Kuhn also maintained that, contrary to popular conception, typical scientists are not objective and independent thinkers. Rather, they are conservative individuals who accept what they have been taught and apply their knowledge to solving the problems that their theories dictate. Most are, in essence, puzzle-solvers who aim to discover what they already know in advance - "The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly."
A personal opinion is just that.
Scientist's aren't going to apply the equations of quantum electrodynamics to celestial mechanics, are they?
Kuhn takes the obvious and makes it sound bad.
I doubt the scientist who decided classical physics no longer cut it, and developed quantum theory, was a puzzle-solver.
I doubt Einstien was a puzzle-solver in the sense you want to convey.
I doubt the likes of Feynman, Born, Heisenberg, were puzzle-solvers in the sense you want to convey.
When they came along experiments were being performed that had never been done before, either because the technology didn't exist, or the right questions weren't being asked.
When they were performed, it was found current theory was lacking.
Thre was no cover up, no desire to push the findings into some dusty corner.
A revolution occured. The revolution was embraced.
Quote:
During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm. For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."
And with this Kuhn shows he has no understanding of science.
The primary task of scientists is to try and explain the physical universe. If that means bringing accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. Great. That means they have a good theory.
Quantum theory was developed because accepted theory did not fit observations. Consequences were not ignored. A whole new theory was developed.
General relativity was developed in the same way.
Scientists were not threatened by this, they were excited, and got on with a whole new field of research.
Quote:
And yet, young scientists who are not so deeply indoctrinated into accepted theories - a Newton, Lavoisier, or Einstein - can manage to sweep an old paradigm away. Such scientific revolutions come only after long periods of tradition-bound normal science, for "frameworks must be lived with and explored before they can be broken." However, crisis is always implicit in research because every problem that normal science sees as a puzzle can be seen, from another perspective, as a counterinstan
Theories must be understood, and need to push the boundaries of observation before they can be said to be "wrong". As new technologies are developed, new experiments can be performed to do just that.
Classical physics came across observations that could not have been made 100 years earlier. It failed those observations.
Kuhn has shown he has no idea what he is talking about.
If you get your ideas from him/her, then it is obvious why you also have no understanding of science.
Quote:
Ohh and this is something that is very interesting to me regarding the issue of what exactly is required within the makeup of a "scientific theory"
Karl Popper wrote that all scientific theories must be falsifiable.
I take it then this is a required aspect of a scientific theory?
Well then how can a theory be unfalsifiable, and therefore supposedly unscientific, and yet be falsified by scientific evidence?
As you can imagine I have many questions that still have no answer.
Are you speaking English?
If a model predicts X, and we get Y, then something is wrong.
If model cannot be modified to give X, then model is bad.
Young earth creationist believe the earth was created 6000 years ago. This is not a theory. It is not scientific. It has been proven wrong by science.
Karl Popper wrote that all scientific theories must be falsifiable.
I take it then this is a required aspect of a scientific theory?
Well then how can a theory be unfalsifiable, and therefore supposedly unscientific, and yet be falsified by scientific evidence?
A theory must be falsifiable? It must????
It must?
It really really really MUST be falsifiable? If it is not falsifiable it is not scientific? So if it was 100% correct with the model and assumptions and can not be falsified it is not scientific?
Something is very wrong with that..... very wrong...
Karl Popper wrote that all scientific theories must be falsifiable.
Good for him.
I wrote that my cat created the universe and everything in it.
You believe that without some sort of critical analysis, do you?
Quote:
I take it then this is a required aspect of a scientific theory?
It is one aspect of it. For instance, it needs to be set up in such a way that it can be falsified. For example, I doubt anyone will see a black hole, so black hole theory is a tad difficult to falsify.
Quote:
Well then how can a theory be unfalsifiable, and therefore supposedly unscientific, and yet be falsified by scientific evidence?
Do I need to use babel fish to interpret this?
Quote:
A theory must be falsifiable? It must????
It must?
It is one aspect of it. For instance ...
Quote:
It really really really MUST be falsifiable? If it is not falsifiable it is not scientific? So if it was 100% correct with the model and assumptions and can not be falsified it is not scientific?
Ah now you begin to make sense.
Give us a theory that is 100% accurate.
If a theory was that good, it would be looked at very closely.
