(August 22, 2016 at 2:20 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 1:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: There are three ways the word 'evolution' is used when talking about biology: 

1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") 
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") 
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history") 

A citation would be useful. A 'descent' one.

Nice word play. 

Aw shucks, t'weren't nothin'!

But thanks!

Speaking of evolutionary trees .. don't you bible thumpers have an even bigger problem? I've heard that according to Genesis growing things like trees were created and installed before the sun was switched on. I don't think there are any 'a priori' reasons to question evolution which compare to the problems which beset the biblical alternative.

(August 22, 2016 at 2:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Good Example of what I was talking about.... Just to clarify, I do think that science may support an a priori bias, the problem is when your a prior bias interferes with what the evidence leads to, and you are dismissing or cherry picking the evidence because of.

Science is the study of the natural world.  It literally doesn't deal with the supernatural by definition.  That's not an a priori bias.  That's just the nature of the inquiry.

And please, do give us an example where an a priori bias against the supernatural has interfered with a scientist's ability to follow the evidence. I'm sure we could all use a good laugh.

(August 22, 2016 at 2:50 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Speaking of evolutionary trees .. don't you bible thumpers have an even bigger problem?  I've heard that according to Genesis growing things like trees were created and installed before the sun was switched on.  I don't think there are any 'a priori' reasons to question evolution which compare to the problems which beset the biblical alternative.

Perhaps I am a bit stupid but who is the imaginary diety talking to when he says this:

Quote:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

This was before he created Adam and Eve? Furthermore, when he had a go at Eve, surely it was actually someone in real life who warned Eve not to eat the fruit because it was simply dangerous and toxic.

From Genesis 2:

Quote:Adam and Eve

Quote:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth

Genesis 1:

Quote:Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”

(August 22, 2016 at 2:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Good Example of what I was talking about.... Just to clarify, I do think that science may support an a priori bias, the problem is when your a prior bias interferes with what the evidence leads to, and you are dismissing or cherry picking the evidence because of.

So we've got you here, bemoaning a priori biases against things that have no evidence even indicating them, and which you are incapable of providing the evidence that would make insisting on naturalism actually an a priori bias, essentially making your insistence on the supernatural anyway literally the thing you're going on about...

And we've got Steve on the other side, asserting that the supernatural actively resists scientific detection, meaning that there's no possible way that science could ever countenance the supernatural to begin with, let alone be biased against it.

Which is true? Shouldn't you two be sorting that out? And moreover, what exactly do you want from us, if you can't actually bring any evidence to bear?

You seem to just want to disqualify scientific ideas that disagree with you out of hand as biased, without either showing how a balanced view of the situation would include the thing you're asserting is being unfairly excluded, nor showing how you know that bias even exists, given that you don't know a single fucking person you're accusing, here. It's just a silencing tactic, right now.

(August 22, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Good Example of what I was talking about.... Just to clarify, I do think that science may support an a priori bias, the problem is when your a prior bias interferes with what the evidence leads to, and you are dismissing or cherry picking the evidence because of.

So we've got you here, bemoaning a priori biases against things that have no evidence even indicating them, and which you are incapable of providing the evidence that would make insisting on naturalism actually an a priori bias, essentially making your insistence on the supernatural anyway literally the thing you're going on about...

And we've got Steve on the other side, asserting that the supernatural actively resists scientific detection, meaning that there's no possible way that science could ever countenance the supernatural to begin with, let alone be biased against it.

Which is true? Shouldn't you two be sorting that out? And moreover, what exactly do you want from us, if you can't actually bring any evidence to bear?

You seem to just want to disqualify scientific ideas that disagree with you out of hand as biased, without either showing how a balanced view of the situation would include the thing you're asserting is being unfairly excluded, nor showing how you know that bias even exists, given that you don't know a single fucking person you're accusing, here. It's just a silencing tactic, right now.

Two class acts, these guys are, eh? [emoji849]

More like case studies.  

(August 22, 2016 at 3:04 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 22, 2016 at 2:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Good Example of what I was talking about.... Just to clarify, I do think that science may support an a priori bias, the problem is when your a prior bias interferes with what the evidence leads to, and you are dismissing or cherry picking the evidence because of.

Science is the study of the natural world.  It literally doesn't deal with the supernatural by definition.  That's not an a priori bias.  That's just the nature of the inquiry.

I generally agree with what you said here (about the role and nature of scientific inquiry).

Let me ask you; is what qualifies as "Science" determined by the conclusion or the method used?

(August 22, 2016 at 4:50 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Two class acts, these guys are, eh?  [emoji849]

At least when Abbot and Costello talked past each other, it was funny.