The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

So you think that I cannot have any scientific objection to a theory which violates the laws of conservation? Furthermore, this 'theory' doesn't actually do what science is supposed to - provide an explanation. Instead it simply wishes distant starlight into existence at an arbitrary point because it is required.

So on the contrary Statler - there is a lot to to be concerned with there.

It actually does not violate any laws of Conservation. It's more of just a "rescue mechanism" which are used all the time in Science, see dark matter, dark energy, and oort clouds. So Creationists are not the only ones who use this tactic. The Big Bang has its own starlight issue, so it's a problem for everyone. That's why it comes more down to worldviews than the evidence.

So, in order to conduct any science there must be pre-supposition or assumptions such as 'Logic is Real', 'My Brain is not made of cheese' and so on . . .

When I was talking about the assumption in science Statler I assumed you could differetiate between simple assumption about the nature of life and assumptions based on ones worldviews. Evidently, this is not the case.

Simple assumptions, such as the examples you pointed out above have no affect on the scientific process so there is no need to consider them overly during a study. Conversley taking into account your own knowledge about the world (Your 'worldview') is relatively easy and where neccesary, it easy to distance that from the interpretive process.

'We cannot allow a divine foot in the door' . . . So, a scientist is saying that he will always consider natural as opposed to super-natural explanations first. I see no flaw in this; there is no evidence of the supernatural and by it definition it would be entirely beyond our natural observations therefore; if the evidence can be fit to a natural model it should be, as this is infinetely more plausible than a hitherto unknown supernatural existence.

This article in nature; link or DOI available? - I wouldn't like to comment without reading it.

I disagree that 'possible' explanations are ever rules out. As with all good science explanations are considered based on plausibility and the existing work in the field. So the most plausible explanations are explored first. IF there is extraordinary evidence that the current understanding is wrong then this is considered on the merits of the research and possibly re-tested to confirm their results.

Finally, science is one of the most self critical professions with most of the people in the field being uniquely aware of their assumptions - it is often noted in their methodologies and conclusions so claiming they are in some way 'less honest' than your 'Creation guys' is foolish.

That's just it, there is no such thing as a "simple assumption". Just because your's and my wordlviews share these assumptions does not make them "simple" or osmething everyone assumes.

So you are saying that Science always leans towards the most plausible explaination? So let's take Abiogenesis, even with taking into account all the random interactions in the universe since the beginning, the chance of assembling life without intelligent direction is equivalent to guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try. Yet many Scientists believe in Abiogenesis. So it's obvious they do not always lean towards the most plausible explaination since this one is a statistically impossible one.

Have you been reading the thread? You mention cases of 'Bad Science' among secular scientists and someone points out how the scientific community actually requested clarification of the results before publiching the material . . . How did this not refute your claim of scientific prejudice to evidence that goes against current knowledge?

Easy, if the people who had made this claim had actually read the article I posted (kind of interesting they did not), they would have realized that what they were saying was not the case. The article clearly stated that several reviewers would not publish the results because they did not believe them. Not only this but they would not publish the results no matter how much evidence was provided. So I am a bit surprised you believed the claims thta they were only wanting more work inspite of what the article actually said.

Okay . . . so scripture says the principal of unifromatarianism is wrong? So what? I'm not trying to prove scripture wrong. I'm trying to work out the age of the earth based on empirical evidence not what a two thousand year old book says. So, we look at the evidence, we take account of the assumption inherent in it and then interpret that. If the result is an age of billions of years ... then that is what it is. If subsequently this is confirmed by every experiment after it, then we can start to assume it is correct for future work.

Think of it this way; I want to know how old the earth is ... for simplicity there are two options 6000-7000 years or a number of billions of years. Using the techniques available to us (and there tolerances established by previous experiments/mathematic proofs etc . . .) we test these assumption in several fields; seismology, geology, paleontology etc ... and go from there. There is no need to assume scripture is false. Thats besides the point because 'scripture' has no place in science. [/qhote]

I think you are looking at it all wrong. I will use your same analogy.

Let's say we have two possible ages. 6000 years and 4.5 billion years. We have an eye witness acount that says that the Earth is 6000 years old and that a worldwide flood occured. Since I value observation I will take this account into effect.

We can date the Earth dozens of different ways, if I assume this eye wittness account is incorrect and hold a uniformitarian view point none of these methods agree. I get everything from 6000-4.5 billion years. If I assume this flood account is true and I take it into consideration all the dating methods point to a 6000 year old Earth. So I make an inference to the best possible explaination, which is that a global flood did occur and the Earth is young. Simple and scientific. Where is this rule that Scripture cannot be used in science? It's used all the timein archeology.


