(October 9, 2013 at 10:07 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Jesus fucking christ, it's like trying to talk to a 3-year-old. The only thing left for SBG is the endless repetition of "Why?"

To be fair, my nephews (when they were three), did ask a lot of whys, but after talking and explaining they started to form their own (usually quite accurate) conclusions.

(October 10, 2013 at 5:51 am)What_the?! Wrote: ....and your answer to my question has destroyed your position.

Indeed a null hypothesis is the default position (kind of...). In this case though, the default position is 'we don't know'.

The scientific method then requires that we propose and test possible H1 hypotheses, to see if there is any evidence to support them. If there is no evidence, we return to the H0 null hypothesis until such time as a better supported H1 hypothesis comes along.

Now, if you'd said that God is a H1 hypothesis supported by tons of evidence, then I'd disagree with you but your position wouldn't be anything like as weak as you've just made it for yourself. But the fact that you claim that god is the null hypothesis shows either a complete disregard for the scientific method, or a complete absence of understanding of it.

Any god hypothesis has to be a H1 hypothesis, and cannot be null, because it seeks to offer a positive explanation for origins, and a null hypothesis - by definition - cannot do that.

You, sir/madam, have either no understanding of the scientific method, or are choosing to completely disregard it. You really need to get to understand this before posting a again, because at the moment your posts are an amusing car crash but little else.

Please explain how life started. Make sure you include all steps to the first cell.

(October 10, 2013 at 6:28 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Please explain how life started. Make sure you include all steps to the first cell.

So you're just gonna skip over your drastic, crippling misunderstanding of science and the scientific process?

Let's try this one more time. Nice and slow.

It doesn't matter if my explanation for the steps up to the first cell is that pixies in my garden did it. It would fail as a H1 hypothesis and default to the null 'we don't know' just as your magic god hypothesis does.

So here it is, nice and simple: Do you understand that the God hypothesis is not, and could never be, the null default position? Yes or no.

Oh, and just so you know - your aggressive "tell me how life came about, include all the steps" posts simply serve to make you appear like a petulant child desperately gripping his favourite toy with white knuckles and a tear-covered face.

Just answer the questions dude.

(October 10, 2013 at 6:30 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 6:28 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Please explain how life started. Make sure you include all steps to the first cell.

So you're just gonna skip over your drastic, crippling misunderstanding of science and the scientific process?

Science is the product of mind/consciousness.
How about you start with simple single cell abiogenesis FIRST.
Then you can have a crack at explaining how consciousness arose.

"Please explain how life started. Make sure you include all steps to the first cell."

The null hypothesis - we don't know.

That doesn't mean that the H1 hypothesis is correct.

(October 10, 2013 at 6:36 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Science is the product of mind/consciousness.
How about you start with simple single cell abiogenesis FIRST.
Then you can have a crack at explaining how consciousness arose.

So I have to account for literally everything in the universe that led up to the modern scientific method before I can use the scientific method? The one that is useful in that it has the ability to explain those things? You can't honestly be that stupid.

But, I'll tell you what: you explain to me how god created everything, and then you can have a crack at using the intelligence you think he gave you to communicate with me sufficient to ask me a question. I mean, it's only fair, under your logic.

How does the group that says...we don't know,
serve us better than the group which says...we think we DO know.

(October 10, 2013 at 6:42 am)Lion IRC Wrote: How does the group that says...we don't know,
serve us better than the group which says...we think we DO know.

Because the group that says "we think we do know," is just claiming to know, without being able to demonstrate it. If you can't show it, you don't know it; in essence, the group claiming to know is lying, or at least misrepresenting belief as knowledge.

Meanwhile, the group saying "we don't know" is the one actually looking without a bias involved, and are thus more likely to find the answer, whereas so often the group lying about their knowledge only searches for the things that will confirm their assumed conclusion.

Oh, and hey look everyone: we finally found a christian with the balls to defend Gracie!