That's why you pay attention to unambiguous evidence.
What must something do in order for you to call it "evidence"? For the proposition,
P, what must something do in order for you to say about it, "That is evidence for
P"?
What must something do in order for you to call it "unambiguous evidence"? For the proposition,
P, what must something do in order for you to say about it, "That is unambiguous evidence for
P"?
What must something do in order for you to call it "ambiguous evidence"? For the proposition,
P, what must something do in order for you to say about it, "That is unambiguous evidence for
P"?
They do know the difference, it is a basic part of the scientific method to remove assumptions and control variables until there is only one explanation left with a high enough probability. Those probabilities are even quoted in many biology papers, especially in pharmacology.
Is what you call "probability" truth?
What you call "the scientific method" is worse than useless if, as you admit, it is not concerned with truth. What is not true is not known. Without truth there is no knowledge. So, what you call "science" has, by your own admission, nothing to do with knowledge.
Science makes many mistakes.
Only non-reflective, shallow folk could apply the word, "science"--which simply means
knowledge--to mistakes, and to the making of mistakes. Knowledge is neither mistakes, nor the making of mistakes.
Most are never published, but many are. There is quite a severe and rude correction mechanism though, in peer review and competition for reputation and prestige. If you knew how to disprove plate tectonics, for example, what you should do is explain it to a young geologist so they may benefit from all the prizes and attention. There could be no more better career boost, to say the least.
See, "prove" and "disprove" are just two, more words that flow easily, but meaninglessly, out of the parrot beak of the "science" enthusiast such as yourself. I mean, I get that "proof", "prove", "disprove", "evidence", and many other words and phrases are all a part of that bag of slogans cherished by "science". But, your problem is that you, a friend of "science", cannot even answer the most elementary questions about such words. For instance, you cannot answer questions about what (if anything) it is to "prove" the proposition,
P, nor about what it is to "disprove" the same. But, because of your refusal to think rigorously, and deal honestly, you don't let a "little" lacuna like
that get in the way of your plowing on ahead and saying such words, pretending like you really mean something by them. That's what makes you a parrot. I wish I could say that you're unique in your irrationality, but, alas, you're right out of the same mold as the rest of the children of darkness.
Of course, your passed-on evidence would have to be capable of withstanding the most perishing scrutiny because of the size of the old egos involved in geology.
By your phrase, "the most perishing scrutiny", all you mean is the rigid predetermination, on the part of Darwin cheerleaders, to remain, no matter what, attached to their irrationality and error--to their Darwinism.
And, of course, as you obviously can't speak meaningfully about your use of the word, "evidence", much less are you going to be able to speak meaningfully to the question of what it would be for evidence to "withstand scrutiny".
And that's what the modern scientific consensus consists of: it is the result of many years of territories fought over, egos played out, constant attempts to tear to shreds any evidence claimed, and occasionally even respectful international cooperation with robust discussion...so eventually the theory is finally agreed because it is logically watertight and based on unambiguous evidence.
What you call "the modern scientific consensus" is enmity to the laws of logic, and is entirely in despite of all concern about the most fundamental, epistemological questions, and of any concern for logical coherence in one's world view.
[rant] It is also chilling to note that 'public' creationists don't try to give presentations to staff in university geology or biology departments, who have the knowledge to balance out whatever arguments are presented.
Here, you contradict yourself, because the fools you revere as "staff in university geology or biology departments, who have the knowledge to balance out whatever arguments are presented", have, by your own admission,
no knowledge at all. Rather, what you say they have is something you call "probability".
No, these particular creationists are despicable cowards because they know they will be demonstrated wrong,
Here, again, you show yourself to be an irrational idiot. For one to know that he "will be demonstrated wrong", he would need to know that he is wrong. And, what is it to be wrong, if not to believe what is false? So, he would need to know that what he believes is false, in order to know that he "will be demonstrated wrong". And, only an irrational idiot could say that a man can simultaneously believe the proposition,
P, and know that
P is false.
so instead they have targeted schools with young people unarmed to defend themselves against the torrent of intellectual sewage and sleight-of-hand those particular creationists have made their trade.
Let's see, here. Who is it that targets, from the earliest age, young people unarmed to defend themselves against the irrationality, falsehood and nonsense that is Darwinism, and that is falsely called "science"? Ah, that's right: it's your friends in the public compulsory "education" establishment. And, you do it at the expense of taxpayers. And then, when your public schools turn out, through "graduation", wave upon wave of irrational dolts from the same, banal mold out of which your own mindset has been formed, they've been thoroughly well-groomed to sit pliantly and worshipfully at the feet of those Darwin cheer-leading, pontificating irrationalists you call "staff in university geology or biology departments"--and that, again, at the expense of taxpayers.
So, yeah. Not only are you a shallow fool, but you're a rank hypocrite, as well.
At least adults can turn off Bob Enyart's show, or if it's piped into rest homes then the elderly residents can bash the radios with their sticks [/rant]...but I digress.
Hey, that's really the only kind of "demonstrating" you and your ilk are all about: raging and bashing things (especially other peoples' property). The only difference between you and many more like yourself is your verbosity; it is that you feel you need more space than a mere 2' x 2' piece of cardboard to make the same, meaningless noise as a cowardly, masked rioter making a clown of herself in a downtown public square with a snot-nosed attitude, a sharpie, and a protest sign that reads, "HOORAY FOR SCIENCE!"
