Creation/evolution3

[watchamadoodle]

IMO, Drich's beliefs are empirical, because they are based on his own experiences and not based solely on logic.

"I saw a green faerie in my house last night" is not empirical data. Anecdotal evidence is not useful without corroboration at least. Empirical data is information that can be exchanged. Empirical data is then used in a hypothesis which can now be tested to develop a theory. If Drich's "empirical data" can be used to test a hypothesis (without drugs, shock therapy, brainwashing, torture, hypnosis, self-hypnosis, lobotomies, etc.), then I will step back.

Show how my "green faerie" sighting can be used as empirical data. (The batteries were dead in my camera or I would have got a picture and that would be empirical data.)

@ watchamadoodle

Read the rest of your wiki entry or better yet:

O.k. I started reading the livescience link you provided, but I didn't see anything that differed from what I said. I think the words I used in my post must have different meanings or implications to different people. So you are reading things into my posts that I didn't intend?

---

The problem is, many of us even here have run this heuristic and found it wanting. If I have to assume Drich is right in order to experience his feelings, well, that doesn't necessarily bring me closer to reality, does it?
...
Firstly, assuming Drich is right is not a good way to find your path to the truth.

I agree with the points in your post, but I quoted your comments about assuming Drich's claims.

I think what you mean by "assuming Drich is right". is putting much confidence in Drich's claims? I agree with that.

Of course we need to assume Drich's claims are true to design experiments that might falsify his claims. That is what I mean when I say "assuming Drich is right".

Another problem with Drich's claims and Christian claims in general is the notion that God only delivers results when people stick their necks out in faith. If we are trying to build an Apollo spacecraft, we begin with lots of testing before risking the lives of astronauts. God doesn't want us to do it that way - just follow the divinely inspired instructions and blast off. That's a recipe for distaster IMO.

---

Those are good points, but I disagree with the above quote. Assuming Drich is right, then everybody can experience God through the A/S/K method. It is not different than a scientist who publishes experimental results that anybody can replicate.

But as you point out, he presents a moving target. A scientist who presents a particular hypothesis should provide the manner in which he reached it, so that others may test it. If others test it and come up with different results and his reaction is to continually add steps or tell them that their results prove the hypothesis regardless, the obvious implication is that his hypothesis is nonsense.

What's more, the A/S/K method doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's part of the Bible, and from that book one can infer the likelihood of success of any sincere attempt at reaching god via any particular method. When every result is 'evidence' that it works, the obvious implication is that the method is nonsense. If you were trying to find out why the drapes were ruined while you were gone and your children offered up an explanation using that approach, you'd immediately become suspicious. If we have to change the rules for god to make sense, then he doesn't make sense.

I agree, and your mention of the Bible reminds me of the claims about the Genesis timeline which were the original thread topic. IMO Drich should accept that there is no way to reconcile a literal belief in the Biblical narratives with science (unless we assume God deliberately planted evidence to mislead scientists into believing in evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) We don't need to perform any experiments to disprove claims that the Bible is literally historical. Drich's observation that the genealogies can start when Adam leaves the Garden of Eden is valid, but we still need to deal with the seven days of creation that are sequenced wrong and describe a period of billions of years instead of the literal seven days that Drich insists upon.