If I could find my notes, I would give you an example - a Russian quark theory that gave exceptional results. It was taken apart, and was found to be flawed - it's accuracy was a quirk of the model.
Wow, who would have guessed - scientists questioning a model that agreed with observations. What is the world coming to?
The best theory ever developed is quantum electrodynamics. I believe it is good to around 9 decimal places.
Quote:
Something is very wrong with that..... very wrong...
It is one aspect of it. For instance, it needs to be set up in such a way that it can be falsified. For example, I doubt anyone will see a black hole, so black hole theory is a tad difficult to falsify.
It is one aspect of it. For instance ...
Hold on there a sec. "for instance" and "it needs to be set up in such a way that it can be falsified"
That is NOT what the rule is. Not a "for instance". Not a "can be" falsifiable.
It MUST be falsifiable. A scientific theory MUST be falsifiable or it is not scientific. Period.
So a theory that can not be falsified is not a scientific theory?
I have read Kuhn and have to say that a lot of what he points out seems rather reasonable. His point is that science is more rigide than the ideal Popper puts up. Small and middlesize incorrectnesses doesn´t kill a theory. It adopts to the new information but the core foundation of the theory is protected by changes in the outher rims of it. If we take evolutionism it means that the idea of the macroevolution is kept but the idea of how excatly it develops can be changed. When the scientist meet a phenomen that doesn´t fit with the dominant idea first he doesn´t seek to change the core but develop a program around it that explains the incorrectness without tampering with the core.
But still this only talk about how science in reality works and the idea of tests doen´t change. Which make it very different from creationism. You could try to put up programmes that explains fossiles of dinasaurs, missing spieces in the arc but "everybody" will recoqnise its being rather silly compared to evolutionism very fast, even when considering the notion of Kuhn.
Quoting a relativist now fellowship Last time it was someone who believed life was developed on comets and came to earth on them. Sounds like you are doing a bit of scienceshopping to back up your beliefs.
Hold on there a sec. "for instance" and "it needs to be set up in such a way that it can be falsified"
That is NOT what the rule is. Not a "for instance". Not a "can be" falsifiable.
It MUST be falsifiable. A scientific theory MUST be falsifiable or it is not scientific. Period.
Wow, you really do live in a black and white world, don't you?
My cat expects 10% of your wages every year. Email me for its address.
Ok, how do we falsify a theory on rotating black holes?
It is a scientific theory. It has a mathematical structure, and assumptions and predictions have been made. These assumptions and predictions are consistent within the context of the model.
How do we falsify the theory? Are you ever going to see a black hole? I doubt it, so it is a tad difficult to falsify, yes?
So how would you do it? By testing its predictions and assumptions.
The theory is set up in such away as to have predictions and assumptions.
Have you read any of the posts here?
Quote:
So a theory that can not be falsified is not a scientific theory?
I have read Kuhn and have to say that a lot of what he points out seems rather reasonable.
Sounds like you are doing a bit of scienceshopping to back up your beliefs.
I am fully thankful for Science and what it has done in our lives as to improve life and to expand understanding.
I am not one that buys into the theory of evolution however. Not all theories are correct at their core.
This latest look into what constitutes a "scientific theory" has been very informative to me. I always like to look at things from many vantage points.
With regard to the authority of "who wrote the book on what constituts what a scientific theory is and is not" I am still searching for understanding in this subject and so far it is most facinating.
Ok, how do we falsify a theory on rotating black holes?
It is a scientific theory. It has a mathematical structure, and assumptions and predictions have been made. These assumptions and predictions are consistent within the context of the model.
How do we falsify the theory? Are you ever going to see a black hole? I doubt it, so it is a tad difficult to falsify, yes?
So how would you do it? By testing its predictions and assumptions.
The theory is set up in such away as to have predictions and assumptions.
Have you read any of the posts here?
Indeed, but not for the reasons you believe.
I understand that a theory could be falsified. I understand that with 100% certainty but that a scientific theory "must" be falsifiable is rather strange.
I understand that a theory could be falsified. I understand that with 100% certainty but that a scientific theory "must" be falsifiable is rather strange.
Fellowship
If it wasn´t falsifiable how could we ever be able to abandon it?
(again with Kuhn: Even if a theory is proven wrong it doesn´t mean we throw it out at first. First we will always try to see if there is minor details that needs tweeking and then we test it again with other parameters. Thats how theories... dare I say it....microevolves )
Its a serious question actually. I won´t use your answer like you think I would.
