A Challenge to Kermit. (But anyone can participate)
All-Seeing-I
1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
Insert answer HERE: GO!
--------------------------------------
kalkidas
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message news:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a sensory tunnel with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing right next to us that we'll never observe in a million lifetimes. The whole universe is filled to the brim with living beings, but we see only empty space.
Grandbank
Yes.
KP
Grandbank
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> > Insert answer HERE: GO!
> > --------------------------------------
>
> Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out.
That's because they're not there anymore.
>We live in a sensory tunnel with five kinds of perceptions.
How do you know that?
>Things are standing right next to us that we'll never observe in a million lifetimes.
Why do they need to stand? What are they standing on?
>The whole universe is filled to the brim with living beings, but we
see only empty space.
What exactly do you mean by "empty".
KP
Dana Tweedy
> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
If one has perception sufficient enough to see a population of organisms
undergo morphological change over generations, one has sufficient perception
to show evolution to be a "true process".
Since farmers have been breeding crops and animals for specific traits over
time, such perception is indeed sufficient.
DJT
All-Seeing-I
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> > Insert answer HERE: GO!
> > --------------------------------------
>
> beings, but we see only empty space.
Star Trek did an interesting episode in the 1960's. The Enterprise
encounters a group of people who live at an accelerated rate and want
to take over the ship. Those who were living at the accelerated rate
could see those moving at the slower rate, but those at the slower
rate rate of speed could only perceived those at the faster rate as an
unexplainable buzzing sound.
God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
"reality".
Burkhard
Nonsensical question. _All_ our knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is
ultimately sense based. The ToE is in no different position from any
other scientific theory, or indeed pre-scientific "common sense"
knowledge. I know that there is a tree in my garden because i perceive
it through my senses. I know there is ground under my feet because i
perceive it though my senses - all of which of course may be in error.
Indeed, science has succeeded in overcoming the limitations of our
senses in a quite dramatic way, making things accessible to us that are
neither directly perceived by humans or any other animal.
While then all our knowledge of the external world is ultimately
dependent on our senses which are a) limited and b) not infallible, the
alternatives are simple: you either fall back to radical solipsism and
end up in a psychiatric ward, or you do the best with what is available
to us. Apart from the insane that is what all people in their practical
life do, even though some puerile would-be philosophers claim otherwise
in discussion. Since we survived so far (or at least have a strong
illusion that we survived so far) chances are that our senses are
sufficiently accurate to get a good picture of the world. Indeed, the
ToE partly explains why this is: if you don't see the sabre tooth tiger,
or see tigers where there aren't any, you will be deselected from the
gene pool.
Inez
> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
evidence to know there is a duck on the lake? Or do you need to smell
and taste that duck as well? Or is even that not enough?
> Insert answer HERE: GO!
Pull your head out, then maybe there will be room.
Will in New Haven
Certainly the asshole torturer-god you worship could be doing that.
Your religion seems to be an outlet for sado-masochistic fantasies.
--
Will in New Haven
John Harshman
He can't. We have to assume that our perceptions are not useless, or we
can't know anything. We can never show this, because in order to provide
evidence that we correctly perceive the evidence you have to assume that
we can correctly perceive evidence. It's an infinite regress unless you
make that assumption.
Of course, as I have pointed out to you many times, it's necessary to
make that assumption in order to know anything, or in fact to have an
ordinary life.
John Harshman
John Harshman
And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about. Do
you have evidence that he isn't?
All-Seeing-I
> kalkidas wrote:
> > "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you try turning all of the lights out?
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
I assume you have evidence for these wild and exotic claims?
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> >>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> >>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
> >>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
> >>> --------------------------------------
> >> Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a sensory tunnel > with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing right next to us that we'll never > observe in a million lifetimes.The whole universe is filled to the brim with living
> >> beings, but we see only empty space.
>
> > Star Trek did an interesting episode in the 1960's. The Enterprise
> > encounters a group of people who live at an accelerated rate and want
> > to take over the ship. Those who were living at the accelerated rate
> > could see those moving at the slower rate, but those at the slower
> > rate rate of speed could only perceived those at the faster rate as an
> > unexplainable buzzing sound.
>
> > God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
> > butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
> > "reality".
>
> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
Your ability to perceive the evidence is lacking. Not only that but
you will not accept anything other then physical evidence for
something that is not physical.
>
> And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
> too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about. Do
> you have evidence that he isn't.
Are you saying Dawkins is God like and comparable to God?
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary oibservations
>showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
>
>Insert answer HERE: GO!
>--------------------------------------
>
>
>
yeah. because evolution is not based on 'perceptions'. it's based on
experimental evidence and scientific methodology
perceptions are colored by biases. religion is primary among these.
in 10,000 years humans have made gods of virtually everything in their
experience including trees, moons, stars, etc.
and they've invented dozens or hundreds of sacred texts; no one knows
what these mean
evolution, OTOH, like chemistry, physics or other sciences, is based
on testing concepts about the way we think the world works
and this method...the scientific method...is the most accurate method
ever developed to discover how the natural world works
bpuharic
>
>"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message news:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>
>>
>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
>> --------------------------------------
>
>Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a sensory tunnel with five kinds of perceptions.
that's why science...unlike creationism...has developed ways to extend
our senses. this has enable us to gain knowledge of the world that
creationists could never have imagined
Things are standing right next to us that we'll never observe in a
million lifetimes. The whole universe is filled to the brim with
living beings, but we see only empty space.
and it could be filled with easter bunnies, too.
Caranx latus
<snip>
>> Certainly the asshole torturer-god you worship could be doing that.
>> Your religion seems to be an outlet for sado-masochistic fantasies.
>
> I assume you have evidence for these wild and exotic claims?
Well, how about the story of Job for one?
Caranx latus
> On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>> God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
>>> butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
>>> "reality".
>> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
>
> Your ability to perceive the evidence is lacking. Not only that but
> you will not accept anything other then physical evidence for
> something that is not physical.
You used the word "standing". Standing is a physical action, with lots
of physical implications: legs, subject to gravity, physical location,
etc. All kinds of physical properties, and all of these should be
testable. If you don't intend that physical properties apply, perhaps
you could choose your words with more precision.
>> And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
>> too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about. Do
>> you have evidence that he isn't.
>
> Are you saying Dawkins is God like and comparable to God?
Oddly, that doesn't look like an answer to John's question. Try again.
John Harshman
Can you provide any evidence for that?
>> And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
>> too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about. Do
>> you have evidence that he isn't.
>
> Are you saying Dawkins is God like and comparable to God?
No, Dawkins is better than god, because Dawkins really exists. However,
that's irrelevant to my point. You can't place limits on anything you
can't perceive. Invisible Dawkins is easily as likely as invisible God.
Or can you provide evidence to the contrary?
John Harshman
> Did you try turning all of the lights out?
Why?
All-Seeing-I
You did not understand it?
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
> >>> butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
> >>> "reality".
> >> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
>
> > Your ability to perceive the evidence is lacking. Not only that but
> > you will not accept anything other then physical evidence for
> > something that is not physical.
>
> You used the word "standing". Standing is a physical action, with lots
> of physical implications: legs, subject to gravity, physical location,
> etc. All kinds of physical properties, and all of these should be
> testable. If you don't intend that physical properties apply, perhaps
> you could choose your words with more precision.
The word "standing" best fits what a human can understand. Was there a
point?
>
> >> And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
> >> too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about. Do
> >> you have evidence that he isn't.
>
> > Are you saying Dawkins is God like and comparable to God?
>
> Oddly, that doesn't look like an answer to John's question. Try again.
John is a big boy. He can defend himself.
Caranx latus
> On Nov 9, 7:06 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 6:38 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>>> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Certainly the asshole torturer-god you worship could be doing that.
>>>> Your religion seems to be an outlet for sado-masochistic fantasies.
>>> I assume you have evidence for these wild and exotic claims?
>> Well, how about the story of Job for one?
>
> You did not understand it?
I thought I did. How many people died so that God could be assured of
Job's worship?
Caranx latus
> On Nov 9, 7:11 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
>>>>> butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
>>>>> "reality".
>>>> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
>>> Your ability to perceive the evidence is lacking. Not only that but
>>> you will not accept anything other then physical evidence for
>>> something that is not physical.
>> You used the word "standing". Standing is a physical action, with lots
>> of physical implications: legs, subject to gravity, physical location,
>> etc. All kinds of physical properties, and all of these should be
>> testable. If you don't intend that physical properties apply, perhaps
>> you could choose your words with more precision.
>
> The word "standing" best fits what a human can understand. Was there a
> point?
OK. Got it. You're unable to express yourself clearly. Subject dropped.
<snip>
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dunno if he should be saying this, but Richard
Dawkins has one very tangible advantage over God.
He exists.
Tim
VoiceOfReason
> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> Insert answer HERE: GO!
> --------------------------------------
42
chris thompson
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> > Insert answer HERE: GO!
> > --------------------------------------
>
Please, do not limit yourself like this.
Yes, in second grade they told you humans have five senses- sight,
hearing, smell, touch, and taste.
They were wrong.
You have thermoreception, you have nocioception, you have
proprioception, you have static and dynamic equilibrium, you have
satiety senses in the stomach, thirst senses based on hydration levels
in your circulatory system, baroreceptors in your carotid arteries,
hunger senses based on your blood sugar level, and stretch senses in
your urinary bladder and rectum (given what too many creationists are
full of, that last one probably never stops flashing red if you are
not careful).
Not only that, humans have extended their perceptions far beyond the
multiple senses we possess.
Microscopy- the single most important invention in all of biology, if
you ask me- has extended our visual sense tremendously. We have plain
light (i.e., bright field) microscopy, we have have phase-contrast
microscopy, we have differential staining in microbiology, we have
flourescent microscopy, we have dark-field microscopy, we have
confocal microscopy. All of these extend our VISUAL sense beyond what
we can see with the Mark I eyeball (which is still highly useful,
btw).
In addition, we have transmission electron microscopy, scanning
electron microscopy, and tunneling electron microscopy (and others)
that extend our senses FAR beyond what we could perceive with any kind
of light microscopy.
In the macro-biology field, we have similar advances.
One of my favorites is the ultra-sound detector. When I was in high
school I had the privilege of getting to know Don Griffin. He inspired
me to do my senior college undergrad thesis on echolocation in shrews.
_Sorex vagrans_ it turns out, uses ultrasound to navigate but not to
hunt (thanks to Gene Simmons, of the University of Oregon Biology
Department for the loan of the ultrasound detector). And that
ultrasound detector allowed me to measure the clicks those shrews
emitted when they were finding their way through a maze, but not when
they were locating prey.
Also, In case you didn't know, ultrasound detectors are used to
localize high-pressure gas and steam leaks. That's of immense
importance in places like natural gas refineries and nuclear power
plants, where even the tiniest leak can lead to disaster.
So there's some examples of science extending our AURAL perceptions
beyond human capabilities. Similar examples abound- for instance, the
US Navy has released to the scientific community recordings of whale
songs. Long kept classified because of the (rightful) concern that the
Red Navy would be able to see out true abilities, these recordings
have proven to be highly useful in estimating whale populations,
breeding behavior and the like.
We have also been able to invent ways to perceive things we never even
knew existed.
A scintillator will produce a visible signal in the presence of
ionizing radiation. Humans, of course, could walk past, say, a cesium
source and never feel the radiation hitting them. But science has
discovered a way of measuring the strength of ionizing radiation.
And If you point a particular kind of emitter at the sky and activate
it, you will almost certainly get a response- given you have the right
kind of receptor. That emitter is called RADAR, short for Radio
Detection And Ranging. It was arguably the reason the Allies won the
Battle of Britain. It extends the range of human perception far into
places it never went before- radar might use frequencies of 10E-3 nm
all the way up to 10E6 nm. When you listen to Yummy Yummy Yummy on
your retro radio station, you are experiencing the wonders of science
transducing energy you cannot perceive (radio) into energy you can
perceive (sound).
In short, this "sensory tunnel" you mention is your own willful
blindness. You limit yourself to a few sensory perceptions because it
reinforces your limited view of the world. There is a wonderful,
varied, enormous planet filled with all kinds of spectacular phenomena
out there, if only you would allow science to expand your perception
of it.
The most applicable bit of science to the evolution question is, of
course, the ability to sequence DNA. Those sequence, without
exception, all point to a common ancestor.
That perception is waiting for you. Take advantage of it.
Chris
Will in New Haven
Your own statements, you vicious baboon. You have said
That god created some people with a genetic inability to sense him.
You clearly believe that those people will, for no act of will, will
be tortured forever in Hell. And you rejoice in this.
You said pretty much the same thing with "chemical" substituted for
"genetic."
You have portrayed god as standing right by people who can't see him,
_laughing_ at them. Like a cruel asshole. Just like you. Wouldn't a
_compassionate_ god let people see him? Don't you think people would
_rather_ see a kind god than fail to see the trickster, murderer,
hateful pile of steaming horseshit you worship. Made in your own image
or you made in his, it doesn't matter.
Mark Evans
Easy to understand. 2 supernatural beings torture a poor human for
their amusement and wager over how much he can stand. BTW, the story
is strong support for the idea that Christians don't understand that
Satan is not especially evil, he just works for someone who is.
Mark Evans
All-seeing-I
Too many if you ask me.
But did you understand it?
All-seeing-I
When I first read Job I was rather appalled. But there is even one
better at the end of the book of Judges which will make the hair on
the back of your neck stand up.
Satan *IS* especially that evil. He has been a lier and a murderer
since the beginning.
All-seeing-I
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:41:08 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
Too bad evolution does not hold water to the "scientific method"
All-seeing-I
If you are done patting yourself on the back, I have a question.
Are you 100% sure your observations are accurate
All-seeing-I
You asked for evidence right?
Boikat
> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> Insert answer HERE: GO!
> --------------------------------------
That's one of the most stupid "challenges" I've ever seen. Let's put
it into context:
Can anyone provide evidence showing that mankinds perceptions are
sufficient enough to accurstly make the necessary observations showing
that it's raining outside?
Can anyone provide evidence showing that mankinds perceptions are
sufficient enough to accurstly make the necessary observations showing
that the sky is blue?
Can anyone provide evidence showing that mankinds perceptions are
sufficient enough to accurstly make the necessary observations showing
that lightning is made of electricity?
Can anyone provide evidence showing that mankinds perceptions are
sufficient enough to accurstly make the necessary observations showing
that Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite is a dullard.?
Human "preceptions" are all we have, that's all we need, and claiming
"limited perceptive abilities" invalidates observations, and
therefore, the throries built upon them, is probably the ultimate in
intellectual cowardice and willful ignorance.
Boikat
Boikat
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> > Insert answer HERE: GO!
> > --------------------------------------
>
Until you have evidence of that claim, the claim is without meaning or
value.
Boikat
Boikat
You just blew up the irony meter factory. Congrats.
How about the evidence for your claims?
Boikat
Boikat
> On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> > > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> > > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> > > Insert answer HERE: GO!
> > > --------------------------------------
>
> > Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a sensory tunnel > with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing right next to us that we'll never > observe in a million lifetimes.The whole universe is filled to the brim with living
> > beings, but we see only empty space.
>
> Star Trek did an interesting episode in the 1960's. The Enterprise
> encounters a group of people who live at an accelerated rate and want
> to take over the ship. Those who were living at the accelerated rate
> could see those moving at the slower rate, but those at the slower
> rate rate of speed could only perceived those at the faster rate as an
> unexplainable buzzing sound.
>
> God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
> butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
> "reality".
Or not. You have any evidence, present it. Othewise, you're just
blowing smoke (probably from some illegal drug).
Boikat
Boikat
> > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> > Insert answer HERE: GO!
> > --------------------------------------
>
> can't know anything.
That's his intended point. If we cant know everything, everything
goes, except since the fool claims his "perceptive abilities" are
better, his "anything goes" is the Truth(tm)!
> We can never show this, because in order to provide
> evidence that we correctly perceive the evidence you have to assume that
> we can correctly perceive evidence. It's an infinite regress unless you
> make that assumption.
>
> Of course, as I have pointed out to you many times, it's necessary to
> make that assumption in order to know anything, or in fact to have an
> ordinary life.
For Null Thinking I(diot), a padded cell with internet access *is*
life.
Boikat
Boikat
That is a lie. What you menat to say was "evolution does not hold
water to the 'tard version of the scientific method".
Perhaps you should not use the 'tard version of the scientific method
when you attempt to critique the ToE
Boikat
Klaus Hellnick
is filled to the brim with living beings"?
Kent
>
> > Chris
>
> If you are done patting yourself on the back, I have a question.
>
> Are you 100% sure your observations are accurate
No but I am 90% sure of 90% of them. Is that good enough?
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
First, can you provide evidence that you are NOT an ignorant, lying, sewer
trash troll?
Sapient Fridge
<2f08aeb6-8fef-48af...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
In this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0fbead8e1f4556ec
I showed out that even though you continually claim that the theory of
evolution has problems you are *completely* unable to provide even a
shred of evidence to back up your statements. You know you are
bluffing, you have nothing.
I also predicted that you would continue to repeat your claims that the
ToE has problems in new threads, even though it is obvious to everybody
that you have no evidence. That prediction has now come true as well.
You hide behind declarations that evidence doesn't apply to your beliefs
as a way to avoid providing any. Science doesn't need any such skirt to
cower behind, it *welcomes* evidence. It's well documented what
evidence would falsify evolution. Come on then. Do it.
Another thread for you to run from? No wonder you have to keep
creating new threads, you keep being cornered in the old ones.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
All-seeing-I
Then only 10% should need revision. That is not the case, is it?
Ilas
38074d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> Can anyone provide evidence showing that mankinds perceptions are
> sufficient enough to accurstly make the necessary observations showing
> that the sky is blue?
Blue? I'm British. It's grey.
All-seeing-I
> >> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> >>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
> >>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
> >>> --------------------------------------
> >> beings, but we see only empty space.
>
> > encounters a group of people who live at an accelerated rate and want
> > to take over the ship. Those who were living at the accelerated rate
> > could see those moving at the slower rate, but those at the slower
> > rate rate of speed could only perceived those at the faster rate as an
> > unexplainable buzzing sound.
>
> > God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
> > butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
> > "reality".
>
Potential evidence perhaps. The spiritual world can only be ‘detected’
by its influence on the material world. So it is tough to give
physical evidence. Some inferences have to be made. Scientists can’t
view or measure the supernatural. So they doubt its existence. Oddly
enough though, Science looks for stuff they assume is there but cannot
actually perceive with human ability all the time. How else would man
have found the atom? So why does looking for God seem so out of
bounds?
As you said "He could be".He could be standing next to you based on
the evidence that man cannot even hear as well as many of the animals,
which shows that there are things that exist which humans cannot
perceive. Plus there is such a subatomic world that we know next to
nothing about. God could be shown to exist with “Higgs boson” or dark
matter/energy.
The point is science is fallible. Why? Because science depends on
instruments that enhance physical observations made by humans. But
there are physical limits to how good those instruments can be.
Therefore your interpretations are only going to be as good as the
instruments. So without actual observations of speciation you can only
make a guess based on instruments and perceptions that could have
flaws. Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
So my theory is this:
There is a higher probability that God created man based on the fact
that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited but, man
has recorded supernatural events happening.
OTOH,
There is a lower probability for Evolution being true based on the
fact that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited
but, man has NOT recorded anything in the past showing speciation.
> And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
> too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about.
Doubtful. But if it gives you a warm fuzzy....
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>> > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>> > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>
>> > Insert answer HERE: GO!
>> > --------------------------------------
>>
>> Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a sensory tunnel > with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing right next to us that we'll never > observe in a million lifetimes.The whole universe is filled to the brim with living
>> beings, but we see only empty space.
>
>God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
>butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
>"reality".
that's the problem with being a creationist: it's so RANDOM
god could equally be doing that to creationists...laughing at the idea
they've taken a 2500 year old book and tried to turn it into a science
book
who knows?
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
>
>Your ability to perceive the evidence is lacking. Not only that but
>you will not accept anything other then physical evidence for
>something that is not physical.
>
but organisms ARE physical. animals ARE physical. something PHYSICAL
must cause them to exist. not magical...not creationist...
physical
>>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Potential evidence perhaps. The spiritual world can only be ‘detected’
>by its influence on the material world.
method? proof? how do you know this? how do you separate the false
alarms which are rampant throughout history?
So it is tough to give
>physical evidence. Some inferences have to be made. Scientists can’t
>view or measure the supernatural. So they doubt its existence. Oddly
>enough though, Science looks for stuff they assume is there but cannot
>actually perceive with human ability all the time.
we have a method in science to do this.
how do creationists do it?
How else would man
>have found the atom? So why does looking for God seem so out of
>bounds?
because, again, we know HOW to look for atoms. we build equipment to
do it...run tests and experiments. that's' how science works
rather than asking the question, why not give us an ANSWER?
oh. creationists have no answers.
>
>As you said "He could be".He could be standing next to you based on
>the evidence that man cannot even hear as well as many of the animals,
sure we can. we just build devices that help us because we understand
science
creationists, of course, have no such recourse because, to them, the
world is a wizard of oz place filled with magic where anything can
happen
>which shows that there are things that exist which humans cannot
>perceive. Plus there is such a subatomic world that we know next to
>nothing about. God could be shown to exist with “Higgs boson” or dark
>matter/energy.
really? prove it. you guys are big on the god of the gaps argument,
arent you? for 2000 years, god was always in the next discovery.
seems god disagrees
>
>The point is science is fallible. Why?
because it LEARNS. when you LEARN you make mistakes
creationists never learn. they have a mistaken idea that has NEVER
produced a SINGLE explanation of any event in nature. for 2000 years
they've been wrong. and that never changes.
Because science depends on
>instruments that enhance physical observations made by humans. But
>there are physical limits to how good those instruments can be.
>Therefore your interpretations are only going to be as good as the
>instruments. So without actual observations of speciation you can only
>make a guess based on instruments and perceptions that could have
>flaws. Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
well...no. we have OBSERVED speciation. you yourself admitted it. and
we have TESTS to test the method of speciation.
creationism? nothing other than handwaving, smoke and mirrors and
appeals to magic
>
>So my theory is this:
>There is a higher probability that God created man based on the fact
>that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited but, man
>has recorded supernatural events happening.
?? how has he 'recorded this'?
he did so with his senses. the very senses YOU say are limited. the
very senses YOU say are faillible.
so which is it, creationist? are our senses limited and fallible, so
supernatural observations are WRONG
or is science correct and supernatural observations are WRONG?
which is it?
>
>OTOH,
>There is a lower probability for Evolution being true based on the
>fact that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited
>but, man has NOT recorded anything in the past showing speciation.
you yourself admitted speciation happens. now you're retracting that.
care to explain?
and creationism explains nothing. it doesn't even explain bacterial
resistance which EVERY creationist admits happens
so if creationism can't explain the SIMPLE how can it POSSIBLY explain
the complex?
bpuharic
let's see...
you're a religious fanatic who's never spent a day in a lab
i'm a scientist who works in a lab every day...
you're here to tell me how to do my job?
i dont THINK so...
if you creationists were RIGHT you wouldn't need science to help you
explain the world. you wouldn't have been wrong for 2000 years
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > >> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> > >>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> > >>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
> > >>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
> > >>> --------------------------------------
> > >> Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a sensory tunnel > with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing right next to us that we'll never > observe in a million lifetimes.The whole universe is filled to the brim with living
> > >> beings, but we see only empty space.
>
> > > Star Trek did an interesting episode in the 1960's. The Enterprise
> > > encounters a group of people who live at an accelerated rate and want
> > > to take over the ship. Those who were living at the accelerated rate
> > > could see those moving at the slower rate, but those at the slower
> > > rate rate of speed could only perceived those at the faster rate as an
> > > unexplainable buzzing sound.
>
> > > God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
> > > butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
> > > "reality".
>
> > He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
>
> Potential evidence perhaps.
So you don't have any evidence. Glad we're clear on that.
> The spiritual world can only be ‘detected’
> by its influence on the material world.
So, if it can influence the "material world", it's influence must be
detectable.
> So it is tough to give
> physical evidence.
If it has a detectable influence, why is it tough to produce evidence?
> Some inferences have to be made. Scientists can’t
> view or measure the supernatural.
That's because there is nothing they can observe or measure.
> So they doubt its existence.
Why should they *not* doubt the existence of something which they
cannot observe or measure?
Mind you, as some scientists believe in God, it's clear that some
scientists at least believe in something they cannot observe or
measure.
> Oddly
> enough though, Science looks for stuff they assume is there
No, science looks at stuff it can observe and measure, and forms
hypotheses which limit possible outcomes to give a framework for the
further investigation of what can be observed and measured.
> but cannot
> actually perceive with human ability all the time.
Quite so. "Human ability" is very limited and very subjective.
> How else would man
> have found the atom?
Because there are *potential* observations and measurements which
would show that atoms don't exist.
> So why does looking for God seem so out of
> bounds?
Because there is no potential observation or measurement which could
show that God does not exist.
>
> As you said "He could be".He could be standing next to you based on
> the evidence that man cannot even hear as well as many of the animals,
> which shows that there are things that exist which humans cannot
> perceive.
No, it shows that there *might* be things which exist that humans
cannot perceive.
That does not mean that the existence of things we cannot perceive is
proved by our inability to perceive them.
> Plus there is such a subatomic world that we know next to
> nothing about.
Quite so. However, unless there are observations and measurement which
show that those things exist, we have no reason to think that they
exist.
> God could be shown to exist with “Higgs boson” or dark
> matter/energy.
How?
>
> The point is science is fallible.
Quite so.
Your point?
> Why? Because science depends on
> instruments that enhance physical observations made by humans.
So what?
> But
> there are physical limits to how good those instruments can be.
Quite so, and scientists are well aware of the limitations of their
instruments.
> Therefore your interpretations are only going to be as good as the
> instruments.
No, your interpretations are only as good as the evidence which
supports them.
> So without actual observations of speciation you can only
> make a guess based on instruments and perceptions that could have
> flaws.
As we *have* actual observations of speciation, I fail to see what
point you are making.
> Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
Science offers provisional explanations for phenomena which can be
observed and measured, and all scientific explanations are subject to
revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. If you
have a better explanation for the evidence which can be tested using
the tools of science, feel free to offer it. If you can't - and you
know that you can't - why on earth should anyone reject an explanation
which *has* proved to be remarkably robust?
>
> So my theory is this:
> There is a higher probability that God created man based on the fact
> that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited but, man
> has recorded supernatural events happening.
And how do you propose to test this "theory"? What potential
observation or measurement could *falsify* it?
>
> OTOH,
> There is a lower probability for Evolution being true based on the
> fact that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited
> but, man has NOT recorded anything in the past showing speciation.
This statement is simply false. We *have* recorded speciation events.
More to the point, we have a robust and exhaustively tested
explanation for the phenomena we can observe and measure. Nobody has
proposed any alternative explanation which can be tested.
Why should we reject a robust theory in favour of an untestable
assertion?
>
> > And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
> > too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about.
>
> Doubtful. But if it gives you a warm fuzzy....
You miss the point.
RF
TomS
<hdacc4$2rb$1...@news.albasani.net>, Burkhard stated..."
>
>All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>
>>
>> Insert answer HERE: GO! --------------------------------------
>
>ultimately sense based. The ToE is in no different position from any
>other scientific theory, or indeed pre-scientific "common sense"
>knowledge. I know that there is a tree in my garden because i perceive
>it through my senses. I know there is ground under my feet because i
>perceive it though my senses - all of which of course may be in error.
>Indeed, science has succeeded in overcoming the limitations of our
>senses in a quite dramatic way, making things accessible to us that are
>neither directly perceived by humans or any other animal.
>
>While then all our knowledge of the external world is ultimately
>dependent on our senses which are a) limited and b) not infallible, the
>alternatives are simple: you either fall back to radical solipsism and
>end up in a psychiatric ward, or you do the best with what is available
>to us. Apart from the insane that is what all people in their practical
>life do, even though some puerile would-be philosophers claim otherwise
>in discussion. Since we survived so far (or at least have a strong
>illusion that we survived so far) chances are that our senses are
>sufficiently accurate to get a good picture of the world. Indeed, the
>ToE partly explains why this is: if you don't see the sabre tooth tiger,
>or see tigers where there aren't any, you will be deselected from the
>gene pool.
>
>
First of all, "mankind" does not have perceptions or make observations
or have knowledge. Individual humans do. It is a mistake related to the
fallacies of composition and division to say of "mankind" what is
properly said of individuals.
This means that the question about justifying knowledge when we
consider our origins is properly not a problem (if it is a problem at
all) for evolution, but rather for reproduction and development.
To put it bluntly, it is an argument best made by Scientific Storkism.
On the other hand, it is a self-defeating argument from the
"Intelligent Design" camp, for it can be phrased this way: If our
knowledge is the product of purposeful design by inscrutable intelligent
designers, what reason do we have to trust them to tell us the truth?
Intelligent Design tells us that we don't know anything about their
materials and methods, or about their motivations, so we don't know
whether they are interested in, or capable of, designing truth into
our minds. We do notice that their interest in us was rather limited,
for they designed us to be very much like chimps and other apes, and
show no care for making various organs particularly well. Why should
we think that they take more care with our knowledge than with our
retinas?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Erwin Moller
> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
>
> Insert answer HERE: GO!
> --------------------------------------
No, I cannot.
But your question might as well have ended like this:
"Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
sufficient enough to X"
where X may be replaced with any claim ever made.
(Possible exception: "I think therefor I am".)
What you are asking is not reasonable.
Ever heard of brains-in-a-jar? (Or the Matrix for the younger amongst us)
ALL your sensory information can be in error.
It is impossible to proof it is not, just like it is impossible to proof
that the Eastern Bunny (or God) doesn't exist.
So for all practical purposes: Let's assume our sensory data is roughly
fine in most cases and start doing usefull things now.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Sapient Fridge
<d82988fc-29ea-4458...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>The spiritual world can only be ‘detected’
>by its influence on the material world. So it is tough to give
>physical evidence. Some inferences have to be made.
Why put 'detected' in quotes?
If the "spiritual world" had *any* influence on the material world then
science could set up experiments that detect the effects in the same way
that we can set up experiments to detect other things which (probably)
exist but can only be seen indirectly e.g. quantum foam, electromagnetic
waves, gravity waves, zero point energy, sub-atomic particles etc.
No such influences from the spiritual world have ever been detected by
science and all experiments to do so have failed, therefore there is a
high probability that the spiritual does not exist.
At this point you could retreat and say that the spiritual has no
influence on the material world so therefore cannot be detected by
science, but that's equivalent to it not existing at all for all intents
and purposes. Occam's razor becomes useful at that point.
Friar Broccoli
> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> Insert answer HERE: GO!
> --------------------------------------
If God created us in His image, wouldn't that include the
ability to accurately percieve and make the correct obvious
deductions?
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 7:11 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>> God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
>> >>> butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
>> >>> "reality".
>> >> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
>>
>> > Your ability to perceive the evidence is lacking.
Nice evasion. Try again.
>> > Not only that but
>> > you will not accept anything other then physical evidence for
>> > something that is not physical.
Try presenting what you think constitutes evidence, and let us judge
its acceptability for ourselves, instead of trying to weasel out of
it.
>> You used the word "standing". Standing is a physical action, with lots
>> of physical implications: legs, subject to gravity, physical location,
>> etc. All kinds of physical properties, and all of these should be
>> testable. If you don't intend that physical properties apply, perhaps
>> you could choose your words with more precision.
>
>The word "standing" best fits what a human can understand. Was there a
>point?
>
>>
>> >> And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
>> >> too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about. Do
>> >> you have evidence that he isn't.
>>
>> > Are you saying Dawkins is God like and comparable to God?
>>
>> Oddly, that doesn't look like an answer to John's question. Try again.
>
>John is a big boy. He can defend himself.
I'm sure he can, but you, apparently, are unable to answer his
question.
All-Seeing-I
> On Nov 9, 6:48 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> > > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> > > Insert answer HERE: GO!
> > > --------------------------------------
>
>
> Chris
Science depends on instruments that enhance physical observations made
by humans. But there are physical limits to how good those instruments
can be.
Therefore your interpretations are only going to be as good as the
instruments. So without actual observations of speciation you can
only
make a guess based on instruments and perceptions that could have
flaws. Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 7:11 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> >>> On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>>> God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
> >>>>> butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
> >>>>> "reality".
> >>>> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
> >>> you will not accept anything other then physical evidence for
> >>> something that is not physical.
> >> of physical implications: legs, subject to gravity, physical location,
> >> etc. All kinds of physical properties, and all of these should be
> >> testable. If you don't intend that physical properties apply, perhaps
> >> you could choose your words with more precision.
>
> > The word "standing" best fits what a human can understand. Was there a
> > point?
>
>
> <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Translation: Tell me what I want to hear the way I want to hear it.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Quite so.
> Therefore your interpretations are only going to be as good as the
> instruments. So without actual observations of speciation you can
> only
> make a guess based on instruments and perceptions that could have
> flaws.
But we have observed speciation.
> Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
Ultimately , nothing in science is conclusive. It is a process which
seeks an explanation for the evidence which can be tested by the
acquisition of further evidence. The evidence supporting evolutionary
theory is exhaustive and extensive. It has been described as the most
robustly tested theory in any field of science. There is no
alternative to evolutionary theory to explain not only the fossil
record, but much of the science of biology.
If you have a better explanation that that which has been achieved by
many thousands of scientists over centuries of research, feel free to
offer it. If you can't - and face it, you know so little of biology
and palaeontology that you can't even begin to address the evidence -
why should anyone reject such a robust theory?
RF
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <d82988fc-29ea-4458-990d-ab96da2c8...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
> >The spiritual world can only be ‘detected’
> >by its influence on the material world. So it is tough to give
> >physical evidence. Some inferences have to be made.
>
> Why put 'detected' in quotes?
>
> If the "spiritual world" had *any* influence on the material world then
> science could set up experiments that detect the effects in the same way
> that we can set up experiments to detect other things which (probably)
> exist but can only be seen indirectly e.g. quantum foam, electromagnetic
> waves, gravity waves, zero point energy, sub-atomic particles etc.
>
> No such influences from the spiritual world have ever been detected by
> science and all experiments to do so have failed, therefore there is a
> high probability that the spiritual does not exist.
>
> At this point you could retreat and say that the spiritual has no
> influence on the material world so therefore cannot be detected by
> science, but that's equivalent to it not existing at all for all intents
> and purposes. Occam's razor becomes useful at that point.
The mathematical odds that billions of people over many thousands of
generations believing a lie is next to zero. Therefore we can safely
assume that what has been recorded by ancient man (and others)
involving supernatural occurrences are real.
Also, a supernatural influence on the material world is an event-by-
event happenstance. IOW science is not going to be set up and ready to
test the occurrence at the moment it happens, such as an Angel
appearing. Therefore it becomes necessary to take human accounts of
the occurrences as evidence.
Just because science cannot test it does not mean it does not exist.
Clearly I have shown this over the last few days and in several posts.
How?
1) Man has limited perception even compared to the animals
2) man often needs the assistance of instruments to assist in the
interpretation of data, but, the instruments themselves can be faulty
3) Science makes the same kind in inferences from their potentially
faulty data and observations that a creationist makes from documents
and recorded eye witnessed accounts from history.
To name just a few.
And why did you cut out and not address the other pertinent
information in the post.
Will in New Haven
> On Nov 10, 6:42 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message
> > <d82988fc-29ea-4458-990d-ab96da2c8...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
> > >The spiritual world can only be ‘detected’
> > >by its influence on the material world. So it is tough to give
> > >physical evidence. Some inferences have to be made.
>
> > Why put 'detected' in quotes?
>
> > If the "spiritual world" had *any* influence on the material world then
> > science could set up experiments that detect the effects in the same way
> > that we can set up experiments to detect other things which (probably)
> > exist but can only be seen indirectly e.g. quantum foam, electromagnetic
> > waves, gravity waves, zero point energy, sub-atomic particles etc.
>
> > No such influences from the spiritual world have ever been detected by
> > science and all experiments to do so have failed, therefore there is a
> > high probability that the spiritual does not exist.
>
> > At this point you could retreat and say that the spiritual has no
> > influence on the material world so therefore cannot be detected by
> > science, but that's equivalent to it not existing at all for all intents
> > and purposes. Occam's razor becomes useful at that point.
>
> The mathematical odds that billions of people over many thousands of
> generations believing a lie is next to zero.
Right out of the box, you are talking bullshit. That people over
thousands of years have told each other fairy stories and believed
them is observed fact. The odds against it don't matter. For one
thing, they tell each other _conflicting_ stories. If we weren't
around, you and the Hindu jackass and the Muslim moron on this ng
would be tearing each other to SHREDS. For another thing, _there is no
factual basis for any of it_
It does not matter what people believe; no election is being held. In
the immortal words of Lenny Bruce: "What is, IS. What should be is a
dirty lie."
--
Will in New Haven
Therefore we can safely
> assume that what has been recorded by ancient man (and others)
> involving supernatural occurrences are real.
>
> Also, a supernatural influence on the material world is an event-by-
> event happenstance. IOW science is not going to be set up and ready to
> test the occurrence at the moment it happens, such as an Angel
> appearing. Therefore it becomes necessary to take human accounts of
> the occurrences as evidence.
>
> Just because science cannot test it does not mean it does not exist.
> Clearly I have shown this over the last few days and in several posts.
> How?
>
> 1) Man has limited perception even compared to the animals
> 2) man often needs the assistance of instruments to assist in the
> interpretation of data, but, the instruments themselves can be faulty
> 3) Science makes the same kind in inferences from their potentially
> faulty data and observations that a creationist makes from documents
> and recorded eye witnessed accounts from history.
>
> To name just a few.
>
> And why did you cut out and not address the other pertinent
> information in the post.- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
> On Nov 9, 7:11 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
>>>>> butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
>>>>> "reality".
>>>> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
>>> Your ability to perceive the evidence is lacking. Not only that but
>>> you will not accept anything other then physical evidence for
>>> something that is not physical.
>> You used the word "standing". Standing is a physical action, with lots
>> of physical implications: legs, subject to gravity, physical location,
>> etc. All kinds of physical properties, and all of these should be
>> testable. If you don't intend that physical properties apply, perhaps
>> you could choose your words with more precision.
>
> The word "standing" best fits what a human can understand. Was there a
> point?
>
>>>> too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about. Do
>>>> you have evidence that he isn't.
>>> Are you saying Dawkins is God like and comparable to God?
>> Oddly, that doesn't look like an answer to John's question. Try again.
>
> John is a big boy. He can defend himself.
>
answer to my question, though.
All-Seeing-I
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> All-Seeing-I schreef:
>
> > 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> > Insert answer HERE: GO!
> > --------------------------------------
>
> No, I cannot.
> But your question might as well have ended like this:
> "Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> sufficient enough to X"
>
> where X may be replaced with any claim ever made.
> (Possible exception: "I think therefor I am".)
>
> What you are asking is not reasonable.
> Ever heard of brains-in-a-jar? (Or the Matrix for the younger amongst us)
>
> ALL your sensory information can be in error.
> It is impossible to proof it is not, just like it is impossible to proof
> that the Eastern Bunny (or God) doesn't exist.
>
> So for all practical purposes: Let's assume our sensory data is roughly
> fine in most cases and start doing usefull things now.
>
> Erwin Moller
Oh please. This is a cop out. Why throw the baby out with the bath
water?
I made no mention that ALL of scientific data was in err; Or, that all
of human data was in err. In fact, quite the contrary. In another
thread i said: We can all test the theory of gravity and see for
ourselves that the observation fits the theory. We all can test micro
evolution in own back yards with a garden or a litter of dogs.
My assertion extends only to such theories where an inference has to
be made based on data alone. Clearly I have shown that the data can be
faulty because man's perceptions, as well as man's intructments, can
faulty. Therefore any observations and conclusions made can be
faulty.
Macro evolution is indeed an an infernece that could be faulty based
on the simple fact that there is no direct observation of speciation
from one species to the next. We cannot test to see if the theory fits
the observations like we can with gravity and micro evolution.
Further, any data and observations are only going to be as reliable as
man's abilities.
All you have for macro evolution is a theory based on observations and
data that could be faulty.
John Harshman
> On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>>>>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>>>>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>>>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a sensory tunnel > with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing right next to us that we'll never > observe in a million lifetimes.The whole universe is filled to the brim with living
>>>> beings, but we see only empty space.
>>> Star Trek did an interesting episode in the 1960's. The Enterprise
>>> encounters a group of people who live at an accelerated rate and want
>>> to take over the ship. Those who were living at the accelerated rate
>>> could see those moving at the slower rate, but those at the slower
>>> rate rate of speed could only perceived those at the faster rate as an
>>> unexplainable buzzing sound.
>>> God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
>>> butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
>>> "reality".
>> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
>
> Potential evidence perhaps.
Perhaps? Is that an admission that you can't provide any evidence? I see
below that you have indeed made no attempt to mention any.
> The spiritual world can only be ‘detected’
> by its influence on the material world. So it is tough to give
> physical evidence. Some inferences have to be made. Scientists can’t
> view or measure the supernatural. So they doubt its existence. Oddly
> enough though, Science looks for stuff they assume is there but cannot
> actually perceive with human ability all the time. How else would man
> have found the atom? So why does looking for God seem so out of
> bounds?
I agree. It's not out of bounds at all, as long as we can define the
phenomena we're looking for. Inference is a perfectly valid scientific
technique, and in fact the only such technique. So: what evidence do you
have? You have unfortunately forgotten to get to that part.
> As you said "He could be".He could be standing next to you based on
> the evidence that man cannot even hear as well as many of the animals,
> which shows that there are things that exist which humans cannot
> perceive. Plus there is such a subatomic world that we know next to
> nothing about. God could be shown to exist with “Higgs boson” or dark
> matter/energy.
How would god be shown to exist with Higgs boson or dark matter/energy?
> The point is science is fallible.
If that's your point, you have done a very bad job of saying so.
> Why? Because science depends on
> instruments that enhance physical observations made by humans. But
> there are physical limits to how good those instruments can be.
> Therefore your interpretations are only going to be as good as the
> instruments. So without actual observations of speciation you can only
> make a guess based on instruments and perceptions that could have
> flaws. Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
Whoops. When you were talking about evidence for god you were all hot
for inference. Now you reject it. Make up your mind. I note that so far
you have not mentioned any of the supposed evidence for god, other than
to wave your hand in the direction of some currently popular, though
irrelevant, physics.
> So my theory is this:
> There is a higher probability that God created man based on the fact
> that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited but, man
> has recorded supernatural events happening.
Can you support this theory with anything at all? So far, no. If we have
recorded supernatural events happening, what are they, and how do we know?
> OTOH,
> There is a lower probability for Evolution being true based on the
> fact that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited
> but, man has NOT recorded anything in the past showing speciation.
But we have. For one thing, speciation has happened within historical
times. See the TO FAQ on the subject. More importantly, we can infer
speciation based on the existence of a phylogenetic tree connecting
multiple species. This is no guess. This is strong inference based on
great amounts of data, for which common descent is the only feasible
explanation.
Notice that I have evidence for my claim, and will give it to you at any
time, while you have so far avoided giving any evidence for your claim,
just "Well, it could be".
>> And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
>> too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about.
>
> Doubtful. But if it gives you a warm fuzzy....
How do you know he isn't there? Why is it doubtful?
John Harshman
>>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
>>> --------------------------------------
>> experimental evidence and scientific methodology
>>
>> perceptions are colored by biases. religion is primary among these.
>> in 10,000 years humans have made gods of virtually everything in their
>> experience including trees, moons, stars, etc.
>>
>> and they've invented dozens or hundreds of sacred texts; no one knows
>> what these mean
>>
>> evolution, OTOH, like chemistry, physics or other sciences, is based
>> on testing concepts about the way we think the world works
>>
>> ever developed to discover how the natural world works
>
> Too bad evolution does not hold water to the "scientific method"
>
about evolution or the scientific method. Did you learn this by revelation?
Ymir
<6e30dc34-e771-431f...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Inez <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You go to the park and see a duck on the lake. Is that enough
> evidence to know there is a duck on the lake? Or do you need to smell
> and taste that duck as well?
And would it make a difference if it were chocolate rather than a duck?
Andr�
John Harshman
> On Nov 9, 6:40 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
>>> --------------------------------------
>> can't know anything.
>
> That's his intended point. If we cant know everything, everything
> goes, except since the fool claims his "perceptive abilities" are
> better, his "anything goes" is the Truth(tm)!
So far he hasn't made that claim. Deal with it when and if he does.
John Harshman
>>>> kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>>>>>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>>>>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> sensory tunnel with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing
>>>>> right next to us that we'll never observe in a million lifetimes. The
>>>>> whole universe is filled to the brim with living beings, but we see
>>>>> only empty space.
>>> Did you try turning all of the lights out?
>> Why
>
> You asked for evidence right?
>
Yes. What evidence would turning all the lights out provide me? I've
been in complete darkness on many occasions. So far I haven't seen
either god or a whole universe filled to the brim with living beings.
Can you provide any evidence for those claims?
chris thompson
Wrong. Nihilism is stupid.
Chris
chris thompson
> On Nov 9, 10:45 pm, Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That perception is waiting for you. Take advantage of it.
>
> > > > Chris
>
>
> > > Are you 100% sure your observations are accurate
>
> > No but I am 90% sure of 90% of them. Is that good enough?
>
> Then only 10% should need revision. That is not the case, is it?
Back to nihilism, are you?
Since we don't know everything to 100% accuracy, we cannot have
confidence in anything?
That's an incredibly dumb attitude.
Do you cook? Why do you have confidence that your stove is going to
perform the same way, day after day, at a wide range of temperature
settings?
Chris
chris thompson
>
> > Chris
>
> If you are done patting yourself on the back, I have a question.
>
> Are you 100% sure your observations are accurate
When we have multiple types of devices measuring, directly or
indirectly, the same things, and they all are within a reasonable
margin of error, then yes, I am confident that our measurements are
accurate enough.
Do you have a GPS? Are you confident it's telling you the right
location?
Chris
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 9, 6:38 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 7:17 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> > > "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>> > > > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>> > > > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>
>> > > > Insert answer HERE: GO!
>> > > > --------------------------------------
>>
>> > > Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a sensory tunnel > with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing right next to us that we'll never > observe in a million lifetimes.The whole universe is filled to the brim with living
>> > > beings, but we see only empty space.
>>
>> > Star Trek did an interesting episode in the 1960's. The Enterprise
>> > encounters a group of people who live at an accelerated rate and want
>> > to take over the ship. Those who were living at the accelerated rate
>> > could see those moving at the slower rate, but those at the slower
>> > rate rate of speed could only perceived those at the faster rate as an
>> > unexplainable buzzing sound.
>>
>> > God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
>> > butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
>> > "reality".
>>
>> Certainly the asshole torturer-god you worship could be doing that.
>> Your religion seems to be an outlet for sado-masochistic fantasies.
>
>I assume you have evidence for these wild and exotic claims?
Sure, read all about it in your pet book of fairy stories - your
bible.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 9, 8:38 pm, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 8:23 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 9, 7:06 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > > > On Nov 9, 6:38 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > <snip>
>>
>> > > >> Certainly the asshole torturer-god you worship could be doing that.
>> > > >> Your religion seems to be an outlet for sado-masochistic fantasies.
>>
>> > > > I assume you have evidence for these wild and exotic claims?
>>
>> > > Well, how about the story of Job for one?
>>
>> > You did not understand it?
>>
>> Easy to understand. 2 supernatural beings torture a poor human for
>> their amusement and wager over how much he can stand. BTW, the story
>> is strong support for the idea that Christians don't understand that
>> Satan is not especially evil, he just works for someone who is.
>>
>> Mark Evans
>
>When I first read Job I was rather appalled. But there is even one
>better at the end of the book of Judges which will make the hair on
>the back of your neck stand up.
>
>
>God *IS* especially that evil. He has been a lier and a murderer
>since the beginning.
>
I've corrected you post. Don't worry, no charge for the service.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>> >>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>> >>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>> >>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
>> >>> --------------------------------------
>> >> Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a sensory tunnel > with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing right next to us that we'll never > observe in a million lifetimes.The whole universe is filled to the brim with living
>> >> beings, but we see only empty space.
>>
>> > Star Trek did an interesting episode in the 1960's. The Enterprise
>> > encounters a group of people who live at an accelerated rate and want
>> > to take over the ship. Those who were living at the accelerated rate
>> > could see those moving at the slower rate, but those at the slower
>> > rate rate of speed could only perceived those at the faster rate as an
>> > unexplainable buzzing sound.
>>
>> > God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
>> > butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
>> > "reality".
>>
>> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
>
>Your ability to perceive the evidence is lacking. Not only that but
>you will not accept anything other then physical evidence for
>something that is not physical.
>
>>
>> And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
>> too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about. Do
>> you have evidence that he isn't.
>
>Are you saying Dawkins is God like and comparable to God?
No, Dawkins is a real person, he is not the invention of primitive
man.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Kermit
> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> Insert answer HERE: GO!
> --------------------------------------
Mainstream evolutionary theory is the only testable model that fits
all the facts accessible to our perceptions. Do you have another?
Don't forget that with modern tools we can change the effects of some
processes so that we can perceive them, for example, the rate of
radiochemistry decay and the proportion of various isotopes in a
sample.
Can you provide evidence, some test, to distinguish among: you having
special perceptive abilities, your deluding yourself with wishful
thinking, or your being psychotic?
Of *course there may be things going on that we cannot perceive;
science has learned of many of them in the last 300 years. Presumably
there are many more yet to be discovered, and some of which we may
never be able to detect, however indirectly. I fail to see how
anything which does not produce an effect we can detect matters to us.
Kermit
Boikat
<snip idiocy>
> ......So without actual observations of speciation you can only
> make a guess based on instruments and perceptions that could have
> flaws.
How the observations "flawed"?
> Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
Not until you can demonstrate the "flaw. Really, your whining about
"perceptions" is meaningless.
>
> So my theory is this:
> There is a higher probability that God created man based on the fact
> that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited but,
Translation: "I have no evidence or anything else to back up my claim,
so I will make up my own statistics (probability) to justify my
claim."
So, what is your "probability" based upon?
> man has recorded supernatural events happening.
