tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4397721554005521599..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: What Evolutionists Don’t Understand About Methodological NaturalismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13020957947240804012014-02-13T14:27:25.467-08:002014-02-13T14:27:25.467-08:00They did in fact in the past dismiss germ theory. ...They did in fact in the past dismiss germ theory. Only it's rather hard to keep that up when everyone with, what today is a toy microscope, can see them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14200480833079479682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65118158888600169872011-07-12T04:27:36.722-07:002011-07-12T04:27:36.722-07:00GERMANICUS:
Eocene: 'Curious - How many sockp...GERMANICUS:<br /><br />Eocene: 'Curious - How many sockpuppets can a online virtual world gaming god own ???'<br /><br />Germanicus: 'You have a nice way to introduce yourself. Have you also some contributions to the discussion?'<br />===<br /><br />Sure let me bring something to the discussion since science is the last thing going on here.<br /><br />"Volksrepublik Germanicus A Political Online Game and Economic Simulation. Lead<br />your own Nation to happiness and prosperity. The affairs of state of Germanicus, formerly Germany, were taken over by the regent JayLuther in Autumn 1990. Observers classify the midsize state as conservative social liberal plutocracy, known for its high national debt and the low crime rate.<br /><br />Most of the educated and reasonable citizens are very content with the circumstances. They have the reputation to be sportive and freedom-loving and enjoy an outstanding infrastructure. The biggest difference to other countries lies in the range of Civil rights.<br /><br />The regent succeeded in increasing his influence compared to the year before.<br /><br />Germanicus is not a member of an alliance.<br />----<br /><br />LOL - Isn't make believe in a Socialist Utopia wonderful. Say hi to your girlfriend, *cough**cough* , I mean your partner, Zachriel for me.<br /><br />*eyes rolling*Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83098624070379614842011-07-09T09:06:14.125-07:002011-07-09T09:06:14.125-07:00Eocene: Curious - How many sockpuppets can a onlin...Eocene: Curious - How many sockpuppets can a online virtual world gaming god own ??? <br /><br />You have a nice way to introduce yourself. Have you also some contributions to the discussion?Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633891476693192259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51124920997017128242011-07-09T08:03:47.882-07:002011-07-09T08:03:47.882-07:00Zach/Germanicus:
Curious - How many sockpuppets c...Zach/Germanicus:<br /><br />Curious - How many sockpuppets can a online virtual world gaming god own ???Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81759967988168288882011-07-08T07:39:57.632-07:002011-07-08T07:39:57.632-07:00Neal -
"Similarly, neo-Darwinist mechanisms...Neal - <br /><br />"Similarly, neo-Darwinist mechanisms explain a little, but they have severe limitations and certainly fall far short supporting a supposed universal common descent."<br /><br />I certainly don't have a problem with tweaking existing theories. Scientists do it all the time. Every tmie there is a surprising, unpredicted piece of data, our theories must be tweaked to accommodate it or be flat-out falsified.<br /><br />However, the idea that the mordern theory of evolution is INSUFFICIENT to explain the diversity of life on Earth is quite a claim. And I do not see why you believe it to be true. What are these 'severe limitations' and where does ToE fall 'far short'?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50755950229483919792011-07-08T06:57:09.357-07:002011-07-08T06:57:09.357-07:00Blas: Yes, and adding words like finding and well-...Blas: Yes, and adding words like finding and well-established confirm to me that Zachriel is not using strict hypotetico-deduction method. <br /><br />Sorry, but your answer is still too vague. I have understood that you claim that "Zachriel is not using strict hypotetico-deduction method", but you have not explained us why?<br />By the way, you have also not answered clearly if the statement "4.5 Gy (age of Earth) is a finding from Earth science" is correct.Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633891476693192259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25243477245591220512011-07-07T17:47:25.219-07:002011-07-07T17:47:25.219-07:00Blas: Yes, and adding words like finding and well-...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Yes, and adding words like finding and well-established confirm to me that Zachriel is not using strict hypotetico-deduction method. </i><br /><br />You might want to explain what *you* mean by hypothetico-deduction, and why that excludes findings.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2679815424308378682011-07-07T15:35:10.515-07:002011-07-07T15:35:10.515-07:00Thorton:
I never saw the my question on any ID we...Thorton:<br /><br />I never saw the my question on any ID website. I asked the question because I encountered what appeared to be different explanations of the Scientific Method. Now I understand that they are the same method, just different procedures. A simple person like myself might not understand the difference at first.<br /><br />And I recall you saying things like "we don't know the answer to how many mutations are needed, or how long it will take. We would like to have the answers, but science can't answer those questions now."natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27822114884306527382011-07-07T12:53:19.853-07:002011-07-07T12:53:19.853-07:00Ritchie, perhaps a comparison will help. Newtonia...Ritchie, perhaps a comparison will help. Newtonian physics is accurate and helpful on some levels, but fortunately physicists in the early 20th century saw its limitations and were open to the general theory of relativity. Similarly, neo-Darwinist mechanisms explain a little, but they have severe limitations and certainly fall far short supporting a supposed universal common descent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67465826599507994792011-07-07T11:55:46.731-07:002011-07-07T11:55:46.731-07:00Germanicus:""4,5 Gy (age of Earth) is a ...Germanicus:""4,5 Gy (age of Earth) is a finding from Earth science" is a correct one. But I assume that Blas had more in mind in his/her claim, "You (Zachriel) do not understand strict hypotetico-deduction"?"<br /><br />Yes, and adding words like finding and well-established confirm to me that Zachriel is not using strict hypotetico-deduction method.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46785445166471363992011-07-07T10:33:24.443-07:002011-07-07T10:33:24.443-07:00Neal -
"Does natural selection and mutation...Neal - <br /><br />"Does natural selection and mutation cause some level of biological diversity?<br /><br />Who ever said that they didn't? No one is debating that."<br /><br />Good.<br /><br />"The problem with evolutionists is that they make the ungrounded assumption that change occurs at all levels."<br /><br />What do you mean 'that change occurs at all levels'? All levels of what?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46873686774957101052011-07-07T10:16:13.104-07:002011-07-07T10:16:13.104-07:00squid ink schuster said...
Fil:
I asked ...<i>squid ink schuster said...<br /><br /> Fil:<br /><br /> I asked a simple question about the scientific method. All Thorton had to do was give an answer and that would have ended it. Now I understand that there is a difference between "method" and "procedure."</i><br /><br />You asked a misleading trolling question that you could have answered yourself with a 10 second Google search. But you don't want to learn. You want to push BS creationist propaganda.<br /><br /> <i>Thorton:<br /><br /> The answer I recall to my question was "we don't know. But its okay because evolution must have happened.</i><br /><br />You recall that because you never bothered to read the whole answer given. You're looking for Creationist spin you can cling to, not understanding.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30107431753335032772011-07-07T09:13:35.799-07:002011-07-07T09:13:35.799-07:00Blas: I found hypothesys or assumption as equivale...Blas: I found hypothesys or assumption as equivalents. Do you think finding is also equivalent?<br /><br />Zachriel: A finding is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly confirmed and is considered well-established. <br /><br />So, the statement: "4,5 Gy (age of Earth) is a finding from Earth science" is a correct one. But I assume that Blas had more in mind in his/her claim, "You (Zachriel) do not understand strict hypotetico-deduction"?Germanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633891476693192259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28784189948650977992011-07-07T08:59:37.274-07:002011-07-07T08:59:37.274-07:00Ritchie,
Work to create at least SOME level of b...Ritchie, <br /><br />Work to create at least SOME level of biological diversity?<br /><br />Does natural selection and mutation cause some level of biological diversity?<br /><br />Who ever said that they didn't? No one is debating that. The problem with evolutionists is that they make the ungrounded assumption that change occurs at all levels. <br /><br />What evolutionists have is this ungrounded assumption, a fossil record that does not confirm that assumption, and real time observations that contradict that assumption.<br /><br />Neo-Darwinism is an "archaic" (credit goes to Craig Ventor for that term http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/what-is-life-panel) theory of the 19th century that is failing under the weight of 21st century scientific knowledge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52709880481420585122011-07-07T08:25:01.359-07:002011-07-07T08:25:01.359-07:00Fil:
I asked a simple question about the scienti...Fil: <br /><br />I asked a simple question about the scientific method. All Thorton had to do was give an answer and that would have ended it. Now I understand that there is a difference between "method" and "procedure." <br /><br />Thorton: <br /><br />The answer I recall to my question was "we don't know. But its okay because evolution must have happened."natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20821945530008428912011-07-07T08:11:45.621-07:002011-07-07T08:11:45.621-07:00Fil said...
Wow, I can't believe you guys...<i>Fil said...<br /><br /> Wow, I can't believe you guys are still here going at it. Too bad it's mostly just back and forth insults.</i><br /><br />Well, one you've explained something the first dozen times and been ignored every time, explaining again seem superfluous. All that's left is poking fun at the trolls for entertainment.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20842343701529710182011-07-07T08:08:50.727-07:002011-07-07T08:08:50.727-07:00squid ink schuster said...