Let me refrase it (since I expect you don´t believe those things): Why don´t you believe the sun circles the earth and the earth is flat?
I understand now what you were leading to.
Flat earth was falsifiable. I agree with this.
Again I just think the wording is a bit poorly written when it is said a scientific theory must be falsifiable. The context is crude. It could have been stated that a Scientific theory should be able to be falsified in the event data is found to demonstrate said falsity.
For added context consider the following:
1. Observational Claim: If true, it is possible to know that
it is true, and if false, it is possible to know that it is
false.
2. Verifiable Claim: If true, it is possible to know that it
is true, but if false, one may never come to know that it is
false. These claims have the form "There exists x such that
Phi(x)" where Phi(x) is an observational claim about x. If
someone witnesses a single x such that Phi(x), the verifiable
claim is proved true.
3. Falsifiable Claim: If false, it is possible to know that it
is false, but if true, one may never come to know that it is
true. These claims have the form "For all x, Phi(x)" where
Phi(x) is an observational claim about x. If someone witnesses
a single x such that not Phi(x), the falsifiable claim is
proved false.
4. Metaphysical Claim: none of the above. These claims either
involve things that are inherently non-observable, or else
require more than one quantifier, such as "For all x, there
exists y such that Phi(x,y)". No finite collection of observations
I understand that with 100% certainty but that a scientific theory "must" be falsifiable is rather strange.
Fellowship
No, it isn't strange at all. If falsifiability was not required, I could present the following and you'd have to believe it without question:
There exists a large, flying, purple, invisible elephant with seventeen tusks and one gigantic eye that only speaks to me via telepathy and he is floating right above your house as we speak. This elephant, which we shall name Bob, created the universe and set up a long series of events that allowed him to eventually happily float over your house. He tells me he makes himself completely undetectable but believe me he's there because he told me he is.
Hoorah! The scientific theory of elephant creationism! You can't prove it wrong so it must be right!
Again I just think the wording is a bit poorly written when it is said a scientific theory must be falsifiable. The context is crude. It could have been stated that a Scientific theory should be able to be falsified in the event data is found to demonstrate said falsity.
Fellowship
Look, I'm not trying to be mean here but do you have a learning disability? Xenu has already explained about four times exactly why a scientific theory has to be falsifiable. The concept isn't that difficult to comprehend.
The "science" behind evolution is based on the irrational belief in a "power" that is capable of ordering systems to high degree. When "scientists" go looking for this "force" they find the opposite---it doesn't bother them because, like the Las Vegas gambler, they BELEIVE this "power" exists.
When "scientists" enter a lab and put intelligence and energy into an experiment to produce some of the amino acids needed to generate life---they parade such things as "proof" that you can get at least a micron or two towards a thousand-mile journey of ordering the systems we have today; but still don't see that those very experiments violate the methods their theories rely on to produce life.
The "science" behind [creationism] is based on the irrational belief in a "power" that is capable of ordering systems to high degree. When [creationists] go looking for this "force" they find the opposite---it doesn't bother them because, like the Las Vegas gambler, they BELEIVE this "power" exists.
I completely understand your snide response. Since evolutionists want full participation with all being, they have a very personal stake in finding a "scientific" explanation for themselves. They get a bit cagey when they are told that don't have a handle on that explanation---which violates who they believe themselves to be.
I completely understand your snide response. Since evolutionists want full participation with all being, they have a very personal stake in finding a "scientific" explanation for themselves. They get a bit cagey when they are told that don't have a handle on that explanation---which violates who they believe themselves to be.
If an unexpected result occurs, differing greatly from the model, REAL scientists are excited that they now have another opportunity to revise the current theory. Give me a break ena. Sure, idiots exist on both sides of the argument but to say that evolution has NO evidence and that anyone who believes in it is just as nutty as a creationist is a sign of your willful ignorance.
Comments
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
xenu Greetings,
There is a lot of truth to the following:
In your humble opinion?
Kuhn also maintained that, contrary to popular conception, typical scientists are not objective and independent thinkers. Rather, they are conservative individuals who accept what they have been taught and apply their knowledge to solving the problems that their theories dictate. Most are, in essence, puzzle-solvers who aim to discover what they already know in advance - "The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly."