No. Accounts of supernatural events contained in "ancient texts" are
not suppored by any other, external, verifiable data. Please try
again.
>
> OTOH,
> There is a lower probability for Evolution being true based on the
> fact that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited
> but,
Your whining about "limited perceptions" is meaningless. The physical
evidence exists,and it is what it is. Your weak dismissal based upon
whinging about "limited perceptions" is nothing but a dodge to cover
for your willful ignorance, self delusions, and anti-science attitude.
> man has NOT recorded anything in the past showing speciation.
This is, again, a lie. Speciation (the real thing, not your stupid
"species totally different from the parent species" bullcrap) has been
observed. Your denials, again, reflect your willful ignorance, self
delusions, and anti-science attitude.
>
> > And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
> > too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about.
>
> Doubtful. But if it gives you a warm fuzzy...
1), Gee, how original. I believe I applied that to you a few times.
I'm flattered that you thought it was clever enough to copy, since you
have no original thoughts of your own.
2)."Warm and fuzzy" is why you hug your delusions like a drunk puking
his guts out in a toilet hugs a cammode.
Boikat
Kermit
> On Nov 9, 8:04 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 6:48 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> > > > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> > > > Insert answer HERE: GO!
> > > > --------------------------------------
>
Being 100% sure would not actually make them reliable. How do you
confirm that you are not wallowing in wishful thinking? Given that you
post here so often, how would *we be able to reassure ourselves? Since
you make claims contrary to observable and verifiable fact, the most
parsimonious explanation is that you are using a source (1) that is
providing you with false data.
A feeling of certainty doesn't cut it; it is more likely to reflect an
inability to assess potential error than it is to measure reliability.
This is why scientists try to disprove their own hypotheses, try to
disprove others, verify observations, and look for alternative
explanations. Clues that science is on the right track include:
tiktaalik, the Hubble Space Telescope, reattaching severed limbs, and
wiping out smallpox.
(1) Probably your imagination, shaped by wishful thinking. Could
conceivably be witchcraft, Satan, bad brain chemistry, jokester
deities, or aliens.
Kermit
Caranx latus
This is why you have such trouble. You don't even make the effort to
understand what people are trying to tell you. I'm sure that
"standing" best fits what *you* can understand, but you shouldn't be
projecting that deficiency onto other people. I gave you an
opportunity to explain yourself in more detail, which you declined to
do.
Erwin Moller
> On Nov 10, 6:36 am, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I schreef:
>>
>>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
>>> --------------------------------------
>> No, I cannot.
>> But your question might as well have ended like this:
>> "Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>> sufficient enough to X"
>>
>> where X may be replaced with any claim ever made.
>> (Possible exception: "I think therefor I am".)
>>
>> What you are asking is not reasonable.
>> Ever heard of brains-in-a-jar? (Or the Matrix for the younger amongst us)
>>
>> ALL your sensory information can be in error.
>> It is impossible to proof it is not, just like it is impossible to proof
>> that the Eastern Bunny (or God) doesn't exist.
>>
>> So for all practical purposes: Let's assume our sensory data is roughly
>> fine in most cases and start doing usefull things now.
>>
>> Erwin Moller
Hi Madman,
(I hope you don't mind I use your old name. I am so used to it in a
perverse way.)
>
> Oh please. This is a cop out. Why throw the baby out with the bath
> water?
Did I?
>
> I made no mention that ALL of scientific data was in err;
Nor did I claim you did.
I simply stated that all (sensory) information that reaches your
conciousness can be in error, and you (or me) have no way of assuring
that data is right.
But even though that is an interesting thought experiment, it leads
nowhere in my opinion. Maybe you agree, not sure.
> Or, that all
> of human data was in err. In fact, quite the contrary. In another
> thread i said: We can all test the theory of gravity and see for
> ourselves that the observation fits the theory. We all can test micro
> evolution in own back yards with a garden or a litter of dogs.
A sidenote, if I may:
I very dislike this micro/macro evolution concepts.
I suggest we just call it evolution and when you start talking about
'macro evolution' we name that 'speciation'.
That are the names given to the concepts.
No need to invent new ones. It only adds to the confusion.
>
> My assertion extends only to such theories where an inference has to
> be made based on data alone. Clearly I have shown that the data can be
> faulty because man's perceptions, as well as man's intructments, can
> faulty. Therefore any observations and conclusions made can be
> faulty.
Correct.
You haven't shown that, but I agree to that.
We can never be 100% sure.
>
> Macro evolution is indeed an an infernece that could be faulty based
> on the simple fact that there is no direct observation of speciation
> from one species to the next.
Why do you keep insisting on that?
It is simply not true.
How many times do I have to post this URL to you before you read it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> We cannot test to see if the theory fits
> the observations like we can with gravity and micro evolution.
If I take your unreasonable stance, you cannot prove to me that gravity
is real.
I simply deny it and give you alternate explanations, no matter how
often you proof me wrong.
Lets try it:
Madman: Gravity is real. I can show it to you. Even in my backyard.
Erwin: Nonsense. Gravity is an illusion brought to you by the
Communist-Atheist-Socialist-Satanic Conspiracy!
Madman: It is real. Look: Every time I drop an object which is heavier
than the air surrounding it, it falls down. I can even give you the
formulas concerning the speed at certain times during the falling!
[Madman writes down some newtonian formulas. Maybe Einsteinian too.]
Erwin: Well, that is what the scientists WANT you to believe. But that
whole theory of gravity is utter nonsense.
Madman: Why? Every experiment I do gives the same outcome! No matter
where it is done on Earth, always the same. Even my experiments in space
confirm the formulas are right.
Erwin: No way. Your experiments account for nothing. They proof nothing.
Madman: Well, then PLEASE tell me what is your explanation!
Erwin: God does it.
Madman: WTF? What has God to do with simple gravity?
Erwin: He is displacing the objects all the time. Proof me wrong.
Madman: I cannot. God is omnipotent, so I can never disproof it.
Erwin: So you admit I am right?
Madman: Of course not: Your explanation is worthless. I have written
down formulas that fit all experiments done so far. You simply say
God-did-it. You cannot predict how gravity will act in the future. I
can. My approach is superior to yours.
Erwin: No it is not.
Madman: It is!
Erwin: Then explain to me what is causing this gravity of yours.
Madman: Not sure yet. It seems to involve gravitons, but that is getting
a bit speculative. Bottomline is that it can be observed everywhere and
it always follows the formulas I gave you.
Erwin: No it doesn't.
Madman: It does. Come sit here and let's try it. I'll release this apple
from here. It will fall down. I assure you.
[Erwin and Madman do a few experiment where Madman is right every time
with his predictions.]
Madman: You see? I am right. My formulas are just fine.
Erwin: Aha! I see what is your problem now.
Madman: Please tell me.
Erwin: What your formulas are describing, quite accurate I might add, is
called 'micro gravity'. Not 'macro gravity'.
Madman: Huh? There is only one gravity!
Erwin: No. There is micro gravity, and macro gravity. What you are
describing to me is micro gravity.
Madman: Then what is macro gravity?
Erwin: That is the gravity that objects experience when they were in a
gravitational field 5.000 years ago.
Madman: And why would things be different then?
Erwin: Erm, well, I have a book here that says so.
Madman: Why does that book claim so?
Erwin: It doesn't say.
Madman: Does you book explain how gravity works?
Erwin: Nope.
Madman: Why believe it then?
Erwin: This book is written by God. So it must be right. Micro gravity
and macro gravity.
Madman: How do you know your book is written by God and true?
Erwin: My book says so.
Etc. etc. etc.
Eventually, I guess, my fictional Madman gives up.
This gets really tiring, allthough I liked writing it.
You MUST agree with me that the above Erwin is not behaving reasonable.
Do you?
Bottomline: No matter how good your theoretical framework is, no matter
how perfect it matches reality, no matter how many examples you collect,
you can always find a guy that keeps denying it.
As for 'macro evolution':
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Feel free to propose an alternate theory that fits observation.
> Further, any data and observations are only going to be as reliable as
> man's abilities.
True.
We can only give it our best shot. ToE is the result.
>
> All you have for macro evolution is a theory based on observations and
> data that could be faulty.
True.
But as I stated before: That goes for ANYTHING.
We enter the realm of reasonability here.
If you, or the above fictional Erwin, keep insisting something is wrong,
but are unable to give an alternative explanation that also fits the
facts, the reality as we observe it, then there is little one can do.
I call that an unreasonable stance.
Literally, as in: not in the realm of reason.
So far the scientific approach gave us great results. Testable.
Verifiable. We build instruments to aid our own senses.
Creationism brought us nothing: just you-better-believe-me stories.
Take your pick.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Boikat
>
> The mathematical odds that billions of people over many thousands of
> generations believing a lie is next to zero.
Logical fallacy #1) Argument of popular opinion.
> Therefore we can safely
> assume that what has been recorded by ancient man (and others)
> involving supernatural occurrences are real.
Logical fallacy #2) assuming your conclusion.
>
> Also, a supernatural influence on the material world is an event-by-
> event happenstance. IOW science is not going to be set up and ready to
> test the occurrence at the moment it happens, such as an Angel
> appearing. Therefore it becomes necessary to take human accounts of
> the occurrences as evidence.
Logical fallacy #3) Special pleading.
>
> Just because science cannot test it does not mean it does not exist.
However, if there is no evidence to support the supernatural does not
mean the supernatural *does* exist, either.
> Clearly I have shown this over the last few days and in several posts.
If anything, you were the one that was shown that the supernatural
cannot be shown to exist, or not exist.
> How?
By making excuses.
>
> 1) Man has limited perception even compared to the animals
Irrelevent, and does not support the existence of the supernatural.
> 2) man often needs the assistance of instruments to assist in the
> interpretation of data, but, the instruments themselves can be faulty
Irrelevent, and does not support the existence of the supernatural.
> 3) Science makes the same kind in inferences from their potentially
> faulty data and observations that a creationist makes from documents
> and recorded eye witnessed accounts from history.
Flat out wrong, since the data that scientists collect are from
observations, and can be verified, and in most cases modeled and
repeated. Also, the observations themselves are subject to scrutiney
by independant researchers.
>
> To name just a few.
Yesm you *presented* a couple of logical fallacies and additional data
that demonstrates you are an illiterate, when it come to scirnce.
>
> And why did you cut out and not address the other pertinent
> information in the post.
So much bullshit, so little time......
Boikat
Kermit
He did not say it was in error, he said that it was less than
absolutely *reliable. This applies to all scientific data, because it
applies to all sensory input, and therefore *all knowledge. The very
ancient texts you read may not be what you think they are.
> Or, that all of human data was in err.
All data is subject to the possibility of error.
> In fact, quite the contrary. In another
> thread i said: We can all test the theory of gravity and see for
> ourselves that the observation fits the theory.
You could be wrong.
> We all can test micro
> evolution in own back yards with a garden or a litter of dogs.
>
Lenski's bacteria experiment required millions of generations to see a
significantly new structure. Do you have the time to replicate that
kind of scale with *dogs? I hope you have a reliable income and lots
of coffee, because it's going to take a while.
Better yet, just explain where the theory of evolution doesn't fit the
facts, or even better, an alternative model that is testable and fits
all the facts.
> My assertion extends only to such theories where an inference has to
> be made based on data alone.
It doesn't matter what you're talking about, it's data all the way
down.
Looking at dogs, looking at fossils; measuring a dog's blood urea,
sorting characteristics of the speceis into a nested hierarchy,
measuring the ratio of isotopes in a biological sample,
dendrochronology - it's all data.
All we have is data, or imagination. Where's your data, and how would
we falsify your models? If the "Sons of God" weren't aliens, what
would we expect to be different? Not our artifacts, or our genomes, or
our morphology, apparently.
> Clearly I have shown that the data can be
> faulty because man's perceptions, as well as man's intructments, can
> faulty. Therefore any observations and conclusions made can be
> faulty.
Yes. That's why data that can't be verified is mindless, and why
models that can't be tested are, at best, Hollywood scripts.
>
> Macro evolution is indeed an an infernece that could be faulty based
> on the simple fact that there is no direct observation of speciation
> from one species to the next.
This has been seen. The consequences of this happening on a global
scale, over 3.8 *billion years, is apparent in many different *kinds
of data, from multiple scientific fields. Evolutionary theory is the
most widely tested theory we use.
Your claim that evolutionary science fails because "there is no direct
observation of speciation from one species to the next" is false
because:
1. it's not true that it has never been observed, and
2. it's not a necessary test (it takes too long in larger animals, for
instance, and could conceivably have been true of smaller - but it's
not).
> We cannot test to see if the theory fits
> the observations like we can with gravity and micro evolution.
Sure we can. In any event, we test theories by trying to prove they're
wrong, not by looking for confirming evidence. Supporting data is not
bad, but that's not the test.
> Further, any data and observations are only going to be as reliable as
> man's abilities.
>
Yes. That's why any data that can't be verified, and any model that
can't be tested, are childish wastes of time.
> All you have for macro evolution is a theory based on observations and
> data that could be faulty.
That's all we have for *any theory.
How do we verify your "observations"? How do *you?
Kermit
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>> >>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>> >>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>> >>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
>> >>> --------------------------------------
>> >> Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a sensory tunnel > with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing right next to us that we'll never > observe in a million lifetimes.The whole universe is filled to the brim with living
>> >> beings, but we see only empty space.
>>
>> > Star Trek did an interesting episode in the 1960's. The Enterprise
>> > encounters a group of people who live at an accelerated rate and want
>> > to take over the ship. Those who were living at the accelerated rate
>> > could see those moving at the slower rate, but those at the slower
>> > rate rate of speed could only perceived those at the faster rate as an
>> > unexplainable buzzing sound.
>>
>> > God could be standing next to an evolutionist right now laughing his
>> > butt off at their limited ability to perceive what they consider to be
>> > "reality".
>>
>> He could be. But can you provide any evidence that he is?
>
>Potential evidence perhaps. The spiritual world can only be ‘detected’
>by its influence on the material world.
None has ever been found.
>So it is tough to give
>physical evidence. Some inferences have to be made. Scientists can’t
>view or measure the supernatural.
Because it doesn't exist.
>So they doubt its existence. Oddly
>enough though, Science looks for stuff they assume is there but cannot
>actually perceive with human ability all the time.
Do they? Example?
> How else would man
>have found the atom?
Observation.
>So why does looking for God seem so out of
>bounds?
Because we know that gods are the invention of man.
>
>As you said "He could be".He could be standing next to you based on
>the evidence that man cannot even hear as well as many of the animals,
>which shows that there are things that exist which humans cannot
>perceive.
There is nothing an animal can perceive that man cannot.
> Plus there is such a subatomic world that we know next to
>nothing about.
We know a hell of a lot about it.
>God could be shown to exist with “Higgs boson” or dark
>matter/energy.
Gods, ALL gods, are the invention of primitive man.
>
>The point is science is fallible. Why? Because science depends on
>instruments that enhance physical observations made by humans. But
>there are physical limits to how good those instruments can be.
Are there? Example?
>Therefore your interpretations are only going to be as good as the
>instruments. So without actual observations of speciation you can only
>make a guess based on instruments and perceptions that could have
>flaws. Therefore the evidence is inconclusive.
Good job we have those observations of speciation then.
>
>So my theory is this:
>There is a higher probability that God created man based on the fact
>that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited but, man
>has recorded supernatural events happening.
But we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that man created gods.
>
>OTOH,
>There is a lower probability for Evolution being true based on the
>fact that scientific instruments and man's perceptions are limited
>but, man has NOT recorded anything in the past showing speciation.
We know evolution is a fact. We have recorded speciation.
>
>
>> And Richard Dawkins could be standing next to you laughing right now
>> too, using his special invisibility power that you don't know about.
>
>Doubtful. But if it gives you a warm fuzzy....
It is actually more likely that there being a god.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 9, 10:45 pm, Kent <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > That perception is waiting for you. Take advantage of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Chris
>>
>> > If you are done patting yourself on the back, I have a question.
>>
>> > Are you 100% sure your observations are accurate
>>
>> No but I am 90% sure of 90% of them. Is that good enough?
>
>Then only 10% should need revision. That is not the case, is it?
Your maths are not very good Mudbrain.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 9, 7:07 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:41:08 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>> >sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary oibservations
>> >showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>
>> >Insert answer HERE: GO!
>> >--------------------------------------
>>
>> yeah. because evolution is not based on 'perceptions'. it's based on
>> experimental evidence and scientific methodology
>>
>> perceptions are colored by biases. religion is primary among these.
>> in 10,000 years humans have made gods of virtually everything in their
>> experience including trees, moons, stars, etc.
>>
>> and they've invented dozens or hundreds of sacred texts; no one knows
>> what these mean
>>
>> evolution, OTOH, like chemistry, physics or other sciences, is based
>> on testing concepts about the way we think the world works
>>
>> and this method...the scientific method...is the most accurate method
>> ever developed to discover how the natural world works
>
>Too bad evolution does not hold water to the "scientific method"
But it does. It is often held up as one of the best examples of the
scientific method.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Burkhard
So you have actually seen gravity? Wow. What colour is it?
Now me, I just have a lot of data, which may or may not be reliable,
and the assumption that there is an invisible force that attracts
objects. which is directly proportional to the product of their
masses and inversely proportional to the square of distance between
their centres.
Newton too was lacking your perception (my emphasis) : “I DEDUCED
that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs MUST [be]
reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about
which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep
the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the
Earth; and found them answer PRETTY NEARLT.”
>
> My assertion extends only to such theories where an inference has to
> be made based on data alone. Clearly I have shown that the data can be
> faulty because man's perceptions, as well as man's intructments, can
> faulty. Therefore any observations and conclusions made can be
> faulty.
So you measure the mass of objects without instruments, and you
determine their gravitational force without perception? Just
Marvellous!
Sapient Fridge
<cad6932f-48e9-4b17...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
>On Nov 10, 6:42 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <d82988fc-29ea-4458-990d-ab96da2c8...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>>
>> >physical evidence. Some inferences have to be made.
>>
>>
>> If the "spiritual world" had *any* influence on the material world then
>> science could set up experiments that detect the effects in the same way
>> that we can set up experiments to detect other things which (probably)
>> exist but can only be seen indirectly e.g. quantum foam, electromagnetic
>> waves, gravity waves, zero point energy, sub-atomic particles etc.
>>
>> No such influences from the spiritual world have ever been detected by
>> science and all experiments to do so have failed, therefore there is a
>> high probability that the spiritual does not exist.
>>
>> At this point you could retreat and say that the spiritual has no
>> influence on the material world so therefore cannot be detected by
>> science, but that's equivalent to it not existing at all for all intents
>> and purposes. Occam's razor becomes useful at that point.
>
>generations believing a lie is next to zero.
You have absolutely no ground for that assertion. If a billion people
believe that the earth is flat then does it make it so? Nope.
> Therefore we can safely
>assume that what has been recorded by ancient man (and others)
>involving supernatural occurrences are real.
Nope, your assumption is most definitely *not* safe. For it to be safe
you have to demonstrate that the more people believe in something then
the more likely it is to be true. Good luck with that one.
>Also, a supernatural influence on the material world is an event-by-
>event happenstance. IOW science is not going to be set up and ready to
>test the occurrence at the moment it happens, such as an Angel
>appearing. Therefore it becomes necessary to take human accounts of
>the occurrences as evidence.
>
>Just because science cannot test it does not mean it does not exist.
>Clearly I have shown this over the last few days and in several posts.
>How?
>
>1) Man has limited perception even compared to the animals
Yep, mantis shrimps can see 12 colours. I don't see how that helps your
argument though. There is no evidence that any perception extends to
your spiritual world.
>2) man often needs the assistance of instruments to assist in the
>interpretation of data, but, the instruments themselves can be faulty
Indeed they can, but for your argument to work you need everybody's
instruments to be faulty all the time - ever since science began.
>3) Science makes the same kind in inferences from their potentially
>faulty data and observations that a creationist makes from documents
>and recorded eye witnessed accounts from history.
That is plain wrong. The difference is that another scientist can check
published claims for themselves, but nobody can check whether a
historical document is truth or the ravings of a deluded madman.
For example, if I wanted to test the claim that a fossil is very common
at a certain depth but does not appear either above or below that depth
then (if I wanted to) I could buy a shovel and start digging to verify
the claim.
