LISTEN, CHRISTIANS!

[Huggy Bear]

Leaving out pertinent parts of the exchange to make it seem like the person's position is something other than what it actually is is misquoting, Huggy. I don't care if you feel like you should be allowed to get away with it because the rules can be creatively interpreted in such a way as to preclude what you did, because you don't get to enforce the rules or decide the manner in which they were meant. We do, and we did. FaF admitted to his misunderstanding shortly after it was pointed out to him: you posted his original gaffe as though he had not, in order to make him seem stupid. This is a misrepresentation of the event in question, hence it is a quote mine, and only exists to taunt him, meaning it's also flaming.

I am literally looking at the report and the exchange that sparked it in the thread, in a pair of other windows. You fully acknowledge, in that thread, that FaF backtracked when found to be mistaken, and yet you still represented it as though he hadn't. If you quote someone fully in the knowledge of what they mean, for the purposes of making it seem like they meant something else, that is an inaccurate quote.

Wow, you really have a bizarrely skewed idea of what scientific evidence is.  Again, try to leave the courtroom analogy behind.  Evidence when talking about a factual or scientific claim does NOT include anecdote, I'm sorry it just doesn't.  Just like the anecdotal claims of people that have seen Bigfoot is NOT evidence that Bigfoot exists, claims about miracles or faith healing or Jaysus are NOT evidence that any of those are true.  

Eyewitness testimony can be admitted as evidence in a trial of someone's guilt in a courtroom, but we are not talking about a courtroom, we're talking about scientific fact.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-27805-po...#pid729650

Ok, answer this. What is the very first step in any scientific discovery?

What a strange question..  I would say the first step would be to verify the result.

The above is what I quoted

The next two exchanges are what you claim was purposefully left out in order to make FAF look dumb...

The first step is observation.

I kinda assumed he meant after that, since apparently a scientific discovery had been made.

No, you must first make an observation (eye witness), and from there you form your hypothesis and test it, and eventually come to your conclusion. that's how the scientific method works.

The initial observation is the evidence needed to form a question.

get it?

Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine.  Yes, observation is the first step.

No, you can't have evidence to form a question, that's nonsensical.  YOu record observations, and form a question that requires evidence to conclude.  That's how hypotheses are proven wrong, because they aren't supported by evidence.

Additionally, you're conflating observations and claims.  Scientific observations are recordings of events or data points, which are then investigated to find the cause of the observation.  Your faith healing/God-creator/etc claims are claiming an explanation right off the bat.

*emphasis mine*
FAF began making excuses aka backtracking

As you can clearly see, he states that he misunderstood the question and that "verifying the result" is the second step in the scientific method..... WHICH IS STILL WRONG, including that part makes him look dumber.

Is it your position that "verifying the result" is in fact the second step in the scientific method?  If not, how am I misconstruing faf giving an incorrect answer?

*edit*
Just saw the admin notice after I posted...