roger
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 12:13 am
@neologist,
Subjective, of course.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 12:21 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's not only subjective, but not provable. There's not one objective evidence to prove their "anecdotal evidence."
Now you're getting goofy. Maybe just sentence structure, I dunno. Scientific discovery begins with the collation of anecdotal evidence into hypotheses, testing, replication, etc.
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 01:48 am
@neologist,
Not if they're doing it right. Scientific hypothesis proceeds from observation or the discovery of a datum or a body of data. One might be wrong about what one has observed, or might have misjudged or incorrectly described the datum--but it's not at all the equivalent of anecdotal evidence. If what one observes is not replicable, or is not observed again, the observation was flawed. If no other data matches the datum described, it was incorrectly assessed or described.

If anyone is goofy around here, it's you Neo--attempting to defend an ill-considered claim about anecdote as evidence.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 11:09 am
@Setanta,
That ill thought out screed has assumed that science is what goes on in labs.

Science is the exercise of the disinterested curiosity. An interested curiosity is starting to shade away from science.

The report of the original observation is anecdotal.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 12:12 pm
@spendius,
In which la-la land do you live? Scientists have now discovered Higgs Boson, the beginning of the end of 'creationism.'
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 12:35 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Not if they're doing it right. Scientific hypothesis proceeds from observation or the discovery of a datum or a body of data. One might be wrong about what one has observed, or might have misjudged or incorrectly described the datum--but it's not at all the equivalent of anecdotal evidence. If what one observes is not replicable, or is not observed again, the observation was flawed. If no other data matches the datum described, it was incorrectly assessed or described.

If anyone is goofy around here, it's you Neo--attempting to defend an ill-considered claim about anecdote as evidence.
Sorry, I am not trying to start a war of definitions. Not all observations are quantifiable. Not all science is equally precise. Compare psychology to physics. Though we can't use what seems to be intelligent design to prove the existence of a creator, such design is what should be expected from a creator. Those who search for absolute 'truth' are doomed to endless philosophical circumlocution.

neologist
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 12:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Scientists have now discovered Higgs Boson, the beginning of the end of 'creationism.'
Or, it explains how God can be a kazillion miles away and yet know what goes one here in real time
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 12:41 pm
@neologist,
And i don't intend to get into a war over that "intelligent design" horseshit, for which there is, to date, zero evidence. Psychologists and "social scientists" are, in my never humble opinion, about as scientific as Christian Scientists. Psychological studies and sociological claims and studies are usually easily attacked on the methodology. Your position is rather like condemning all Muslims by lumping them in with the murderous, radical islmaists.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 12:59 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Not if they're doing it right. Scientific hypothesis proceeds from observation or the discovery of a datum or a body of data. One might be wrong about what one has observed, or might have misjudged or incorrectly described the datum--but it's not at all the equivalent of anecdotal evidence. If what one observes is not replicable, or is not observed again, the observation was flawed. If no other data matches the datum described, it was incorrectly assessed or described.

If anyone is goofy around here, it's you Neo--attempting to defend an ill-considered claim about anecdote as evidence.
Sorry, I am not trying to start a war of definitions. Not all observations are quantifiable. Not all science is equally precise. Compare psychology to physics. Though we can't use what seems to be intelligent design to prove the existence of a creator, such design is what should be expected from a creator. Those who search for absolute 'truth' are doomed to endless philosophical circumlocution.


Why do you gratuituously describe "the state of where we are" to be "intelligent design"...and then go on to the implications of that gratuitous designation?

It reminds me of the people who argue that since there is a creation...there has to be a creator.

But this MAY NOT be a creation...and where we are now MAY NOT be the result of intelligent design.

This is another example of an issue that I have difficulty understanding why you do not get it.
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 01:04 pm
@Setanta,
Sorry to have used the phrase 'seems to be intelligent'. There certainly is something like design in nature. Or am I wrong again?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 01:10 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Sorry to have used the phrase 'seems to be intelligent'. There certainly is something like design in nature. Or am I wrong again?


What do you see as "design?"

Why could all that we see simply not have happened as the result of natural evolution?

Why call it a design...just so you can posit a designer?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 01:12 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
. . .Why do you gratuituously describe "the state of where we are" to be "intelligent design"...and then go on to the implications of that gratuitous designation?
I see I should have not used the words 'intelligent' and 'design' in the same sentence, much less the same paragraph, as I do not subscribe to the ID theory. Nor do I claim that what we see in nature is sufficient evidence; but I believe it necessary to support the claim of creation.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 01:22 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
. . .Why do you gratuituously describe "the state of where we are" to be "intelligent design"...and then go on to the implications of that gratuitous designation?
I see I should have not used the words 'intelligent' and 'design' in the same sentence, much less the same paragraph, as I do not subscribe to the ID theory. Nor do I claim that what we see in nature is sufficient evidence; but I believe it necessary to support the claim of creation.


