your faulty memory.| Demonstrating that you like for others to do as you say, but not as you… |
You think I haven't listened to you?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 13:21:40 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| If someone doesn't understand the evidence, then they are unable to come to a reasonable conclusion over which position is more reasonable. |
But your assuming that your understating of the evidence is more reasonable, that's why anyone who comes to a different conclusion as you is dismissed as unreasonable.
| Again: so what? Truth-with-a-capital-T is unattainable even if no human ever made a mistake. The mistakes are irrelevant to whether something is knowledge or belief. |
Are you saying that it is imposable for belief and knowledge to coexist?
| And I recall a thread where you asked if I could prove that people I had cited had not changed their opinion since the date on which they were too have been quoted. I then asked if you did the same research and you refused to answer. |
Same thread. And I answered: |
| Invalid comparison. Your creationist sources are well-known for their quote mining, intentional distortions and outright lies about evolution and evolutionary scientists. |
But I never asked “why” you wanted proof. I asked if you do the same with your references, wither they be creation, molecules-monkey-man biology, or from Walt Disney. The fact that you hold creationist references to a different standard just demonstrates your already know preconceived bias.
| I'll chalk that up to your faulty memory. |
Do what ever you want.
| Demonstrating that you like for others to do as you say, but not as you… |
You think I haven't listened to you? |
No. I think that you expect me to verify that my sources are still valid if the quote date is more then 30 days old, even though you don't seem to do the same yourself, a classic case of “do as I say.” Don't you think?
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 13:52:48 [Permalink]
|
| "The fact that humans write religious texts is what causes errors in religious texts" - pleco |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 14:41:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| If someone doesn't understand the evidence, then they are unable to come to a reasonable conclusion over which position is more reasonable. |
But your assuming that your understating of the evidence is more reasonable, that's why anyone who comes to a different conclusion as you is dismissed as unreasonable. |
Good grief, NO! I neither assume that, nor do I dismiss on such a basis. Once again, you're just making stuff up and ignoring my point in the process.| Again: so what? Truth-with-a-capital-T is unattainable even if no human ever made a mistake. The mistakes are irrelevant to whether something is knowledge or belief. |
Are you saying that it is imposable for belief and knowledge to coexist? |
Does knowledge require belief?| But I never asked “why” you wanted proof. I asked if you do the same with your references, wither they be creation, molecules-monkey-man biology, or from Walt Disney. |
You never answered the question I put to you. Your response, aiming the same question back at me, was a dodge. Why shouldn't I treat you the same way that you treat me? Besides, being dead, Disney can't change his mind any more. Creationists change their minds all the time, and it's a treat to watch them contradict themselves as if nobody checks their previous writings. Biologists change their minds, too, and it's important to be aware of the latest developments.| The fact that you hold creationist references to a different standard just demonstrates your already know preconceived bias. |
Bias based upon the dishonest actions of creationists, widely evidenced. It was hardly "preconceived." I didn't begin learning about creationism with the assumption that God-fearing people would knowingly lie, Bill. Such a notion was quite foreign to me at the time.| No. I think that you expect me to verify that my sources are still valid if the quote date is more then 30 days old, even though you don't seem to do the same yourself, a classic case of “do as I say.” Don't you think? |
No, Bill, I expected you to verify your quotes as I verify mine. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 12:58:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dave W.
If someone doesn't understand the evidence, then they are unable to come to a reasonable conclusion over which position is more reasonable. |
But your assuming that your understating of the evidence is more reasonable, that's why anyone who comes to a different conclusion as you is dismissed as unreasonable.
|
No... For the last 160 years or so, there should be at least a million scientists whose sense of reason you would have to compete with have called into question. They all generally have supported the Theory of Evolution as the reasonable conclusion after reviewing evidence.
Hmmm... Lets see here.
Is Bill's conclusions reasonable, or are a million scientists who are familiar with the evidence and have studied evidence thoroughly, are their conclusion reasonable?
Bill's conclusion, or 1M Scientists' conclusion?
Bill, I think I'm going to go with a million scientists who are more familiar with the evidence than you are. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but given a choice, I must also go with what seems more reasonable. You have time and time again showed yourself ignorant of general knowledge of ToE, that is partly why I'm going with the scientists.
Had you displayed actual knowledge and understanding of what the theory encompasses, the situation might have been different. At least, you wouldn't be on the receiving end of so much scorn.
Edited: Since Bill dosn't seem to have read this post yet, I might as well correct a formulation I've been thinking about which didn't really convey my thoughts.
I've striked out the old, and written the new in blue.
|
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/05/2007 13:19:21 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 10:20:02 [Permalink]
|
| So anyway, no one seems to be disputing the fact that ID can't make any predictions... |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/05/2007 : 12:11:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
So anyway, no one seems to be disputing the fact that ID can't make any predictions...
|
ID predicts doodly-squat! There. I said it. Are you happy now?
ID cannot make predictions any more than can young-earth creationism simply because it all relies on a "designer." To make any sort of a prediction, it must claim to know the inner thoughts of this entity, but before it can do even that bit of hogwash half-convincingly, it must first identify that designer. This, by ID's very nature, it cannot do.
It's all very mysterous and confusing, as any good religion should be. However, unlike the YE Creationists (which many if not most of these lying blatherskites are anyway), they don't even know whaddahell they worship.
Pathetic.
Edit: stupid grammer.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 11/05/2007 13:44:57 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 13:52:29 [Permalink]
|
Filthy pointed out: | ID predicts doodly-squat! There. I said it. Are you happy now? |
Well, at least they predict something. That's a start.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/05/2007 13:58:07 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2008 : 20:59:40 [Permalink]
|
Well, well, seems that the ID crowd might officially release a list of not only ID predictions, but even ID predictions that have been determined to be true. Says Dembski regarding a request from a radio show considering interviewing him or Wells:
| I have my own list of answers, but I'd like to hear those of this group. |
There are a couple of things about Dembski's post that are funny:
1. The guy has a list that he has been keeing secret up until now. Can't wait to see it.
2. Do have alook at some of the ID predictions commenters have submitted. (such as ID predicts function for the appendix, "Genomes of “primitive” creatures like the Jellyfish can be more advanced then many contemporary species." or "(7) Using the analogy of a computer program, one would expect what I call “subroutines”, or, put another way, various parts of the genome that are used for a variety of purposes in an “on-demand” basis. These “subroutines” would be part of the “regulatory” system of the genome."). |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ID predicts.......
