Replies

You, Ichneumon, have no idea what I know how to do.

I've gotten a fair idea, after reading hundreds of your posts on these threads.

Let's stick to facts here, shall we?

That would be refreshing.

Isn't that what science is all about?

Yes, although not *just* bare facts -- science involves the methods by which possible explanations for the facts are either validated or falsified.

Oh, I know you imagine yourself to be a genius and perhaps you are. But you don't have all the answers.

I never said I did. But I can recognize fallacies and errors when I see them. And I know that evolutionary biology and other fields of science have a lot more answers than most of its critics will ever manage to realize, given how often they make ignorant attacks on it based on misconceptions and lack of knowledge instead of actual familiarity with the subject.

I'm not even sure you have good questions.

Judging by how often the anti-evolutionists dodge and evade those questions, they're apparently good enough that some people have to run from them.

Now getting back to the topic we were discussing, you wrote:

And I see the evidence as pointing to God. I guess it's all in the interpretation.

When I replied, "No, it's all in the fact that I know how to test and validate hypotheses suggested by the evidence, and you don't", I wasn't taking specific issue with your feeling that you "see the evidence as pointing to God", I was taking issue with your comment that "it's all in the interpretation".

No, it isn't. The validation of alternative explanations of evidence is far more than mere "interpretation". Apparently all you do is "interpret" evidence and then stop dead there, but don't make the mistake of presuming that the rest of us do. We work hard at testing, validating, and when necessary falsifying our interpretations, in order to determine whether our interpretations are somewhere in the vicinity of actually being true. Thus my comment. It's hardly "all" in the interpretation -- for many of us, "all" encompasses far more than merely the interpretation phase.

Also, my reply was making the point that you made your comment in the context of your earlier claim that you had "irrefutable proof" of God. My reply was directed at the fact that when asked for this alleged "proof", you hand-waved about "looking around", and when pressed further, you retreated to merely asserting that you "see the evidence as pointing to God", which is a far, far weaker thing than the "irrefutable proof" you claimed you had.

My comment about how you don't know "how to test and validate hypotheses" was aimed directly at the fact that you obviously don't understand the vast difference between "how you see the evidence" and "irrefutable proof". The fact that you could offer the former in response to a request for the latter very clearly demonstrates the degree of your confusion on this matter.

So when you assert, "You, Ichneumon, have no idea what I know how to do", I must strongly disagree -- I *do* have an idea, based on your own posts, that you don't know how to distinguish an "interpretation" from "proof".