(August 23, 2016 at 9:49 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 9:09 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Esquilax:

Just to offer you a puzzle piece to this picture he is haphazardly trying to throw together in case you missed it, RoadRunner thinks scientific research is nothing more than "testimony" that requires "faith" to accept, on par with religious scripture in terms of quality of evidence for things (he stated so in another thread just DAYS ago).  Considering how he is referring to science in THIS thread, he's either a very dishonest or very confused individual, so...yeah, have fun with that.  [emoji41]  

*popcorn*

I made no such comparison. And I stated as much, when you tried to goad me into doing so; on such generalized terms. And I don't think that you made much of a case, that we do not need to rely on transfer of knowledge based on one who experienced a thing, and shares that knowledge with another, nor that their is a certain amount of trust that must be involved.

Now if you have something to add to this conversation, I would ask that you please be more specific. If I am wrong in my thinking, I can't correct anything based on such broad snipes.

Also, I bear no responsibility for making a case against a negative claim about what is NOT needed for something. You made the claim "faith" is required, and you failed to back it without using fallacious tactics. I'd think you would have learned this by now...[emoji12]

(August 23, 2016 at 10:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 10:12 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: It's amazing how you guys cry poopy-pants about being misrepresented after you literally jump threads and change POV in which ever way most benefits your pre-conclusions.  It's fine; I'll just link to the thread for anyone who is interested and has two hours of their life to waste reading 20 pages of you equivocating.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-44065-page-56.html

Again, Please be more specific... what do you think that I have drastically changed points of view on here?

Nope, you're not roping me into this one. The thread is there if you feel like re-reading through it . I don't have another five days to waste on your slippery apologist crap. I merely wanted to offer up the prior discussion for perspective to those who are currently invested in THIS one. Others can read on their own time and decide for themselves what they think of your intentions if they so choose.

(August 23, 2016 at 10:35 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 10:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Again,  Please be more specific... what do you think that I have drastically changed points of view on here?

Nope, you're not roping me into this one.  The thread is there if you feel like re-reading through it .  I don't have another five days to waste on your slippery apologist crap.  I merely wanted to offer up the prior discussion for perspective to those who are currently invested in THIS one.  Others can read on their own time and decide for themselves what they think of your intentions if they so choose.  

I didn't bring you into this... just asking that you give reason for your claim.

(August 23, 2016 at 9:20 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:Sorry, it is very much a component. It is assumed in just about every evolutionary experiment and conclusion every reached. Show me one area it is not assumed and would therefore not be detrimental to the theory if it were found to be incorrect.

Give an example where universal common descent was a necessary component of an evolutionary experiment. You're making a claim about necessary assumptions, you support it.

The study of fossils assumes everything biological is related and attempts to chart them accordingly.
The study of genetic mutation rates assumes everything is related and therefore rates of changes can be measured going back.
The study of parallel and convergent traits assumes (be definition) that a common ancestor did not have the traits being studied. 
The study of biological systems assumes everything is related so compares different systems in different species to find similarities to establish potential building blocks that could have evolved.

I could go on...but the point is that if common decent is disproved, there are ramifications in every sub-field--and many existing conclusions would have to be thrown out or at the very least, reexamined.

(August 23, 2016 at 10:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 10:12 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: It's amazing how you guys cry poopy-pants about being misrepresented after you literally jump threads and change POV in which ever way most benefits your pre-conclusions.  It's fine; I'll just link to the thread for anyone who is interested and has two hours of their life to waste reading 20 pages of you equivocating.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-44065-page-56.html

Again,  Please be more specific... what do you think that I have drastically changed points of view on here?

LOL. How could she be more specific when she didn't understand any of the points in the first place? She tells you what you mean, shifts the subject and declares victory...repeat.

(August 23, 2016 at 11:40 am)SteveII Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 10:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Again,  Please be more specific... what do you think that I have drastically changed points of view on here?

LOL. How could she be more specific when she didn't understand any of the points in the first place? She tells you what you mean, shifts the subject and declares victory...repeat.

I do try to approach things with the principle of charity, to try and understand that we are coming at things from a different worldview. I am fairly direct, and perhaps do fall back to abductio ad absurdum, to try and move the discussion past the easy quick (twitter-like)claims, and onto something more fruitful and thoughtful. Perhaps this is where I error. In discussions with an orthodox friend, we did this often, and usually found that are views are not that dissimilar when we got down to it. Sometimes it is more the language, the different approach, and just plain stubbornness, that causes more differences than there is in reality.

But then sometimes, it appears, that people don't even listen, or try to have a conversation either.

I've spotted that myself.

(August 23, 2016 at 11:40 am)SteveII Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 10:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Again,  Please be more specific... what do you think that I have drastically changed points of view on here?

LOL. How could she be more specific when she didn't understand any of the points in the first place? She tells you what you mean, shifts the subject and declares victory...repeat.

The thread itself speaks for both of you.

(August 23, 2016 at 10:51 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 10:35 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Nope, you're not roping me into this one.  The thread is there if you feel like re-reading through it .  I don't have another five days to waste on your slippery apologist crap.  I merely wanted to offer up the prior discussion for perspective to those who are currently invested in THIS one.  Others can read on their own time and decide for themselves what they think of your intentions if they so choose.  

I didn't bring you into this... just asking that you give reason for your claim.

You're right, you didn't. That's fair. I butted in, but only for the reasons mentioned above. Please, continue.

*popcorn*

(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.

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.

I'd be a little more blunt and say that science deals in reality while the supernatural deals in unreality.