By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

Final-Fan on 24 September 2009

GAAAAAAHH

Only one of your supposed observations is actually an observation. The other (first one) is a theory that you claim is not contraindicated by the observation.

Your argument, essentially, is that since the theory is true then the observation must result in another theory involving the supernatural.

Also please read my edit if you haven't.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
Final-Fan on 24 September 2009

It is impossible to "observe" that something cannot happen in the same sense of the word that you observe an apple falling.

Agree or disagree, appolose, please.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Rath on 24 September 2009

Basically the way science looks at it is that anything that is not directly observed may be false.

There is no way to directly observe a theory or a law and as such any law or theory may be false.

As such if we view light traveling at the same speed a billion times and then find it traveling at half that speed - then light does not always travel at the same speed. If we observe the conservation of energy a billion times and then we directly observe that energy is generated in a system - conservation of energy does not always hold.

Laws and theories can be broken in science, naturalism cannot be broken in science. As far as scientific theories and laws go, nothing is holy. (Yes I know that was a fantastically lame pun =P)



Final-Fan on 24 September 2009

"So, point 1 is just that: an observation made so many times it is elevated to the status of theory or law."

This statement makes absolutely no sense from the perspective of science. You do not know what you are talking about. Observation never "becomes" theory. People make a theory based on observation.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

appolose on 24 September 2009
Final-Fan said:
GAAAAAAHH

Only one of your supposed observations is actually an observation. The other (first one) is a theory that you claim is not contraindicated by the observation.

Your argument, essentially, is that since the theory is true then the observation must result in another theory involving the supernatural.

Also please read my edit if you haven't.


[edit:  just to be totally clear, when I thought of "assumed" I was thinking "they take that going forward as true until something causes them to suspect it might not be", not "that is taken as gospel truth from that day forth never to be questioned again even if it leads to appolose thinking he's found a provably supernatural event".]

This makes absolutely no sense.  When ever have I said the latter?  How is the former contradicting my argumen?  The 2nd observation does not make science suspect it's wrong.  It only does that if there is contradictory or counter-observations at hand.  I never said science would not reverse a theory.  In this case, science has no reason todo that at all: It eliminated the physical as a cause "in theory", so it affirms the nonphysical as cause, "in theory".  That does not need to be tested for if you've already eliminated all other possible options.

"This statement makes absolutely no sense from the perspective of science. You do not know what you are talking about. Observation never "becomes" theory. People make a theory based on observation".

You seem to have forgotten what I meant by that:

"after a number of "I have seen this", it becomes a "This always is""

To bring in Rath's objection: "Basically the way science looks at it is that anything that is not directly observed may be false".

Not at all; if it, "in theory", eliminates something as cause, then it "in theory" must be whatever is not what was eliminated.  In this case, that which was eliminated was physical, therefore, whatever the cause is "in theory" must be supernatural.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Around the Network
appolose on 24 September 2009
Final-Fan said:
It is impossible to "observe" that something cannot happen in the same sense of the word that you observe an apple falling.

Agree or disagree, appolose, please.

Disagree.  I've brought up the first law of thermodynamics multiple times now, which is not at all unlike what I'm proposing.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Rath on 24 September 2009

It isn't possible to eliminate the natural as a solution.

 

Edit: First law of thermodynamics is not absolute. It merely seems to hold in all observed situations.



Khuutra on 24 September 2009
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
It is impossible to "observe" that something cannot happen in the same sense of the word that you observe an apple falling.

Agree or disagree, appolose, please.

Disagree.  I've brought up the first law of thermodynamics multiple times now, which is not at all unlike what I'm proposing.

And we're done here.

Final-Fan, can this end now?



appolose on 24 September 2009
Rath said:

It isn't possible to eliminate the natural as a solution.

 

Edit: First law of thermodynamics is not absolute. It merely seems to hold in all observed situations.

Of course it's not.  I've never claimed laws or science's conclusions were.  Nor am I trying to demonstrate that science can prove the supernatural (science can't prove anything, as you guys readily admit).  I'm proposing that science can, on a level of theory and law, use the supernatural as an explanation.

Before you say "The supernatural can't be tested", remember, I'm defining the supernatural as non-physical, so, if science decides to assume that whatever caused something was not physical (with the possiblity it's wrong, of course), then it necessarily follows that it assumes the cause is supernatural.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
appolose on 24 September 2009
Khuutra said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
It is impossible to "observe" that something cannot happen in the same sense of the word that you observe an apple falling.

Agree or disagree, appolose, please.

Disagree.  I've brought up the first law of thermodynamics multiple times now, which is not at all unlike what I'm proposing.

And we're done here.

Final-Fan, can this end now?

If it's possible to observe that the answer is not physical, how are we done, exactly?



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz