A rather simple comparison
(M)-adman
theories then reports to everyone the findings.
How is this any different from people that have made observations regarding
the supernatural? The observations are compared to others with similar
independent experiences as a test. The observations are then reported to
everyone.
Cheezits
> Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science tests
> these theories then reports to everyone the findings.
>
> How is this any different from people that have made observations
> regarding the supernatural?
Completely different! Because scientific observations have to be
verifiable. Just reporting them and expecting people to just take it on
faith isn't enough.
Nobody has EVER made an observation of the supernatural that could be
verified independantly. And it should be doable in principle. Like, you
could have a large group of test subjects ask God a question that none of
them have any way of knowing the answer to. If the same God answers them
you would think that not only would they all get an answer, they would get
the *exact same answer*. Instead, all we get from people who claim to
talk to God is lots of bits of contradictory gobbledygook that don't even
agree with each other, and as often as not contradict reality.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
DJT
> Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science tests these
> theories then reports to everyone the findings.
>
> How is this any different from people that have made observations regarding
> the supernatural?
"observations" regarding the supernatural cannot be tested.
> The observations are compared to others with similar
> independent experiences as a test.
How does comparing these "observations" constitute a test?
> The observations are then reported to
> everyone.
However the observations can't be replicated, tested, or either
confirmed or rejected.
DJT
Inez
Why don't you give an example of something supernatural that has been
verified through an independant test?
Startlemyerfieldson
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:zn1Rk.56751$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
The independent experiences and observations of this group with you
support a theory of stupidity.
(M)-adman
Simply not true.
You are obviously unaware of medical studies done involving prayer. Many
doctors are very aware of medical healings that have no other explanation
other then supernatural.
Just because You do not understand the supernatural does not mean it is not
there.
(and update your Xnews, it breaks threads) <G>
--
This has been another:
"helping the evolutionist' to understand" moment, with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
George
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0002097e-f7bc-4017...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 7, 12:22 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science tests
> these
> theories then reports to everyone the findings.
>
> How is this any different from people that have made observations
> regarding
> the supernatural? The observations are compared to others with similar
> independent experiences as a test. The observations are then reported to
> everyone.
* Why don't you give an example of something supernatural that has been
* verified through an independant test?
Bullwinkle once pulled a lion out of his hat. Does that count?
George
RAM
It is very clear that you do not understand science and yet for
several months you have spouted tons of ignorance.
The most important feature of science is the necessity to measure
(either directly or indirectly) phenomena. When you can measure your
phenomena reliably then you will begin to have the semblance of
science. There is still a lot more after that to make it fully
legitimate scientific enterprise.
I highly recommend that you take a science class at a local college.
You will be surprised at what you can learn.
RAM
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science tests these
>theories then reports to everyone the findings.
>
>How is this any different from people that have made observations regarding
>the supernatural?
Because you cannot observe the supernatural - if you did then it would
not be supernatural.
> The observations are compared to others with similar
>independent experiences as a test. The observations are then reported to
>everyone.
Without evidence.
--
Bob.
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>Cheezits wrote:
>> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science
>>> tests these theories then reports to everyone the findings.
>>>
>>> How is this any different from people that have made observations
>>> regarding the supernatural?
>>
>> Completely different! Because scientific observations have to be
>> verifiable. Just reporting them and expecting people to just take it
>> on faith isn't enough.
>>
>> Nobody has EVER made an observation of the supernatural that could be
>> verified independantly. And it should be doable in principle. Like,
>> you could have a large group of test subjects ask God a question that
>> none of them have any way of knowing the answer to. If the same God
>> answers them you would think that not only would they all get an
>> answer, they would get the *exact same answer*. Instead, all we get
>> from people who claim to talk to God is lots of bits of contradictory
>> gobbledygook that don't even agree with each other, and as often as
>> not contradict reality.
>>
>> Sue
>
>Simply not true.
>
>You are obviously unaware of medical studies done involving prayer. Many
>doctors are very aware of medical healings that have no other explanation
>other then supernatural.
But you see, I am aware and I know that your 'studies' are not quality
science. They have failed.
Inez
> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
He could never get that to be reproducible.
squealpiggy
> Cheezits wrote:
This phrase "many doctors" is troubling. It's like the Fox News "some
people". Define "many". Perhaps there has been some sort of poll
done in which case you could provide the number of respondents and the
percentage of respondents who are aware of supernatural healings.
Perhaps you could name some of these doctors (if there are "many" it
shouldn't be difficult) and provide details of their case studies.
"Many people" think that the universe is ruled over by an elephant-
faced God. Does this mean that you should also think that?
Boikat
It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that "eye witness" accounts
are not always dependable. This has been demonstrated time and againg
with examples in classes that deal in human perceptions. The
instructor of the class will be droning on about something, then
suddeenly, the door to the classrom bursts open, someone comes in,
says or does somethng, then runs out. Afterwards, the class is asked
to write down what they saw, providing as much detail as possible,
such as what the individual was wearing, what he or she did or said,
hair color, and so on. Differing in detail, and even in overall
discriptions, are the norm.
There are also examples od thing like UFO sightings, where several
witnesses are asked to draw what they saw, but they are isolated from
each other whn they draw what they saw, and frequently, those
individual drawings of the UFO are totaly different. And even if the
drawings were to all match, that would not rule out collusion in the
perpertration of a hoax.
Pretending that eye witness accounts constitutes sufficient evidence
to support supernatural claims is just wishful thinking on your part.
Pretending that eye witness accounts suffice as the sole piece of
"evidence" to support the supernatural is foolish, and most certainly
does not elevate such claims to the same level of validity as a
scientifric theory.
Boikat
Boikat
> Cheezits wrote:
> >> Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science
> >> tests these theories then reports to everyone the findings.
>
> >> How is this any different from people that have made observations
> >> regarding the supernatural?
>
> > Completely different! Because scientific observations have to be
> > verifiable. Just reporting them and expecting people to just take it
> > on faith isn't enough.
>
> > Nobody has EVER made an observation of the supernatural that could be
> > verified independantly. And it should be doable in principle. Like,
> > you could have a large group of test subjects ask God a question that
> > none of them have any way of knowing the answer to. If the same God
> > answers them you would think that not only would they all get an
> > answer, they would get the *exact same answer*. Instead, all we get
> > from people who claim to talk to God is lots of bits of contradictory
> > gobbledygook that don't even agree with each other, and as often as
> > not contradict reality.
>
> > Sue
>
> Simply not true.
>
> You are obviously unaware of medical studies done involving prayer. Many
> doctors are very aware of medical healings that have no other explanation
> other then supernatural.
Those studies were flawed. It is well known that a persons emotional
state effects their general health. If a patient knows he's being
prayed for, and believes in the "power of prayer", that effects their
emotional state by making them feel all warm and fuzzy. That aids in
recovery. Can you say "Placebo effect"?
>
> Just because You do not understand the supernatural does not mean it is not
> there.
It doesn''t mean it does, either.
Boikat
Hypatia
>
> I highly recommend that you take a science class at a local college.
> You will be surprised at what you can learn.
No: *they* will be surprised at what he *can't* learn...
H.
Frank J
The difference is that science critically analyzes its own findings,
and converges on answers that, to those who believe in a supernatural,
tell us what the supernatural did, when and how. Whereas those who
pretend that the supernatural is like science seek and fabricate
evidence to support their claims, ignore or misrepresent anything that
might refute them, and still can only manage to diverge into "don't
ask, don't tell what the supernatural did, when and how."
Boikat
> "RAM" <R-Math...@wiu.edu> wrote in message news:d92f23bf-2b92-
>
> > I highly recommend that you take a science class at a local college.
> > You will be surprised at what you can learn.
>
> No: *they* will be surprised at what he *can't* learn...
He'd probably have to take a "college prep course" for science too,
like fpeople who do poorly on the entrance exam in math, to bring him
up to a HS level of uderstanding of science.
Boikat
Desertphile
wrote:
> Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science tests these
> theories then reports to everyone the findings.
So, evolutionary theory is therefore science. Yeah, well, we know
that already.
Please note that science makes *VARIFIED* and *REPEATABLE*
observations.
> How is this any different from people that have made observations regarding
> the supernatural?
Nobody has ever made such an observation. Do try to keep up....
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Zucadragon
everyone to repeat the test and get the same results.
Science also gives falsifications, results that would deem the theory wrong.
Both of these factors are nog given when a supernatural explenation is
given, noone can test it with the same standards because for everyone,
the observation is different. And more importantly, its not falsifiable,
there is no way that the hypothesis of a supernatural designer can be
proven wrong.
Besides, science starts at a 0 point and the results lead to
understanding and an explenation.
Belief in a supernatural starts with the explenation and tries to find
results to match this explenation.
Joe Cummings
wrote:
>Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science tests these
Let me repeat what I wrote on 8.11.2008, to which you haven't
got an answer:
"A scientific is best understood as an invitation to the
reader to repeat the experiment. The trouble with reports of the
supernatural is that they are invitations to believe."
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
David Canzi
By describing them with a sufficient lack of detail you can make
them seem similar, but you can't disguise the dissimilarity
of their results. Differences of opinion about science don't
split scientists into thousands of contradictory sects that then
remain in a state of disagreement for generations, and often for
millennia. Wrong ideas in science are discovered to be wrong,
and thrown out. Wrong ideas about the supernatural survive longer
than civilizations: Religion doesn't take out its garbage.
Explaining the chronic lack of progress in humanity's "knowledge"
of the supernatural is your problem, not ours. You need to answer
your own question.
--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
(M)-adman
You think there is no element of "Belief" regarding science?
How foolish
Boikat
> Joe Cummings wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> >> Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science
> >> tests these theories then reports to everyone the findings.
>
> >> How is this any different from people that have made observations
> >> regarding the supernatural? The observations are compared to others
> >> with similar independent experiences as a test. The observations are
> >> then reported to everyone.
>
> > Let me repeat what I wrote on 8.11.2008, to which you haven't
> > got an answer:
>
> > "A scientific is best understood as an invitation to the
> > reader to repeat the experiment. The trouble with reports of the
> > supernatural is that they are invitations to believe."
>
> You think there is no element of "Belief" regarding science?
Not in the same context as a religious 'belief"
>
> How foolish
Yes. You are foolish if you think you can play the "equivocation
game", and think it will prove anything, other than your stupidity.
But then again, you're an idiot.
Boikat
Nomen Publicus
Not when one can perform the test for oneself. Then one knows rather than
believes.
--
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
There is a tiny bit of belief. You need to believe in reality.
>How foolish
Not nearly as foolish as you and your war on reality.
heekster
wrote:
>Cheezits wrote:
>> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>> Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science
>>> tests these theories then reports to everyone the findings.
>>>
>>> How is this any different from people that have made observations
>>> regarding the supernatural?
>>
>> Completely different! Because scientific observations have to be
>> verifiable. Just reporting them and expecting people to just take it
>> on faith isn't enough.
>>
>> Nobody has EVER made an observation of the supernatural that could be
>> verified independantly. And it should be doable in principle. Like,
>> you could have a large group of test subjects ask God a question that
>> none of them have any way of knowing the answer to. If the same God
>> answers them you would think that not only would they all get an
>> answer, they would get the *exact same answer*. Instead, all we get
>> from people who claim to talk to God is lots of bits of contradictory
>> gobbledygook that don't even agree with each other, and as often as
>> not contradict reality.
>>
>> Sue
>
>Simply not true.
>
>You are obviously unaware of medical studies done involving prayer. Many
>doctors are very aware of medical healings that have no other explanation
>other then supernatural.
>
Again, the argument from ignorance. What the doctors were, in fact
aware of, was that they did not have an explanation. There is no
evidence of anything supernatural. However, the doctors could learn,
something you fail to do here time and time again.
>Just because You do not understand the supernatural does not mean it is not
>there.
>
Just because someone does not understand a phenomenon does not mean it
must be assigned to the supernatural. That is a recipe for ignorance
and superstition.
(M)-adman
Your use of the word 'tiny' above clearly shows your disconnect to reality.
If i were you, i would SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP.
DO IT SOON!
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 13:05:02 -0600, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>> Joe Cummings wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:22:42 -0600, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science
>>>>> tests these theories then reports to everyone the findings.
>>>>>
>>>>> How is this any different from people that have made observations
>>>>> regarding the supernatural? The observations are compared to others
>>>>> with similar independent experiences as a test. The observations
>>>>> are then reported to everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Let me repeat what I wrote on 8.11.2008, to which you haven't
>>>> got an answer:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "A scientific is best understood as an invitation to the
>>>> reader to repeat the experiment. The trouble with reports of the
>>>> supernatural is that they are invitations to believe."
>>>>
>>>
>>> You think there is no element of "Belief" regarding science?
>>
>> There is a tiny bit of belief. You need to believe in reality.
>>
>>> How foolish
>>
>> Not nearly as foolish as you and your war on reality.
>
>Your use of the word 'tiny' above clearly shows your disconnect to reality.
Why do you think it takes a lot of belief to accept reality?
Joe Cummings
wrote:
I find myself in the position of having to repeat things to
Madman.
One description of science is "organised scepticism."
That is, you don't have to "believe" anything. In fact, you
try to disprove any hypothesis that's presented to you as a scientific
finding.
As I've said on more than one occasion, truth is a commodity
that the religious specialises in.
Science is always at the mercy of the empirical data.
To repeat, sceince is a body of as yet unrefuted hypotheses.
The trouble with creationists is that they ignorantly believe
science is an alternative religion, and therefore a religion to be
"defeated" in some way.
Let's see how Christians decide matters of faith:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7718587.stm
Have monk-punching fun,
Joe Cummings
johnetho...@yahoo.com
It's certainly more evidence than adman has ever produced for any of
his lies.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 22:03:01 -0600, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote
> in talk.origins:
>
>
>
> >Free Lunch wrote:
> >> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >>> Joe Cummings wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Science makes observations and then puts forth theories. Science
> >>>>> tests these theories then reports to everyone the findings.
>
> >>>>> How is this any different from people that have made observations
> >>>>> regarding the supernatural? The observations are compared to others
> >>>>> with similar independent experiences as a test. The observations
> >>>>> are then reported to everyone.
>
> >>>> Let me repeat what I wrote on 8.11.2008, to which you haven't
> >>>> got an answer:
>
> >>>> "A scientific is best understood as an invitation to the
> >>>> reader to repeat the experiment. The trouble with reports of the
> >>>> supernatural is that they are invitations to believe."
>
> >>> You think there is no element of "Belief" regarding science?
>
> >> There is a tiny bit of belief. You need to believe in reality.
>
> >>> How foolish
>
> >> Not nearly as foolish as you and your war on reality.
>
> >Your use of the word 'tiny' above clearly shows your disconnect to reality.
>
> Why do you think it takes a lot of belief to accept reality?
I expect his "reasoning" runs something like this
I am a normal person
I do not accept reality
Therefore there is something wrong with people who do accept reality
From there it's just a matter of what specifically is wrong with all
of us who actually see what is out there.
Kermit
> Joe Cummings wrote:
There are two meanings for the word "belief".
1. To think something is true. "I believe India has a larger
population than the USA."
2. To embrace a set of values. "I believe in an scholar's mind in an
athlete's body."
To use syntax such as "I believe in God" or "You believe in evolution"
is to invite equivocation. This usually indicates either dishonesty or
confusion on the part of the Creationist.
Typically the pseudo-argument goes thusly:
I believe in God.
You believe in evolution.
therefore your so-called science is just a belief / religion / opinion
like my faith.
And "faith" also has similar dual meanings...
Kermit,
who believes it's time for another cup of coffee.
(M)-adman
Even with the various "tests" one can perform you still need constant
revisions.
Until that next revision, you simply "believe"
(M)-adman
It is reality, then why would it even need a "tiny bit of belief"?
Joe Cummings
As usual, Madman is stricken silent.
I think he can only repeat phrases and then one-liners.
It would be lovely if he could engage his brain.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
You are the one who asserted that reality took as much belief as
fantasy.
Uriel
OH?
You seem to think science takes no belief.
ha!!
wf3h
knowledge of the physical world is different than belief in a god
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
Did you think you made an argument?
Boikat
Do you deny there are two contextual meanings to the word "belief"?
Do you understand the concept of equivocation?
>
> ha!!-
"ha!" is right. "ha" if you think anyone is going to fall for your
attempt at word games.
Boikat