Not even one teensy-weensy little spec of evidence to support creation?
Michael S. Goodrich
> >
> > Not even one teensy-weensy little spec of evidence to support creation?
> >
Steven J. replies:
> Nothing particularly occurs to me off the top of my head.
So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
existence is evidence for creation?
Matt Silberstein
Because that is just an equivocation. You play games with what
"creation" means. Feel free to give us a definition of "creation" that
you are willing to stick to.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
Cheezits
>> > Not even one teensy-weensy little spec of evidence to support
>> > creation?
None has ever been presented by creationists.
> Steven J. replies:
>
>> Nothing particularly occurs to me off the top of my head.
>
> So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
> existence is evidence for creation?
Are you saying that God created Steven J.? Just like Adam and Eve? :-D
Why does it not occur to you that your own existence is evidence for
evolution? You are different from you parents, and they were different
from their parents, and so on.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Augray
S. Goodrich) wrote in
news:<d92ac81f.04102...@posting.google.com>:
In what way is it evidence for creation? How does it fit into your
theory of creation? What would disprove your theory?
Seppo Pietikainen
God created Steven J.?
I'd expect that his parents will be a bit surprised.
Seppo P.
TomS
<2o6in0h2etrf049h9...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein stated..."
>
>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:58:50 +0000 (UTC), goodr...@yahoo.com
>(Michael S. Goodrich) wrote:
>
>>I previously asked:
>>
>>> >
>>> > Not even one teensy-weensy little spec of evidence to support creation?
>>> >
>>
>>
>>Steven J. replies:
>>
>>
>>> Nothing particularly occurs to me off the top of my head.
>>
>>
>>
>>So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
>>existence is evidence for creation?
>
>Because that is just an equivocation. You play games with what
>"creation" means. Feel free to give us a definition of "creation" that
>you are willing to stick to.
Many of the anti-evolution advocates do not realize that
the arguments against
1. A natural origin of species
can be -- and have been -- used as arguments against
2. A natural origin of the individual
In fact, many of the ethical-moral-religious arguments
are more relevant about (2).
Think about "my personal relationship with my Creator".
Think about "the value of the individual".
Think about "all people are created equal".
All of those relate more closely to the origin of the
individual. More so than something like whether the blood-
clotting system (or any of a number of other bodily functions
that we share with chimps, shrews, lizards or toads) has any
special "design" to it.
--
---Tom S.---
"Why resort to contrivance, where power is omnipotent? Contrivance, by its very
definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection. To have recourse to
expedients, implies difficulty, impediment, restraint, defect of power."
Paley, Natural Theology, Chapter III
Bobby D. Bryant
> So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
> existence is evidence for creation?
Because it isn't?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
BTW, will there be free will in Heaven?
Augray
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in
news:<pan.2004.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu>:
Supposedly, but it's probably the kind of free will where you'll be
afraid to do or think anything that might irk The Almighty. And since
The Almighty would seem to have a morality that's radically different
from the run of the mill person, those who get to Heaven will probably
be afraid to do or think *anything*.
Elmer Bataitis
"Michael S. Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d92ac81f.04102...@posting.google.com...
> I previously asked:
Err, probably because he had parents? Did you have parents Mike?
Abner Mintz
> So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
> existence is evidence for creation?
I'm not Steven J., but if you're interested in the answers of others
it is because in order to be considered evidence *for* some claim,
it has to favor that claim more than other claims. Our existance
doesn't favor claims that we came from supernatural sources (creation)
over claims that we came from natural sources, so it can't reasonably
be considered evidence for such claims.
If I claim limestone was made by Joe Smernok of Poland, is the
existance of limestone evidence for my claim? Is it evidence for
any claim that any person made limestone?
David Sienkiewicz
Are you trying THIS tactic again, Mike?
Okay, how is Steven's existence evidence for creation?
Why isn't he evidence for evolution?
rich hammett
> I previously asked:
> Steven J. replies:
Wow.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Chris Thompson
Allow me.
OF COURSE it is evidence for creation, Mike. Your existence is also
evidence for creation. Why, I firmly believe that some weird
red-skinned biped with cloven hooves, reeking of sulfur, and carrying
this bizarre trident-like thing one day announced, "Let there be Mike!"
I'd say the evidence is pretty well balanced, wouldn't you?
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
Chris Thompson
news:2o6in0h2etrf049h9...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:58:50 +0000 (UTC), goodr...@yahoo.com
> (Michael S. Goodrich) wrote:
>
>>I previously asked:
>>
>>> >
>>> > Not even one teensy-weensy little spec of evidence to support
>>> > creation?
>>> >
>>
>>
>>Steven J. replies:
>>
>>
>>> Nothing particularly occurs to me off the top of my head.
>>
>>
>>
>>So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
>>existence is evidence for creation?
>
> Because that is just an equivocation. You play games with what
> "creation" means. Feel free to give us a definition of "creation" that
> you are willing to stick to.
>
>
And once you manage to get that out of him, Matt, why not try for a
definition of "evidence".
Hiero5ant
"Augray" <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ncein09c27tgbhh4g...@4ax.com...
<digs into quote file>
"Being religious is like living in North Korea. You have endless
opportunities to praise The Leader, to thank Him for giving you everything,
to thank Him for looking after you, to thank Him for all his boundless
gifts, to thank Him for all His tireless efforts on your behalf. A Celestial
North Korea is what the religious believer wants, but there are two
differences: you *can* defect from North Korea, and you can die and just
cease to exist. But if you're a religious believer, The Leader goes on
persecuting you after you're dead -- you have to go on praising Him forever,
and thanking Him for being born... this is servility squared." --
Christopher Hitchens
Richard Clayton
Gee, Mike, are you back to your old "the existence of the universe is
evidence of God" schtick? Because I remember you running like a deer the
last three or four times I've asked you to substantiate that.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, Michael S.
> Goodrich:
>> I previously asked:
>
>
>>> > Not even one teensy-weensy little spec of evidence to support
>>> > creation?
>
>> Steven J. replies:
>
>>> Nothing particularly occurs to me off the top of my head.
>
>> So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
>> existence is evidence for creation?
>
> Wow.
I wonder whether he counts all the people that _don't_ exist as evidence
_against_ creation.
VoiceOfReason
His existence is strong evidence that he was born via the standard
method usually employed in such cases.
Now, if you want to ask why the existence of humans is not evidence
for creation, then you'll have to specify how a creation-based being
would manifest itself as opposed to an evolution-based being. Then
provide evidence that humans have properties that can only have
developed via creation. So far, nobody has been able to do so, and
the tired old "irreducibly complex" cliche has already been debunked.
Until you provide evidence for it, we have no reason to think that a
Creation event actually happened.
fencingsax
> goodr...@yahoo.com (Michael S. Goodrich) wrote:
> > I previously asked:
> >> > Not even one teensy-weensy little spec of evidence to support
> >> > creation?
>
> None has ever been presented by creationists.
>
> > Steven J. replies:
> >
> >> Nothing particularly occurs to me off the top of my head.
> >
> > So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
> > existence is evidence for creation?
>
> Are you saying that God created Steven J.? Just like Adam and Eve? :-D
Hey! Here's a place where that stupid, moronic, and bigoted anti-gay rant works!
VoiceOfReason
Yes, but you have to pay an extra surcharge.
Steven J.
"Michael S. Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d92ac81f.04102...@posting.google.com...
for this reply, but in the other thread I've already posted a response
indicating what properties I would expect "evidence for creation" to have
(although Abner Mintz is more concise: why is my existence better evidence
for creation than for evolution, or for spontaneous self-assembly of matter
into nattering dilettantes?). You should be replying to that later post,
preferably with a theory of creation that (if my existence is to be taken as
evidence for it) predicts that I would exist, and that I would have certain
properties rather than other possible properties.
>
-- Steven J.
Abner Mintz
> Mike, I'm not usually one to rant merely because you started a new thread
> for this reply, but in the other thread I've already posted a response
> indicating what properties I would expect "evidence for creation" to have
> (although Abner Mintz is more concise: why is my existence better evidence
> for creation than for evolution, or for spontaneous self-assembly of matter
> into nattering dilettantes?).
Man, if I'm the more concise person, it's a clear sign of the oncoming
Apocalypse!
Wakboth
Yes, but I'd expect them to deny it.
-- Wakboth
Ian Rennie
because there's no proof that he was created, rather than evolving. Happy to help.
allan m
This is complete bollocks. Joe Smernok made sandstone. Ever seen
sandstone? I rest my case.
Alan Jeffery
"Wakboth" <Wakbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7e6336d4.04102...@posting.google.com...
Nope, He'd ask you what you meant by parents.
Alan Jeffery
>
> -- Wakboth
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 15/10/2004
Walter Bushell
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> I wonder whether he counts all the people that _don't_ exist as evidence
> _against_ creation.
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
Every sperm is scared,
Every sperm is great,
When a sperm is wasted,
G-d gets most irate.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Stanley Friesen
>I previously asked:
>
>> >
>> > Not even one teensy-weensy little spec of evidence to support creation?
>> >
>
>
>Steven J. replies:
>
>
>> Nothing particularly occurs to me off the top of my head.
>
>
>
>So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
>existence is evidence for creation?
Because it isn't.
There is no particular fact about human existence that *requires* or
even *points to* an external creator per se. We are fully part of the
larger natural world.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Robin Levett
> In article <pan.2004.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu>,
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> I wonder whether he counts all the people that _don't_ exist as evidence
>> _against_ creation.
>>
>> --
>> Bobby Bryant
>> Austin, Texas
>
> Every sperm is scared,
Of what, precisely?
> Every sperm is great,
> When a sperm is wasted,
> G-d gets most irate.
>
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Abner Mintz
> > > So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
> > > existence is evidence for creation?
Abner Mintz wrote:
> > I'm not Steven J., but if you're interested in the answers of others
> > it is because in order to be considered evidence *for* some claim,
> > it has to favor that claim more than other claims. Our existance
> > doesn't favor claims that we came from supernatural sources (creation)
> > over claims that we came from natural sources, so it can't reasonably
> > be considered evidence for such claims.
> > If I claim limestone was made by Joe Smernok of Poland, is the
> > existance of limestone evidence for my claim? Is it evidence for
> > any claim that any person made limestone?
allan m <allang...@madasafish.com> wrote:
> This is complete bollocks. Joe Smernok made sandstone. Ever seen
> sandstone? I rest my case.
The two are not incompatible. Maybe he made both? Obviously this
was before he lost his marbles. Still, we shouldn't take it for
granite that others will appreciate our gneiss arguments. Shale we
continue?
Cubist
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2004.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu>,
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder whether he counts all the people that _don't_ exist as evidence
> >> _against_ creation.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bobby Bryant
> >> Austin, Texas
> >
> > Every sperm is scared,
>
> Of what, precisely?
>
> > Every sperm is great,
> > When a sperm is wasted,
> > G-d gets most irate.
well-informed enough to know that it makes no sense whatsoever to
speak of a single cell (such as a sperm) being 'scared' (frightened).
It should be perfectly clear that Bobby made a typing error; he
obviously meant to write that "every sperm is SCARRED".
Bobby D. Bryant
s/Bobby/Walter/
Robin Levett
Fair enough.
Walter - *by* what, precisely?
Greg G
If this continues, you will be charged with basalt and pepper. Then I
shale have to drink a few quartz of Rolling Rock.
--
Greg G.
I think love is better than logic, but I can't prove it.
John Wilkins
A traumatic experience.
[Ref: Everything you wanted to know about sex, but were afraid to ask,
by W. Allen.]
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
fencingsax
This *better* be a joke, or someones getting a Holy Hand Grenade up the Antioch.
John Stewart
No kidding. Sperm have such a rough life. Their chance of getting a
date is like... what, one in six billion or something? Talk about
stiff competition.
Michael S. Goodrich
> Michael S. Goodrich <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
> > existence is evidence for creation?
>
> it is because in order to be considered evidence *for* some claim,
> it has to favor that claim more than other claims. Our existance
> doesn't favor claims that we came from supernatural sources (creation)
> over claims that we came from natural sources, so it can't reasonably
> be considered evidence for such claims.
>
> If I claim limestone was made by Joe Smernok of Poland, is the
> existance of limestone evidence for my claim? Is it evidence for
> any claim that any person made limestone?
----------------- Commentary ------------------
Well it would seem that Mintz's commentary has been nominated.
First off, it is incorrect that for some observation or fact to be
considered evidence for some hypothesis it must favor that claim more
than some other hypothesis. That is not part of the ‘scientific
method' and is likely just a ploy for exclusion.
A certain piece of evidence in general can easily support multiple
competing hypotheses. Of course what an investigator would most seek
out is evidence which is not compatible with all competing hypotheses
but which is capable of excluding some or all hypotheses save one.
Of course it was not stated how one actually determines whether a
certain piece of evidence favors one hypothesis more than it does
another. What metric is to be used?
To claim that our existence does not favor creation over evolution is
simply a bald assertion again without any discussion that it is
anything other than a personal conviction.
So the best that Mintz and perhaps Steven J. have I suppose is that
our existence isn't evidence for creation because they have a personal
conviction likely based on a lack of vision.
BOTTON LINE:
------------
Personal convictions aand lack of vision is a poor substitute for
objective critical analysis, which is their prerogative of coourse
except when it comes to matters of science.
Cheezits
> news:<1gm29ak.1ejc7aesqqdgoN%abner...@earthlink.net>...
>> Michael S. Goodrich <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
>> > existence is evidence for creation?
>>
>> I'm not Steven J., but if you're interested in the answers of others
>> it is because in order to be considered evidence *for* some claim,
>> it has to favor that claim more than other claims. Our existance
>> doesn't favor claims that we came from supernatural sources
>> (creation) over claims that we came from natural sources, so it
>> can't reasonably be considered evidence for such claims.
>>
>> If I claim limestone was made by Joe Smernok of Poland, is the
>> existance of limestone evidence for my claim? Is it evidence for
>> any claim that any person made limestone?
Note that this is unanswered.
> To claim that our existence does not favor creation over evolution is
> simply a bald assertion again without any discussion that it is
> anything other than a personal conviction.
[hot air deleted]
Post the evidence for creation, and explain how it supports it.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
John Harshman
Michael S. Goodrich wrote:
I agree. Now let's apply it to you. What we need here is some rational
argument for why Steven J.'s existence is better evidence for creation
than for evolution.
It would also be nice if you would tell us what exactly you mean by
creation. Since many people believe both in evolution and creation (all
Christians who are also evolutionary biologists, for example), you must
be using a more restrictive definition than they are. It's your
prerogative not to define your terms, of course, except when it comes to
matters of science.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Personal convictions aand lack of vision is a poor substitute for
> objective critical analysis
Mote, meet beam.
Elmer Bataitis
"Michael S. Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d92ac81f.04102...@posting.google.com...
(snip)
>...it is incorrect that for some observation or fact to be
> considered evidence for some hypothesis it must favor that claim more
> than some other hypothesis.
Really? So green cheese, McDonald's value menu and pumpkins on porches is evidence for the
hypothesis that the sun shines via nuclear reactions? Gee Mike I didn't know this. ;-)
Steven J.
"Michael S. Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d92ac81f.04102...@posting.google.com...
> abner...@earthlink.net (Abner Mintz) wrote in message
> news:<1gm29ak.1ejc7aesqqdgoN%abner...@earthlink.net>...
>> Michael S. Goodrich <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
>> > existence is evidence for creation?
>>
>> I'm not Steven J., but if you're interested in the answers of others
>> it is because in order to be considered evidence *for* some claim,
>> it has to favor that claim more than other claims. Our existance
>> doesn't favor claims that we came from supernatural sources (creation)
>> over claims that we came from natural sources, so it can't reasonably
>> be considered evidence for such claims.
>>
>> If I claim limestone was made by Joe Smernok of Poland, is the
>> existance of limestone evidence for my claim? Is it evidence for
>> any claim that any person made limestone?
>
>
>
> ----------------- Commentary ------------------
>
> Well it would seem that Mintz's commentary has been nominated.
>
to you?
>
> First off, it is incorrect that for some observation or fact to be
> considered evidence for some hypothesis it must favor that claim more
> than some other hypothesis. That is not part of the 'scientific
> method' and is likely just a ploy for exclusion.
>
is simply consistent with a theory, then the fact that I'm using Outlook
Express to post this message is equally evidence that O.J. Simpson killed
his ex-wife, and that Columbian drug dealers were the real killers, or that
George W. Bush did it, or, for that matter, that Nicole Brown Simpson is
still alive. A scientist trying to gather evidence for common descent of
the hominoids might as well simply measure the fat contents of various
pizzas -- whatever results he gets will be, by your criterion, evidence for
common descent (and for separate creation, and for evolution from separate
abiogenesis events).
I think we want just a bit more out of a fact before regarding it as
"evidence." To wit, a fact is evidence if it somehow logically follows from
a theory, and some imaginable contrary fact logically contradicted the
theory.
>
> A certain piece of evidence in general can easily support multiple
> competing hypotheses. Of course what an investigator would most seek
> out is evidence which is not compatible with all competing hypotheses
> but which is capable of excluding some or all hypotheses save one.
>
I think unless a fact excludes some hypotheses, it's not evidence in the
case under consideration at all. You have drawn a ridiculously overbroad
definition of evidence (i.e. evidence is any fact consistent with an
assertion) just so that you can say there is evidence for creation, without
having to show that it is evidence either against rival creationist accounts
or various "naturalistic" accounts.
>
> Of course it was not stated how one actually determines whether a
> certain piece of evidence favors one hypothesis more than it does
> another. What metric is to be used?
>
Mike, does it ever bother you that your defense of "creation" comes down to
[a] not defining your terms and [b] epistomological nihilism?
>
> To claim that our existence does not favor creation over evolution is
> simply a bald assertion again without any discussion that it is
> anything other than a personal conviction.
>
Even by your own relaxed criteria, I don't see how our existence favors
creation over evolution. At best, it is consistent with either possibility
(and if you indeed have no idea how to decide whether a fact is better
evidence for one idea than for another, then you ought, consistently, to
concede that -- for you, at least -- no fact favors any possibility over any
other).
>
> So the best that Mintz and perhaps Steven J. have I suppose is that
> our existence isn't evidence for creation because they have a personal
> conviction likely based on a lack of vision.
>
It seems to me that you suppose a great many silly things.
>
>
>
> BOTTON LINE:
> ------------
>
> Personal convictions aand lack of vision is a poor substitute for
> objective critical analysis, which is their prerogative of coourse
> except when it comes to matters of science.
>
Right back at you, Mike.
-- Steven J.
Abner Mintz
> First off, it is incorrect that for some observation or fact to be
> considered evidence for some hypothesis it must favor that claim more
> method' and is likely just a ploy for exclusion.
So you think that an observation or fact can be considered evidence
for X even if it doesn't favor X over alternate explanations? This
is an interesting viewpoint. How does it work in practice? For
instance, if a bullet was found by forensic examination to have
markings identical to those on bullets fired from gun 1, and
inconsistent with bullets fired from gun 2, you would consider that
evidence that they were fired from gun 2?
> A certain piece of evidence in general can easily support multiple
> competing hypotheses.
For any event, there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses.
A given piece of evidence sometimes supports one hypothesis
(such as the bullet being fired from gun 1 instead of gun 2), or
it can support multiple hypotheses (such as that the markings show
it was fired by any of a number of possible guns, but not from a
slingshot). There are many examples of such observations - for
instance, a given astronomy observation may be consistent with
3 different hypotheses but not with any others yet proposed. In this
case the evidence supports those hypotheses but not the others.
However, a piece of evidence (such as existance) which is
equally compatible with *any* hypothesis (such as gods, black
hole universe creation, or the universe being created by a cat last
Tuesday) cannot, IMO, be reasonably be said to support any of
them - whereas you would apparently claim it supports all of them,
whether or not it was more compatible with one than another.
In short, by the way you are claiming evidence works, the existance
of the universe supports the idea that we were created by a cat
last Tuesday.
> Of course it was not stated how one actually determines whether a
> certain piece of evidence favors one hypothesis more than it does
> another. What metric is to be used?
