Ask her why she has vestigial organs if man didn't clumsily and blindly evolve naturally.
Either god is not perfect or nature is not perfect. I think we all know the answer to that.

Ask any dwarf, albino, etc

Nicely done Sounds good.

That's the important part, he collected more data after making the hypothesis. She needs to learn about the scientific method I think, if she feels she can dismiss such rocks as evolution by deploying a single logical fallacy defence.

(July 9, 2015 at 3:18 am)ignoramus Wrote: Ask her why she has vestigial organs if man didn't clumsily and blindly evolve naturally.
Either god is not perfect or nature is not perfect. I think we all know the answer to that.

Ask any dwarf, albino, etc

Believe me, I've been dying for her to bring evolution back up in our emails so I can pounce all over her about it.  

The thing is, I'm not sure of exactly her stand right now.  She claims to believe in ID, but in this last statement is talking like she accepts evolution... when she has explicitly stated in the past that she doesn't... but we've had long conversations before the religion discussion started (like a year before the religion stuff started) about how Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals...  I really wish I had saved those emails so I could throw that stuff back in her face.  

So I don't know if she's special pleading on behalf of Homo sapiens and exempting them (us), alone, from being a result of evolution, or if she is actually talking out of both sides of her mouth.

I'm SO GLAD she has brought it back up

(July 9, 2015 at 3:24 am)robvalue Wrote: Nicely done Sounds good.

That's the important part, he collected more data after making the hypothesis. She needs to learn about the scientific method I think, if she feels she can dismiss such rocks as evolution by deploying a single logical fallacy defence.

I think what she's trying to do is find an example in science of a theory or widely accepted hypothesis that was proven or demonstrated using the sharp shooter fallacy so that she can justify the fact that she is using it when she does her "casual" (read: uncontrolled, not rigorously planned out, anything-goes, free-for-all) prayer studies.

She has also tried to justify her lackadaisical approach by saying that psychological research isn't performed as rigorously as research in the hard sciences, that (I think she's saying) they don't develop research protocols to the same degree, and that a lot of the finds of psychology comes from therapists sitting in their offices with patients just taking notes... or something... so, therefore, her "casual" approach to proving her god is real and answers prayers is perfectly acceptable.  Not kidding.  In fact, I'll quote you exactly what she sent me:

My Mormon Penpal Wrote:When experiments are planned and/or observational data is analyzed, yes, stringent protocols and procedures are needed for most scientific endeavors, especially the "hard" sciences. Psychology, particularly in the early days, did not follow this path with much rigor. Theories were developed solely on individual therapists observations of their patients where no quantities were involved. A lot of the field is still that way. Examples: Freud, Jung, Adler, Maslow, etc. (Interesting factoid: Jung and Wolfgang Pauli were working together on Jung's concept of synchronicity - they thought that the subconscious might be able to influence events on a quantum level. Hm.) My experimentation is, likewise, more casual and based on observation.

It's quite astonishing to hear some of the crap she's said...