[quote] So now all atheist are inherently liers because they do not share your moral compass? And you lecture me about pre-suppositions. I'm not saying he is lying per say I'm just saying that you have made such a big thing of pre-suppositions that using the story of a CMI geologist is just showing how your own presuppositions far favour your own 'side' - the hypocrissy is killing me.

Also; you struggle to believe someone who believes lying is wrong would lie? Tell me Statler - What do you call the concelament of the paedophillia problem by the church?

I don't care what he says, it might be true, it might not ... on its own the story is irrelevant and does not constitue any form of proof or even a clear argument.

I just find it interesting that you don't care whether those stories are true or not. If they are true I think it points to a lot of bad science on your side of the aisle. Thta is probably why you thumb your nose at these stories.

No Statler, thats just not what I said ... you're either mis-reading my posts or just trying to decieve. I said that your 'Worlds Best Research Paper' had excellent methodology but did not interpret the results OR provide the extraordinary evidnce needed to justify this departure it would be rejected or returned. Please point out how this is unscientific if you still want to argue.

Yes but using scriptue has a few problems Statler, it vague, doubtful historicaly and can be interpreted differently. Also a belief in the supernatural allows you to invoke this at will whenever you get stuck. So why should secular science accept scripture without any proof of its validity?

Well I can just point you to the Discovery article I already did. Many reviewers are not concerned with the evidence, they are concerned more with the implications of the article. An article that rightfully destroyed Darwinian Evolution would NEVER get published in a secular journal and you know it. Darwin has become some kind of Science God and to question his findings or even originality of his work (since a Creationist published work on Natural Selection before Darwin even took his voyage) is very similiar to someone bashing the pope in front of a group of Catholics.

Like I said, secular scientists invoke their own form of the super-natural when they create un-obsrevable entities such as dark matter, dark energy, and oort clouds. How are these any different than the "God did it" argument? "Let's see, Comets can't last longer than 10,000 years, we see comets today even though the Universe is much older than that, sooooo....there must be some magical place we have never seen that makes these comets and spits them out! We will call it an oort cloud and people will believe it exists!". I find it interesting you are not nearly as critical of these arguments on your side of the aisle.

Yes Statler ... I am aware than Journals are a means of publication not research institutions.

How do you not see the flaw in their publication rules? Controlling the exact details/nature of all published articles is nothing short of censorship ... keeping your readers ignorant of all conflicting viewpoints. Again ... I challenge you to find a secular journal which demands that all submitted papers fir within one particularly narrow and niche theory.

Let me give you an example. The current mantle plume debate is a key issue in inner earth geology and seismology. There are no journals which only allow papers supporting one of these theories to be publsihed. All papers are welcome regardless of what theory they support.

Also ... and please read this carefully Statler. Pointing out a logical fallacy shows a weakness in the argument its self not the idea being represented. It is not enough for you and Mr Lisle to simply say 'Thats a logical fallacy so you're wrong ... haha' in order to refute a claim you must also prove the claim incorrect. Honestly ... do a little reading you'll see I'm right.

So you mean to tell me that I could get a Creation research paper published in "Evolution" Journal? Please, you have got to be kidding me. They want articles that all support Darwinian Evolution and you know it. There is actually nothing wrong with this approach, if I want an article that supports Darwinian Evolution I can pick up Evolution Journal, if I want one that supports Creation I can pick up The Journal of Creation- as long as all the journals are available this is not censorship and is a very effective system. When groups say, "well there journals are not scientific because we have changed the definition of what we consider science" this then becomes censorship. Luckily, it is not my side that is doing this.

Actually it would be inappropriate for me or Dr. Lisle to argue against an illogical argument logically. So we must first point out the logical fallacies in these arguments. Once your side corrects these fallacies and presents a logically valid argument then we can began to address the issue on logical grounds.

---

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='102995' dateline='1288653942']
We observe events that violate natural laws quite often.

Quite often eh? Well then you shouldn't have any trouble showing the documented evidence of events that violate natural laws quite often. Matter of fact, if it was 'quite often' as you claim, there should be evidence everywhere held by many.

Why haven't I seen any? Can you show me the evidence to back this assertion of your'n?

I'll wait here.
[/quote]

People see things all the time that we do not have a natural explaination for, you do not agree with this? Just watch the Discovery Channel, there are tons of shows on there about the unexplained and the supernatural. Secular scientists just ignore this because their naturalistic worldviews rule out the existance of the supernatural beforehand. Then they claim they have disproven the existance of the supernatural even though it was assumed in their worldview. Bad bad logic. I saw Hitchens use this circular approach in his debate with Doug Wilson.

"The supernatural does not exist because we have never observed it"

Ten seconds later in the debate...

"People who observe supernatural events are just fooled by their senses".

Silly Christopher.