I know of no example of a creation scientist correcting a mistake in non-creation science. Surely there must be some. Do you know of any?
By "correcting a mistake" in Darwinism, do you mean causing a Darwin cheerleader, such as yourself, to confess the truth that he or she is in error by saying, "Oh, I am in error"? See, you've drunk so much of the Kool-Aid poured out for you by other Darwinist cheerleaders--and you've, in turn, poured it out to others, hoping they'd drink it up, too--and you've plumed your vain, satanic pride, and become such an intellectual dud, and a rank hypocrite, that you have dedicated yourself to never, under any circumstance, confessing that you are in error, and a fool. Creationists can only, and do, share the truth: we can't cause you to stop being stupid.
I do, personally, know of many, many, many, examples of Darwinist fools such as yourself, on TOL, being forced to stonewall against myriad Darwinism-damning truths and questions put to you by myself, and others. You, for instance, are such a pantywaist poser when it comes to questions of epistemology. You NEVER get back to the questions I put to you concerning the most elementary things such as evidence, proof, and knowledge. You're one more cookie-cutter poser concerning epistemological questions.
I recommend not doing that.
JR said he's been "convinced by the evidence" that such and such is true, and you react by saying he
shouldn't be convinced by the evidence. See, even though you stonewall against my questions to you about what you call "evidence", you sometimes leave your guard down, and in some other context, you inadvertently reveal things about your use of the word, "evidence". Here, for instance, by telling someone that you recommend they not be convinced by evidence, you are revealing that your doctrine of evidence is such that you think that evidence for a proposition,
P, does not convince a person that
P. You are revealing that your doctrine of evidence is such that a person has a choice to not to be convinced by evidence.
So now, you'll recall the question I asked you, above:
| What must something do in order for you to call it "evidence"? For the proposition, P, what must something do in order for you to say about it, "That is evidence for P"? |
Of course, you know as well as I that you can't answer this question, and that, thus, you won't answer it; yet, we see, now, that, according to you, what something NEED NOT DO in order for you to call it "evidence for
P" is to convince someone of
P.
Use unambiguous evidence instead.
"unambiguous evidence": at best, a redundancy. However, redundancy is meaningful, and I don't assume you mean anything by your phrase. After all, you've never answered the questions I asked you about it.
I think I have given you every opportunity to be convincing, and will do so in the future.
You just got done recommending that JR not be convinced by evidence, which, again, is for you to admit that you think that it is a matter of a person's will for that person to be convinced by evidence. So, here, by saying "I have given you every opportunity to be convincing", you've just admitted that it is impossible for somebody to, by any means, convince you against your will. So much for your idiotic, hypocritical pretense of the value of open-mindedness to your "science".
Or, you can lead a non-believer to the Kool Aid but cannot make him drink?
Ah, but you're already glutted and stupid-drunk on your own Kool-Aid, the Kool-Aid handed out by you and all other Darwin cheerleaders. You know, the Kool-Aid that you and your ilk demand all children to be force-fed from the earliest years, in your compulsory state indoctrination establishment--the public schools. And, you hypocrite satanists insist that rational people--those who do not want your Kool-Aid, and who want to keep their children safe from your humanity-destroying Kool-Aid--you insist that your Kool-Aid is funded by their own, unwilling tax dollars! You truly are a scourge to Western civilization.
Let's not forget the religious motivation of the victims of the Jonestown delusion. I don't see atheists and agnostics behaving like that, motivated by their non-belief.
Jim Jones, like Hitler, was one of your ilk. These were not Christians. They, as you are, were children of the devil. Like you, they were anti-Christians. Remember, you're the one who cherishes, and speaks flippantly, the idea of
Christians being eaten by lions:
I have to disagree there. For example, compare these three phrases:
- John the christian was swallowed by the lion
-John the christian was eaten by the lion
-John the christian was consumed by the lion
You, of course, have no rational basis for saying that what those monsters did was evil; in fact, you just admitted that you have none by your cherished phrase, "non-belief". Why was it evil for Jones and Hitler to want people slaughtered, but it is somehow not evil for you to want people--people who are Christians--slaughtered? Jones and Hitler did whatever they desired to do, and felt they could get away with doing--just like Aleister Crowley. And, they certainly were not acting in accordance with any Biblical precepts. Of course, nothing in your bumper-sticker-depth "non-belief" shtick debars any anti-Christian from lying, and pretending to be a Christian.
Did you know that it's possible for one to lie, saying that he or she is a Christian, and not be a Christian?
Anyway, just like Jim Jones and Hitler, all you "non-belief" nihilist clowns are motivated solely by your lusts, and your rage: you're sheer opportunists.
I do, all the time. Very often I will type something here, then pause and go to the best sources of contradiction and opposition I can find, to check I am not just regurgitating urban myths and so forth. And I have been shown to be wrong before, and I have apologised and corrected. No doubt I will be wrong again, and I am always keen for people to point mistakes out to me so I may learn more.
Stuart
Spare me.