How do you verify the claim that Jesus turned water into wine or that a
snake talked to Eve? You can't. And that's the difference in a
nutshell.
>To name just a few.
>
>And why did you cut out and not address the other pertinent
>information in the post.
Because I was addressing one particular assertion of yours which I
thought was interesting i.e. your declaration that your "spiritual
world" could influence the material world.
Since your post was a reply to John Harshman and not me it's not
necessary for me to reply to further points you raised.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>The mathematical odds that billions of people over many thousands of
>generations believing a lie is next to zero.
Logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Numerum. The number of people who
believe something to be true is irrelevant to whether it actually is
true.
>Therefore we can safely
>assume that what has been recorded by ancient man (and others)
>involving supernatural occurrences are real.
As your initial argument is fallacious, your conclusion is worthless.
Burkhard
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:17:19 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> >The mathematical odds that billions of people over many thousands of
> >generations believing a lie is next to zero.
>
> Logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Numerum. The number of people who
> believe something to be true is irrelevant to whether it actually is
> true.
>
I think it is slightly more complicated. What is the reason we can
trust our senses? Well, one is that they are public, i.e. if I claim
to have seen a black swan, everybody else can have a look, and will
report that they too saw (roughly) the same. But we know that this
does not quite hold true, some people are (colour)blind, hallucinate
etc so we are happy as long as lots of them can confirm our
observation.
AS1 tries to analogise this to his "extra sensual" perception. The
fact that sufficient numbers report the same extra sensual experience
would validate it the same way it does for sensual experience.
The problem with that is not the logical structure, but the wrong
premiss. Lots of people believing the bible is not evidence for
converging perception, but of social pressures if you are lucky, the
stake when you are unlucky.
We see that in the fact that people's religious beliefs are largely
inherited and tied to geographic or cultural boundaries. If I do
radiocarbon dating of the same object in different location of the
globe, I will always get the same reading. And children of atheists,
Christians etc are also all going to get the same reading.
By contrast of course, for some reason the "spiritual perception
measuring machine" gives me consistently different "readings" when
used in a Christian, Islamic, Shinto etc environment, and when "used"
by the child of a Christin, Muslim, Buddhist etc.
kalkidas
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:e9idnYY2et0...@giganews.com...
> kalkidas wrote:
>> "All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message news:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>>
>>>
>>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
>>> --------------------------------------
>>
>> sensory tunnel with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing
>> right next to us that we'll never observe in a million lifetimes. The
>> whole universe is filled to the brim with living beings, but we see
>> only empty space.
>>
Only if you provide evidence of your qualifications to evaluate it. Otherwise, I won't waste my time.
John Harshman
constitute evidence of my qualifications?
Caranx latus
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in messagenews:e9idnYY2et0...@giganews.com...
> > kalkidas wrote:
> >> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:efbece84-fb1b-475b...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> >>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> >>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> >>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
> >>> --------------------------------------
>
> >> Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a
> >> sensory tunnel with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing
> >> right next to us that we'll never observe in a million lifetimes. The
> >> whole universe is filled to the brim with living beings, but we see
> >> only empty space.
>
> > Can you provide any evidence for that claim?
>
> Only if you provide evidence of your qualifications to evaluate it. Otherwise, I won't waste my time.
"No" would have been a more direct answer.
John Wilkins
<cad6932f-48e9-4b17...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> The mathematical odds that billions of people over many thousands of
> generations believing a lie is next to zero.
Actually it's the exact reverse. There are Vastly many more ways of
being wrong than being right, and so the likelihood that what most
people believe is true by accident is almost zero; one over nearly
infinity.
Given that people transmit ideas to their children, the likelihood that
an idea is random and shared by many people is almost unity.
Moreover, the *evolutionary* odds that ideas will arise for reasons
other than those the cognitive features that give rise to them were
selected for in the first place is extremely high, so if evolution is
true, we should expect that most people will mostly believe in things
that are false positives.
Kermit
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in messagenews:e9idnYY2et0...@giganews.com...
> > kalkidas wrote:
> >>> 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
> >>> sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
> >>> showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>
> >>> Insert answer HERE: GO!
> >>> --------------------------------------
>
> >> Hell, we can't even see our hands if the lights go out. We live in a
> >> sensory tunnel with five kinds of perceptions. Things are standing
> >> right next to us that we'll never observe in a million lifetimes. The
> >> whole universe is filled to the brim with living beings, but we see
> >> only empty space.
>
> > Can you provide any evidence for that claim?
>
> Only if you provide evidence of your qualifications to evaluate it. Otherwise, I won't waste my time.
In other words, you have nothing that others can verify.
It's true, it is conceivable that we are all spirit blind or
something, but I have a simpler explanation.
Kermit
Ye Old One
>On Nov 10, 6:42 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <d82988fc-29ea-4458-990d-ab96da2c8...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>>
>> >The spiritual world can only be ‘detected’
>> >by its influence on the material world. So it is tough to give
>> >physical evidence. Some inferences have to be made.
>>
>> Why put 'detected' in quotes?
>>
>> If the "spiritual world" had *any* influence on the material world then
>> science could set up experiments that detect the effects in the same way
>> that we can set up experiments to detect other things which (probably)
>> exist but can only be seen indirectly e.g. quantum foam, electromagnetic
>> waves, gravity waves, zero point energy, sub-atomic particles etc.
>>
>> No such influences from the spiritual world have ever been detected by
>> science and all experiments to do so have failed, therefore there is a
>> high probability that the spiritual does not exist.
>>
>> At this point you could retreat and say that the spiritual has no
>> influence on the material world so therefore cannot be detected by
>> science, but that's equivalent to it not existing at all for all intents
>> and purposes. Occam's razor becomes useful at that point.
>
>The mathematical odds that billions of people over many thousands of
>generations believing a lie is next to zero.
Rubbish.
>Therefore we can safely
>assume that what has been recorded by ancient man (and others)
>involving supernatural occurrences are real.
Equal rubbish.
>
>Also, a supernatural influence on the material world is an event-by-
>event happenstance. IOW science is not going to be set up and ready to
>test the occurrence at the moment it happens, such as an Angel
>appearing. Therefore it becomes necessary to take human accounts of
>the occurrences as evidence.
More rubbish.
>
>Just because science cannot test it does not mean it does not exist.
>Clearly I have shown this over the last few days and in several posts.
Even more rubbish.
>How?
>
>1) Man has limited perception even compared to the animals
Bigger rubbish.
>2) man often needs the assistance of instruments to assist in the
>interpretation of data, but, the instruments themselves can be faulty
Monumental rubbish.
>3) Science makes the same kind in inferences from their potentially
>faulty data and observations that a creationist makes from documents
>and recorded eye witnessed accounts from history.
Nuts.
>
>To name just a few.
>
>And why did you cut out and not address the other pertinent
>information in the post.
Because you never post any pertinent information.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 10, 6:36 am, Erwin Moller
><Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I schreef:
>>
>> > 1) Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>> > sufficient enough to accurately make the necessary observations
>> > showing evolution to be a true process of the earth?
>>
>> > Insert answer HERE: GO!
>> > --------------------------------------
>>
>> No, I cannot.
>> But your question might as well have ended like this:
>> "Can you provide evidence showing that mankind's perceptions are
>> sufficient enough to X"
>>
>> where X may be replaced with any claim ever made.
>> (Possible exception: "I think therefor I am".)
>>
>> What you are asking is not reasonable.
>> Ever heard of brains-in-a-jar? (Or the Matrix for the younger amongst us)
>>
>> ALL your sensory information can be in error.
>> It is impossible to proof it is not, just like it is impossible to proof
>> that the Eastern Bunny (or God) doesn't exist.
>>
>> So for all practical purposes: Let's assume our sensory data is roughly
>> fine in most cases and start doing usefull things now.
>>
>> Erwin Moller
>
>Oh please. This is a cop out. Why throw the baby out with the bath
>water?
>
>I made no mention that ALL of scientific data was in err; Or, that all
>of human data was in err. In fact, quite the contrary. In another
>thread i said: We can all test the theory of gravity and see for
>ourselves that the observation fits the theory. We all can test micro
>evolution in own back yards with a garden or a litter of dogs.
No, wrong as usual.
>
>My assertion extends only to such theories where an inference has to
>be made based on data alone. Clearly I have shown that the data can be
>faulty because man's perceptions, as well as man's intructments, can
>faulty.
You have not shown anything clearly. You seem incapable of doing that.
>Therefore any observations and conclusions made can be
>faulty.
>
>Macro evolution
There is only one form of evolution.
> is indeed an an infernece that could be faulty based
>on the simple fact that there is no direct observation of speciation
>from one species to the next.
Liar!
> We cannot test to see if the theory fits
>the observations like we can with gravity and micro evolution.
There is only one form of evolution.
>Further, any data and observations are only going to be as reliable as
>man's abilities.
Which have proven more than up to the job.
>
>All you have for macro evolution is a theory based on observations and
>data that could be faulty.
We have reality.
All-Seeing-I
It matters plenty when there are so many people throughout history
that have claimed to have supernatural experiences. Are we to simply
turn a blind eye and say it's all a lie?
That would be foolish.
So in essence, this is what you are saying. You are drawing a line in
the sand and making the claim that if mankind (with all his flaws)
cannot measure it then it does not exist.
If genuine science took such a position as yours then nothing would
get discovered. No one would bother to streach the posibilties into
new technology that would in fact measure what we cannot measure now.
You have closed the door on the posibility of the supernatural
existing based soley on the fact that it cannot be measured with human
standards. But the animals can out pace our perceptions with no
technology required.
You see nothing wrong with that picture?
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> It matters plenty when there are so many people throughout history
> that have claimed to have supernatural experiences. Are we to simply
> turn a blind eye and say it's all a lie?
No. That they were all mistaken. Not that people lied; they may well
sincerely believe that they've been abducted by aliens, seen fairies,
etc.
> That would be foolish.
Why? It's not like they all agree about their experiences.
The experiences are often culturally appropriate (so Catholics see the
virgin Mary, but non-Catholics don't), and some seem clearly delusional
(serial killers who hear voices telling them to kill prostitutes, for
example). So surely everyone thinks many of these aren't to be taken as
experiences of reality, so why shouldn't someone think all of them
aren't?
[...]
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you have a question, Ask