A personal opinion is just that.
Scientist's aren't going to apply the equations of quantum electrodynamics to celestial mechanics, are they?
Kuhn takes the obvious and makes it sound bad.
I doubt the scientist who decided classical physics no longer cut it, and developed quantum theory, was a puzzle-solver.
I doubt Einstien was a puzzle-solver in the sense you want to convey.
I doubt the likes of Feynman, Born, Heisenberg, were puzzle-solvers in the sense you want to convey.
When they came along experiments were being performed that had never been done before, either because the technology didn't exist, or the right questions weren't being asked.
When they were performed, it was found current theory was lacking.
Thre was no cover up, no desire to push the findings into some dusty corner.
A revolution occured. The revolution was embraced.
During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence, scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm. For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."
And with this Kuhn shows he has no understanding of science.
The primary task of scientists is to try and explain the physical universe. If that means bringing accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. Great. That means they have a good theory.
Quantum theory was developed because accepted theory did not fit observations. Consequences were not ignored. A whole new theory was developed.
General relativity was developed in the same way.
Scientists were not threatened by this, they were excited, and got on with a whole new field of research.
And yet, young scientists who are not so deeply indoctrinated into accepted theories - a Newton, Lavoisier, or Einstein - can manage to sweep an old paradigm away. Such scientific revolutions come only after long periods of tradition-bound normal science, for "frameworks must be lived with and explored before they can be broken." However, crisis is always implicit in research because every problem that normal science sees as a puzzle can be seen, from another perspective, as a counterinstan
Theories must be understood, and need to push the boundaries of observation before they can be said to be "wrong". As new technologies are developed, new experiments can be performed to do just that.
Classical physics came across observations that could not have been made 100 years earlier. It failed those observations.
Kuhn has shown he has no idea what he is talking about.
If you get your ideas from him/her, then it is obvious why you also have no understanding of science.
Ohh and this is something that is very interesting to me regarding the issue of what exactly is required within the makeup of a "scientific theory"
Karl Popper wrote that all scientific theories must be falsifiable.
I take it then this is a required aspect of a scientific theory?
Well then how can a theory be unfalsifiable, and therefore supposedly unscientific, and yet be falsified by scientific evidence?
As you can imagine I have many questions that still have no answer.
Are you speaking English?
If a model predicts X, and we get Y, then something is wrong.
If model cannot be modified to give X, then model is bad.
Young earth creationist believe the earth was created 6000 years ago. This is not a theory. It is not scientific. It has been proven wrong by science.
I take it then this is a required aspect of a scientific theory?
Well then how can a theory be unfalsifiable, and therefore supposedly unscientific, and yet be falsified by scientific evidence?
A theory must be falsifiable? It must????
It must?
It really really really MUST be falsifiable? If it is not falsifiable it is not scientific? So if it was 100% correct with the model and assumptions and can not be falsified it is not scientific?
Something is very wrong with that..... very wrong...
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Karl Popper wrote that all scientific theories must be falsifiable.
Good for him.
I wrote that my cat created the universe and everything in it.
You believe that without some sort of critical analysis, do you?
I take it then this is a required aspect of a scientific theory?
It is one aspect of it. For instance, it needs to be set up in such a way that it can be falsified. For example, I doubt anyone will see a black hole, so black hole theory is a tad difficult to falsify.
Well then how can a theory be unfalsifiable, and therefore supposedly unscientific, and yet be falsified by scientific evidence?
Do I need to use babel fish to interpret this?
A theory must be falsifiable? It must????
It must?
It is one aspect of it. For instance ...
It really really really MUST be falsifiable? If it is not falsifiable it is not scientific? So if it was 100% correct with the model and assumptions and can not be falsified it is not scientific?
Ah now you begin to make sense.
Give us a theory that is 100% accurate.
If a theory was that good, it would be looked at very closely.
If I could find my notes, I would give you an example - a Russian quark theory that gave exceptional results. It was taken apart, and was found to be flawed - it's accuracy was a quirk of the model.
Wow, who would have guessed - scientists questioning a model that agreed with observations. What is the world coming to?
The best theory ever developed is quantum electrodynamics. I believe it is good to around 9 decimal places.
Something is very wrong with that..... very wrong...
Fellowship
Indeed, but it's not what you think.
Never is, is it?