Generally greater consistency with that hypothesis than with others.
> To claim that our existence does not favor creation over evolution is
> simply a bald assertion again without any discussion that it is
> anything other than a personal conviction.
Well, I certainly haven't seen any convincing arguments otherwise.
Until such time as I see y'all present something better than Pascal's
wager or 'because I said so', I see no reason to claim that your
hypothesis is favored despite its lack of greater consistency.
> So the best that Mintz and perhaps Steven J. have I suppose is that
> our existence isn't evidence for creation because they have a personal
> conviction likely based on a lack of vision.
Your supposition is wrong; the best we have is that, by your reasoning,
every hypothesis is supported by every observation, since you don't
consider greater consistency a criteria for deciding whether evidence
favors a hypothesis.
BTW, next time you make claims about what I said could you please
quote me as saying it? I don't trust people who stoop to personal
attacks as you did in your post, and would prefer that you left an
electronic trail of what I actually said.
dandelion
"fencingsax" <chris...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > >> > Every sperm is scared,
> > > >>
> > > >> Of what, precisely?
> > > >>
> > > >> > Every sperm is great,
> > > >> > When a sperm is wasted,
> > > >> > G-d gets most irate.
> > > > You disappoint me, Robin. Both you and Bobby are intelligent and
> > > > well-informed enough to know that it makes no sense whatsoever to
> > > > speak of a single cell (such as a sperm) being 'scared'
(frightened).
> > > > It should be perfectly clear that Bobby made a typing error; he
> > > > obviously meant to write that "every sperm is SCARRED".
> > >
> > > Fair enough.
> > >
> > > Walter - *by* what, precisely?
> >
> > A traumatic experience.
> >
> > [Ref: Everything you wanted to know about sex, but were afraid to ask,
> > by W. Allen.]
>
> This *better* be a joke, or someones getting a Holy Hand Grenade up the
Antioch.
>
Right!
The correct version of course is "every sperm is secret".
Eric Root
>abner...@earthlink.net (Abner Mintz) wrote in message news:<1gm29ak.1ejc7aesqqdgoN%abner...@earthlink.net>...
>
>>Michael S. Goodrich <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
>>>existence is evidence for creation?
>>>
>>I'm not Steven J., but if you're interested in the answers of others
>> it is because in order to be considered evidence *for* some claim,
>> it has to favor that claim more than other claims. Our existance
>> doesn't favor claims that we came from supernatural sources (creation)
>> over claims that we came from natural sources, so it can't reasonably
>> be considered evidence for such claims.
>>
>>If I claim limestone was made by Joe Smernok of Poland, is the
>> existance of limestone evidence for my claim? Is it evidence for
>> any claim that any person made limestone?
>>
>
>
>
>----------------- Commentary ------------------
>
>Well it would seem that Mintz's commentary has been nominated.
>
>First off, it is incorrect that for some observation or fact to be
>considered evidence for some hypothesis it must favor that claim more
>than some other hypothesis. That is not part of the 'scientific
>method' and is likely just a ploy for exclusion.
>
And your evidence of the likelihood that this is a ply for exclusion?
Could it be lack of vision on your part?
>
>
>A certain piece of evidence in general can easily support multiple
>competing hypotheses. Of course what an investigator would most seek
>out is evidence which is not compatible with all competing hypotheses
>but which is capable of excluding some or all hypotheses save one.
>
>Of course it was not stated how one actually determines whether a
>certain piece of evidence favors one hypothesis more than it does
>another. What metric is to be used?
>
>To claim that our existence does not favor creation over evolution is
>simply a bald assertion again without any discussion that it is
>anything other than a personal conviction.
>
>So the best that Mintz and perhaps Steven J. have I suppose is that
>our existence isn't evidence for creation because they have a personal
>conviction likely based on a lack of vision.
>
"I suppose" is likely based on your personal conviction and lack of vision.
>
>BOTTON LINE:
>------------
>
>Personal convictions aand lack of vision is a poor substitute for
>objective critical analysis, which is their prerogative of coourse
>except when it comes to matters of science.
>
Right, so straighten out and get your act together. Talk about a
content-free post on your part.