I grok that, Neo.

(Kiddingly he added, "my sympathies!)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 11:10 pm
@neologist,
Jesus, ralk about selection bias; you're original sentence read: ". . . seems to be intelligent design . . ." You've willfully misquoted yourself.

What design do you allege there is in nature? Life forms follow the consitions in which they exist. Two and a half billion years ago, the dominant life forms (the only life forms) were anaerobic "bacteria" (bacteria may not be a reasonable description, but it will do for this purpose). But at that time, some of them began to evolve (don't ask me by what mechanism, no one knows, although there are, of course, hypotheses). They developed the ability to photosynthesize, which meant that rather than floating around in the oceanic stew and hoping to find enough nutrients to reproduce before starving to death, they could make their own food from the available resources. The bi-product of the photosynthesis was molecular oxygen (O2). There had always been O2 in the atmosphere, but there wouldn't have been enough to strike a match--what little there was was quickly absorbed by dissolved minerals in the water or by direct contact with rocks on the surface. These new organisms, cyano-bacteria, produced enough O2 that in a mere 200,000,000 years or so, the natural means by which molecular oxygen was absorbed were no longer sufficient to remove all of the molecular oxygen. Disaster! Anaerobic organisms are called that because they don't use oxygen, and in fact, it's poisonous to them. This lead to what is called THE GREAT OXYGENATION EVENT. After that roughly 200,000,000 years, there was so much molecular oxygen in the atmosphere, and dissolving into the water, that the anaerobic organisms began to die off. It could also be called the first great extinction event, except that the lowly anaerobic bacteria are still with us--but they have to stay indoors.

It may have taken 900,000,000 years rather than 200,000,000 years. It may have reacted with the methane in the atmosphere, reducing the greenhouse effect to the point where a nearly global glaciation resulted, what is called snowball earth. It may have done a lot of things. The geological evidence, though, is undeniable for the appearance of massive amounts of O2 about two and a half billion years ago.

Life is not designed. It reacts to its environment, and it can alter its environment, too. The alterations may be lethal so some forms of life, even those forms of life which are responsible for the alteration. That's chaos, not design. That's also life, in a nutshell.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 11:20 pm
Setanta said:
Quote:
some of them began to evolve (don't ask me by what mechanism, no one knows)

Right, scientists know jack..Smile
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 11:22 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
But they know a hell of a lot more than the superstitious fools with their god fairy tales. That's because they work hard to find things out, instead of just swallowing iron age fairy tales.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 11:41 pm
@Setanta,
Jesus was no fairy tale, he was solid flesh and blood and bust the snooty priest's asses by telling them-
"You're full of ****!" (Matt 23:27)
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/Jesus-v-snoots.gif~original

I dunno why atheists don't like him, maybe they're on the priests side, ha ha..Smile
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 15 Oct, 2013 11:57 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
There is absolutely no historical evidence for your boy Jesus. I don't care one way or the other, personally--the boy means nothing to me.

However, Matthew Chapter 23, verse 27, in the King James Version, reads:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

I see that you, as is the case with every other religious nut job i've ever run into, are a liar as well as a fanatic.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 16 Oct, 2013 12:19 am
@Setanta,
They refer to other historical figures that they rationalize was jesus, but none of the documents actually names him. They attach what fits into their imaginary god, and then refers to so and so who was actually documented in referring to something else. They refer to christians, but the creation of religion wasn't exactly a one culture event. In history, many people believed in jesus as their "savior," not from first hand observation, but from word of mouth (because most were not educated enough to read or write), other gods were around for much longer as a "savior" in other cultures. Even the Egyptians and Greeks had many gods - all mythological. "Jesus" is a rather young god based on all human gods, but it's the one that "stuck" on the wall when the **** was thrown.

We now have the reasons for why the people of the world are sworn to Catholocism, Islam, Protestantism, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and all those branches of "christianity."

The spread of christianity was far and wide when the explorers from the Middle East and Europe "spread the word of god" into the far corners of the earth. It was a natural; people needed some supreme being to have created "all this," and therefore there must be a future of everlasting life for all humans who believe.

What a deal~! Live forever and sin free.

Another contradiction of free will. Satan will be in heaven too.
neologist
 
  1  
Wed 16 Oct, 2013 12:48 am
@Setanta,
Good grief. If you don't like the word design. Will you agree there is a certain order?

All right, All right. Order amongst your chaos.Because without order at some point we would not have much to talk about.
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 347
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/14/2025 at 07:04:36