Originally posted by xenu
It is one aspect of it. For instance, it needs to be set up in such a way that it can be falsified. For example, I doubt anyone will see a black hole, so black hole theory is a tad difficult to falsify.
It is one aspect of it. For instance ...
Hold on there a sec. "for instance" and "it needs to be set up in such a way that it can be falsified"
That is NOT what the rule is. Not a "for instance". Not a "can be" falsifiable.
It MUST be falsifiable. A scientific theory MUST be falsifiable or it is not scientific. Period.
So a theory that can not be falsified is not a scientific theory?
Very interesting.....
Fellowship
I have read Kuhn and have to say that a lot of what he points out seems rather reasonable. His point is that science is more rigide than the ideal Popper puts up. Small and middlesize incorrectnesses doesn´t kill a theory. It adopts to the new information but the core foundation of the theory is protected by changes in the outher rims of it. If we take evolutionism it means that the idea of the macroevolution is kept but the idea of how excatly it develops can be changed. When the scientist meet a phenomen that doesn´t fit with the dominant idea first he doesn´t seek to change the core but develop a program around it that explains the incorrectness without tampering with the core.
But still this only talk about how science in reality works and the idea of tests doen´t change. Which make it very different from creationism. You could try to put up programmes that explains fossiles of dinasaurs, missing spieces in the arc but "everybody" will recoqnise its being rather silly compared to evolutionism very fast, even when considering the notion of Kuhn.
Quoting a relativist now fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Hold on there a sec. "for instance" and "it needs to be set up in such a way that it can be falsified"
That is NOT what the rule is. Not a "for instance". Not a "can be" falsifiable.
It MUST be falsifiable. A scientific theory MUST be falsifiable or it is not scientific. Period.
Wow, you really do live in a black and white world, don't you?
My cat expects 10% of your wages every year. Email me for its address.
Ok, how do we falsify a theory on rotating black holes?
It is a scientific theory. It has a mathematical structure, and assumptions and predictions have been made. These assumptions and predictions are consistent within the context of the model.
How do we falsify the theory? Are you ever going to see a black hole? I doubt it, so it is a tad difficult to falsify, yes?
So how would you do it? By testing its predictions and assumptions.
The theory is set up in such away as to have predictions and assumptions.
Have you read any of the posts here?
So a theory that can not be falsified is not a scientific theory?
Very interesting.....
Fellowship
Indeed, but not for the reasons you believe.
Originally posted by Anders the White
I´m gonna mud things up here...
I have read Kuhn and have to say that a lot of what he points out seems rather reasonable.
Sounds like you are doing a bit of scienceshopping to back up your beliefs.
I am fully thankful for Science and what it has done in our lives as to improve life and to expand understanding.
I am not one that buys into the theory of evolution however. Not all theories are correct at their core.
This latest look into what constitutes a "scientific theory" has been very informative to me. I always like to look at things from many vantage points.
With regard to the authority of "who wrote the book on what constituts what a scientific theory is and is not" I am still searching for understanding in this subject and so far it is most facinating.
Fellowship
Originally posted by xenu
Ok, how do we falsify a theory on rotating black holes?
It is a scientific theory. It has a mathematical structure, and assumptions and predictions have been made. These assumptions and predictions are consistent within the context of the model.
How do we falsify the theory? Are you ever going to see a black hole? I doubt it, so it is a tad difficult to falsify, yes?
So how would you do it? By testing its predictions and assumptions.
The theory is set up in such away as to have predictions and assumptions.
Have you read any of the posts here?
Indeed, but not for the reasons you believe.
I understand that a theory could be falsified. I understand that with 100% certainty but that a scientific theory "must" be falsifiable is rather strange.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I understand that a theory could be falsified. I understand that with 100% certainty but that a scientific theory "must" be falsifiable is rather strange.
Fellowship
If it wasn´t falsifiable how could we ever be able to abandon it?
(again with Kuhn: Even if a theory is proven wrong it doesn´t mean we throw it out at first. First we will always try to see if there is minor details that needs tweeking and then we test it again with other parameters. Thats how theories... dare I say it....microevolves
Originally posted by Anders the White
A serious question fellowship: Do you believe that the earth is flat? That the sun circles the earth?
Why this? I try to be respectful to others here. This was not needed Anders
Fellowship
Let me refrase it (since I expect you don´t believe those things): Why don´t you believe the sun circles the earth and the earth is flat?