Von Smith
>
> > >
> > > Not even one teensy-weensy little spec of evidence to support creation?
> > >
>
>
> Steven J. replies:
>
>
> > Nothing particularly occurs to me off the top of my head.
>
>
>
> existence is evidence for creation?
Did your parents not explain to you where babies come from?
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis satis nulli.
Richard Forrest
> First off, it is incorrect that for some observation or fact to be
> considered evidence for some hypothesis it must favor that claim more
> than some other hypothesis. That is not part of the ?scientific
> method' and is likely just a ploy for exclusion.
What a curious statement.
A hypothesis is formulated and is validated by evidence and
observation. This seems a pretty good description of how science
progresses.
A good scientific paper will marshall relevant evidence both for and
against a particular hypothesis. If the evidence fails to support the
hypothesis, it is scrapped.
I don't understand what you mean by 'a ploy for exclusion'. Are you
suggesting that all evidence, whether relevant or not, should be
produced in a paper formulation any hypothesis?
>
> A certain piece of evidence in general can easily support multiple
> competing hypotheses.
Quite so. Which is why evidence needs to be interpreted in light of a
hypothesis. If it fails to support the hypothesis, the hypothesis
should be discarded. The same piece of evidence may support more than
one hypothesis, which is why we (as scientists) frequently say 'I
don't know' and look for more evidence which may elucidate the matter.
> Of course what an investigator would most seek
> out is evidence which is not compatible with all competing hypotheses
> but which is capable of excluding some or all hypotheses save one.
Yep. That't what I just described.
>
> Of course it was not stated how one actually determines whether a
> certain piece of evidence favors one hypothesis more than it does
> another. What metric is to be used?
Logic.
>
> To claim that our existence does not favor creation over evolution is
> simply a bald assertion again without any discussion that it is
> anything other than a personal conviction.
This is setting up a false dichotomy. Creation and evolution are not
mutally exclusive concepts, regardless of what the zealots may claim.
God may have created the world of living things using creation as a
tool. This does not however fall within the bounds of science. If the
nature of God is to be all-powerful and capable of anything, then the
hypothesis that 'God created it' can explain anything at all. A
hypothesis which can explain anything is of no more value than a
hypothesis which explains nothing. It is impossible to test such a
hypothesis against any evidence.
Evidence and observation on the other hand support very strongly the
hypothesis that living things have evolved. If you chose to dismiss
the hypothesis that living things have evolved you need to provide a
lot of evidence to support that assertion. By the way, bacterial
flagellae have been thoroughly refuted as evidence of an alternative.
>
> So the best that Mintz and perhaps Steven J. have I suppose is that
> our existence isn't evidence for creation because they have a personal
> conviction likely based on a lack of vision.
>
Personal conviction has nothing to do with it.
RF
Stefan Kruithof
"Every sperm scored" it is.
fencingsax
THAT *better* be a joke to, or I'll be quite irate.
Bigdakine
>creation?
>From: goodr...@yahoo.com (Michael S. Goodrich)
>Date: 10/25/04 6:17 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <d92ac81f.04102...@posting.google.com>
>
>abner...@earthlink.net (Abner Mintz) wrote in message
>news:<1gm29ak.1ejc7aesqqdgoN%abner...@earthlink.net>...
>> Michael S. Goodrich <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > So tell me Steven J. why does it not 'occur' to you that your own
>> > existence is evidence for creation?
>>
>> I'm not Steven J., but if you're interested in the answers of others
>> it is because in order to be considered evidence *for* some claim,
>> it has to favor that claim more than other claims. Our existance
>> doesn't favor claims that we came from supernatural sources (creation)
>> over claims that we came from natural sources, so it can't reasonably
>> be considered evidence for such claims.
>>
>> If I claim limestone was made by Joe Smernok of Poland, is the
>> existance of limestone evidence for my claim? Is it evidence for
>> any claim that any person made limestone?
>
>
>
>----------------- Commentary ------------------
>
>Well it would seem that Mintz's commentary has been nominated.
>
>First off, it is incorrect that for some observation or fact to be
>considered evidence for some hypothesis it must favor that claim more
>than some other hypothesis.
Try writing English next time.
<snip>
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."