Posted on 12/22/2009 7:53:44 AM PST by SeekAndFind
placemarker
Who else?
The fraud rampant throughout the attempts to establish AGW beyond the shadow of a doubt is so reminiscent of that of the history of Darwinism in its vain and frenzied attempts to establish the ToE beyond any doubt.
If you can’t find the evidence in the field to support your theory, either manufacture it yourself, or, by assuming the conclusion, misinterpret the evidence in light of that.
Not *inability* but *deliberate refusal*.
IDers are just ‘useful idiots’ for the YEC’s.. and the creationists will turn on them in a heartbeat.
Not *inability* but *deliberate refusal* to believe or understand the science God gave man the ability and the will to do.
YEC’s disgrace His name.
People who twist Scripture to fit some man-made theory that they have about how things must have happened by relying on the subjective, agenda driven interpretation of the data they collect, are a disgrace to God’s name.
I can’t imagine anything more disgraceful to God than someone who calls themselves a Christian, calling Him a liar and teaching others the same.
Who’s a *Bible literalist*?
Please provide links and evidence to support that people believe that the entire Bible must be read word for word literally, without regard to poetry, parable, song, and other grammatical styles.
I’ll be getting the popcorn out while you find the links.
You’ve just been listening to the lies propagated by the Darwinists that anyone who challenges the ToE is a Bible literalist.
Darwinists love nothing more than to misrepresent any questioning of the ToE specifically and science as a whole as a *religious attack* on the ToE.
I’ve seen them knee jerk react to people who are evolutionists by putting them in the most extreme YEC box they can find and make up, simply for disagreeing with something some evolutionist said.
You need to get out more if you really thought that anyone who doubted Darwin was automatically a *Bible literalist*.
You philosophical naturalists crack me up :-)
" The evidence that you are trying to use to disprove evolution, falsifies creation."
The evidence itself neither proves nor disproves anything. It is the interpretation of evidence through a preferred philosophical paradigm and logical fallacy that leads you to believe you are looking at 'proof' or 'falsification'. There are only philosophical positions, not empirical ones.
"Isn't cognitive dissonance a wonderful thing : )"
Apparently... :-)
You are half right. Evidence can't prove anything, but it can certainly disprove a theory.
It is the interpretation of evidence through a preferred philosophical paradigm and logical fallacy that leads you to believe you are looking at 'proof' or 'falsification'. There are only philosophical positions, not empirical ones.
I know you would certainly like to believe that wouldn't you? Tell you what, go jump off a tall building then report back to me with your evidence or falsification of gravity. If you didn't fall then you have disproved Gravity, if you do fall you have evidence supporting the theory.
Good luck. Oh and the taller the building the better : )
You mean like anomalous orbital velocities of stars around the galactic center has disproved the current gravitational model? Or am I correct in that the evidence (anomalous orbital velocities) in no way disproved the theory but instead 'dark matter' was invented because of a philosophical commitment to a certain theory combined w/ fallacious logic?
"I know you would certainly like to believe that wouldn't you? Tell you what, go jump off a tall building then report back to me with your evidence or falsification of gravity. If you didn't fall then you have disproved Gravity, if you do fall you have evidence supporting the theory."
I know you would certainly like to deny that, wouldn't you? Tell you what, take a starship to a star with an anomalous orbital velocity and report back on the effects of 'dark matter' on your starship during the trip with your evidence or falsification of 'dark matter'. If you aren't affected, then you have disproved 'dark mattter'. If you are affected, you have proved it.
"Good luck. Oh and the taller the building the better : )"
Good luck. Oh and the farther the start, the better. :-)
A flaw in ID thinking is the belief that the human mind is Godlike
It hasn't disproven anything 'yet'. It may simply be evidence that the fabric of space is growing. The pioneer anomaly may support that idea too. When I go flying that doesn't disprove the theory of Gravity.
If you aren't affected, then you have disproved 'dark mattter'. If you are affected, you have proved it.
First to test your theory you have to have a theory. What is your theory? Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see GourmetDan's theory! I can't wait to see your theory disproving gravity : )
Exactly the point. Evidence contrary to theory is 'explained away' by conveniently-invisible, assumed 'dark matter' that is then 'identified' by the conveniently-circular appeal to the anomalous effect as evidence for the invisible evidence.
"When I go flying that doesn't disprove the theory of Gravity."
Don't know about you, but last time I checked, no anomalous gravitational effects are observed during flight. Just normal aerodynamic properties counteracting normal gravitational effects.
"First to test your theory you have to have a theory. What is your theory? Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see GourmetDan's theory! I can't wait to see your theory disproving gravity : )"
To be able to disprove a theory, anomalous evidence must be considered in light of scientifically observable evidence rather than 'explained away' by assumed, invisible matter that is invoked because the observations are off. Gee isn't this exciting? We get to see LeGrande's explanation for anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence. I can't wait to see your explanation proving anomalous observed orbital velocities using observable evidence. :-)
While GGG and I have amicable exchanges, he and I agree on next to nothing. Merry Christmas, GGG.
That being said, GGG will admittedly (he has done so often) post any critique of Darwin’s theory, as anything that assists in tearing it down is seen as a good thing.
But have no fear, were Darwin’s Beagle to be sunk by said critiques (they’ve had 150 years to do so, so it does seem unlikely to happen), GGG would immediately turn on the IDers, grinding them into fine dust for their perceived apostasy. It’s the old, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, until I no longer need them.
Do I have that about right, GGG?
No. I asked you for your theory explaining it. I already gave you two possibilities.
Don't know about you, but last time I checked, no anomalous gravitational effects are observed during flight. Just normal aerodynamic properties counteracting normal gravitational effects.
And how do you know that isn't the case with the anomalous orbital velocities?
Not having all of the answers doesn't disprove anything.
I am shocked, shocked that you refuse to explain anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence.
"And how do you know that isn't the case with the anomalous orbital velocities?"
So, please explain how these stars are using aerodynamic properties to generate anomalous orbital velocities in space.
"Not having all of the answers doesn't disprove anything."
That's got to be the strongest argument you've made to date.
Yes, I know that it is hard to believe that I don't have all the answers. You will just have to learn to live with a little uncertainty in your life.
Not having all of the answers doesn't disprove anything.
That's got to be the strongest argument you've made to date.
You seem to have a problem with living with uncertainty. Science doesn't provide certainty. I would rather live with a little uncertainty than 'know' something that isn't true.
It isn't hard to believe that you don't have any answers at all. What I said was, "I am shocked, shocked that you refuse to explain anomalous orbital velocities using real scientific evidence." That you think that means it is "hard to believe that I don't have all the answers" only shows how uncertain your positions are.
"You seem to have a problem with living with uncertainty. Science doesn't provide certainty. I would rather live with a little uncertainty than 'know' something that isn't true."
You seem to have a problem with credulity. But I see that you characterize it as 'a little uncertainty' so that you can 'know' something that isn't true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.