Originally posted by Anders the White
Its a serious question actually. I won´t use your answer like you think I would.
Let me refrase it (since I expect you don´t believe those things): Why don´t you believe the sun circles the earth and the earth is flat?
I understand now what you were leading to.
Flat earth was falsifiable. I agree with this.
Again I just think the wording is a bit poorly written when it is said a scientific theory must be falsifiable. The context is crude. It could have been stated that a Scientific theory should be able to be falsified in the event data is found to demonstrate said falsity.
For added context consider the following:
1. Observational Claim: If true, it is possible to know that
it is true, and if false, it is possible to know that it is
false.
2. Verifiable Claim: If true, it is possible to know that it
is true, but if false, one may never come to know that it is
false. These claims have the form "There exists x such that
Phi(x)" where Phi(x) is an observational claim about x. If
someone witnesses a single x such that Phi(x), the verifiable
claim is proved true.
3. Falsifiable Claim: If false, it is possible to know that it
is false, but if true, one may never come to know that it is
true. These claims have the form "For all x, Phi(x)" where
Phi(x) is an observational claim about x. If someone witnesses
a single x such that not Phi(x), the falsifiable claim is
proved false.
4. Metaphysical Claim: none of the above. These claims either
involve things that are inherently non-observable, or else
require more than one quantifier, such as "For all x, there
exists y such that Phi(x,y)". No finite collection of observations
can prove or disprove such claims.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I understand that with 100% certainty but that a scientific theory "must" be falsifiable is rather strange.
Fellowship
No, it isn't strange at all. If falsifiability was not required, I could present the following and you'd have to believe it without question:
There exists a large, flying, purple, invisible elephant with seventeen tusks and one gigantic eye that only speaks to me via telepathy and he is floating right above your house as we speak. This elephant, which we shall name Bob, created the universe and set up a long series of events that allowed him to eventually happily float over your house. He tells me he makes himself completely undetectable but believe me he's there because he told me he is.
Hoorah! The scientific theory of elephant creationism! You can't prove it wrong so it must be right!
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I understand now what you were leading to.
Flat earth was falsifiable. I agree with this.
Again I just think the wording is a bit poorly written when it is said a scientific theory must be falsifiable. The context is crude. It could have been stated that a Scientific theory should be able to be falsified in the event data is found to demonstrate said falsity.
Fellowship
Look, I'm not trying to be mean here but do you have a learning disability? Xenu has already explained about four times exactly why a scientific theory has to be falsifiable. The concept isn't that difficult to comprehend.
This isn't that complicated.
The "science" behind evolution is based on the irrational belief in a "power" that is capable of ordering systems to high degree. When "scientists" go looking for this "force" they find the opposite---it doesn't bother them because, like the Las Vegas gambler, they BELEIVE this "power" exists.
When "scientists" enter a lab and put intelligence and energy into an experiment to produce some of the amino acids needed to generate life---they parade such things as "proof" that you can get at least a micron or two towards a thousand-mile journey of ordering the systems we have today; but still don't see that those very experiments violate the methods their theories rely on to produce life.
Originally posted by ena Edits mine
The "science" behind [creationism] is based on the irrational belief in a "power" that is capable of ordering systems to high degree. When [creationists] go looking for this "force" they find the opposite---it doesn't bother them because, like the Las Vegas gambler, they BELEIVE this "power" exists.
See how easy that was?
Originally posted by jesperas
You're right, it isn't that complicated.
See how easy that was?
I completely understand your snide response. Since evolutionists want full participation with all being, they have a very personal stake in finding a "scientific" explanation for themselves. They get a bit cagey when they are told that don't have a handle on that explanation---which violates who they believe themselves to be.
Originally posted by ena
I completely understand your snide response. Since evolutionists want full participation with all being, they have a very personal stake in finding a "scientific" explanation for themselves. They get a bit cagey when they are told that don't have a handle on that explanation---which violates who they believe themselves to be.
If an unexpected result occurs, differing greatly from the model, REAL scientists are excited that they now have another opportunity to revise the current theory. Give me a break ena. Sure, idiots exist on both sides of the argument but to say that evolution has NO evidence and that anyone who believes in it is just as nutty as a creationist is a sign of your willful ignorance.
(the phoenix rises)
run away run away.