People have told m...<i>squid ink schuster said...<br /><br /> People have told me that I, a layperson, cannot question scientists because scientists use the Scientific Method.</i><br /><br />Bullcrap. Support this or retract.<br /><br /><i>The Scientific Method is the Way to the Truth. </i><br /><br />Empty rhetoric. Show us a reference in a science textbook that says that (with capitalization included).<br /><br /><i>But if there is no agreed upon Scientific Method, saying it is the Way is just IMHO, epistomologically silly. That's why I'm asking.</i><br /><br />There is an agreed upon definition of scientific method. You were shown what it is. There is more than one specific procedure. You are deliberately and dishonestly equivocating between the overall method and specific procedures.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75139644881671690332011-07-07T07:59:15.752-07:002011-07-07T07:59:15.752-07:00squid ink schuster said...
Here it is.
&...<i>squid ink schuster said...<br /><br /> Here it is.<br /><br /> "Evironmental Science" by Karen Arms says that there are scientific methods.<br /> That is, there is more then one method. These can include observing, hypothesizing and predicting, experimenting, organizing and interpreting information, using graphs and sharing information, and communicatiing results.<br /><br /> The other books didn't say anything about predicting. </i><br /><br />From Wiki:<br /><br />"Scientific method refers to a <b>body of techniques</b> for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]<br /><br />Although <b>procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another,</b> identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context."<br /><br />Squiddy, do you have aphasia?<br /><br /><i>Now, I've done everything you've asked.</i><br /><br />Except think. That's too hard for you, I know.<br /><br /><i>Now, please address my question. That is, if it is even possible.</i><br /><br />What was wrong with the answer you were give the last six times you asked the same nonsensical trolling question?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40517804100926054002011-07-07T07:56:36.560-07:002011-07-07T07:56:36.560-07:00Wow, I can't believe you guys are still here g...Wow, I can't believe you guys are still here going at it. Too bad it's mostly just back and forth insults.Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65890117587407249732011-07-07T07:55:41.229-07:002011-07-07T07:55:41.229-07:00People have told me that I, a layperson, cannot qu...People have told me that I, a layperson, cannot question scientists because scientists use the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is the Way to the Truth. But if there is no agreed upon Scientific Method, saying it is the Way is just IMHO, epistomologically silly. That's why I'm asking.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22343108450933353152011-07-07T07:48:51.425-07:002011-07-07T07:48:51.425-07:00Neal -
"Work to do what?"
Work to cre...Neal - <br /><br />"Work to do what?"<br /><br />Work to create at least SOME level of biological diversity?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76929258126897973192011-07-07T07:46:27.114-07:002011-07-07T07:46:27.114-07:00Here it is.
"Evironmental Science" by ...Here it is.<br /><br /><br />"Evironmental Science" by Karen Arms says that there are scientific methods. <br />That is, there is more then one method. These can include observing, hypothesizing and predicting, experimenting, organizing and interpreting information, using graphs and sharing information, and communicatiing results.<br /><br />The other books didn't say anything about predicting. <br /><br />And I never skipped the chapters on scientific method because they don't contain inaccurate information. I only skipped pages that had faked embryo drawings.<br /><br />Now, I've done everything you've asked. Now, please address my question. That is, if it is even possible.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80483526198511235452011-07-07T07:43:38.903-07:002011-07-07T07:43:38.903-07:00squid ink schuster said...
I don't see hy...<i>squid ink schuster said...<br /><br /> I don't see hypothesis here. Nor do I see predictions. Of course they may be talkin about scientific enquiry, and not the scientific method. It's confusing.</i><br /><br />We know squiddy. Thinking is <b>sooooooo hard!</b>. That's why you avoid it like the plague.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81553671612945556702011-07-07T07:40:34.069-07:002011-07-07T07:40:34.069-07:00squid ink schuster said...
In fact, one of th...<i>squid ink schuster said...<br /><br /> In fact, one of the books I listed on the earlier thread did say that there is no one set Scientific Method. Just as I thought.</i><br /><br />That can't be right, because there's no evidence you've ever thought. About anything.<br /><br />I suppose you'll use this as an excuse to screw your students again and skip the section on 'scientific method' in their science textbooks, right?<br /><br /><i>Now, please please address my question.</i><br /><br />LOL! Go bake me a pie.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14031233929808951902011-07-07T07:38:07.687-07:002011-07-07T07:38:07.687-07:00"Living Enviroment" by Ratzh and Colvert..."Living Enviroment" by Ratzh and Colvert doesn't mention the Scientific method, but it does discuss scientific inquiry, It says scientific inquiry includes questions, observations and inference, experimentation, collecting and organizing data, repeating experiments, and peer review.<br /><br />I don't see hypothesis here. Nor do I see predictions. Of course they may be talkin about scientific enquiry, and not the scientific method. It's confusing.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.com