Real Science Friday: New Island, Old Look Pt 2

[Stripe]

Well, that does always give you an "out," doesn't it? Yes, this data does appear to be compelling, but how do I know it's been presented accurately?

It's going to take a lot more than one compelling piece of evidence to shift anyone on this, aharvey. You'll please excuse me if I refrain from jumping ship everytime someone says something compelling

Thank you. I notice you left out the rest of this paragraph: "And I do get the idea that if the Bible is literal and inerrant, and if you believe your understanding of it is inerrant, then you don't need to understand any supposed evidence that contradicts any part of it to know that the evidence must be in error. However, it seems a bit deceptive to then pretend that this is not your position, that in fact your rejection of this evidence is somehow science-based." What's your take on this (re: yourself in particular, creationists in general)?

I'm not interested in discussion over how deceptive I am. If you don't trust anything I say then there is little I can do about it.

I have indeed seen you acknowledge a problem, at least for a while, but you so far have always eventually backed off without any obvious explanation

If I have a scientific challenge I cannot answer I'll probably tell you what it is. I probably won't suddenly have an answer though.

or as in the Grand / Martian Canyon thread, you seem to be simultaneously carrying directly contradictory positions without realizing it.

Please point out how or what those contradictory positions are... in that thread of course.I think I've made my thoughts simple and clear.

But I'll let you in on a little secret: you won't ever find evolutionary "predictions stated and shown" in creationist web sites.

Ummm .. OK.

Nor will you find "good explanations for some of the serious challenges evolution has to answer" there, nor, frankly, are those sites even capable of identifying said serious challenges. You can deny that these are your only sources, but your "telomere aside" tells me you can't have been looking anywhere you would expect to find these things!

The only creationist work I read with any dedication is Walt Brown's work. I generally don't go looking for evolutionary proofs. Biology is far from a strength of mine and evolution is a crock. That aside I'm perfectly capable of responding to simple concepts and challenging questions over my faith. If you're now going to question my involvement in this thread then it was a simple attempt to answer Jukia's question.

Sure! From my very first post, all I've wanted from TOL are honest discussions of the perceived problems with evolutionary theory and of the perceived scientific basis for creationist alternatives. I'd suggest that the human-chimp chromosomal comparisons do represent a genuine challenge for creationists

I accept that. Star light travel is another.

and let me offer three bits of evidence to support this: 1) your own response above, which was to question the legitimacy of the data (always a last resort if you have no reason to suspect problems)

I have reason to suspect problems. Just nothing to do with the actual data presented. :chuckle:

2) the rather conspicuous lack of creationist web pages dedicated to attacking this "evidence;"

Haven't looked. Might do so now.

3) creationist Todd Wood's recent article (check the bryancore web site) in which he both a priori rejects the evidence but points out that creationists currently don't have any scientific basis for doing so.

That's not quite how I'd put it. The data may very well be accurately portrayed, but I'd still disbelieve evolution if it were.

I've started a number of threads with what I would consider "genuine challenges" to creationism, at least young earth creationism (since this is the noisy variety that tries to force its way into the scientific realm through political means). Here's a question I haven't asked before, that might fit the bill as well: What is the YEC explanation for the observations that 1) fossils in the most recently deposited sedimentary layers are virtually always* the same or nearly the same as a currently existing species, and 2) the older (deeper) the sedimentary layer, the more and more different are the fossils from modern species? (*scientific cautious phrasing, as I don't know of any exceptions but that doesn't mean there aren't any)

Start a new thread and I'll be all over this one! You promise there's no biology, right?

 

[aharvey]

It's going to take a lot more than one compelling piece of evidence to shift anyone on this, aharvey. You'll please excuse me if I refrain from jumping ship everytime someone says something compelling

Not quite my point, mate! The point being that you can always dismiss otherwise compelling evidence by assuming there's somehow something wrong with it.

I'm not interested in discussion over how deceptive I am. If you don't trust anything I say then there is little I can do about it.

Okay, forget the last sentence. What about "And I do get the idea that if the Bible is literal and inerrant, and if you believe your understanding of it is inerrant, then you don't need to understand any supposed evidence that contradicts any part of it to know that the evidence must be in error." Do you agree with this?

Please point out how or what those contradictory positions are... in that thread of course.I think I've made my thoughts simple and clear.

Done.

The only creationist work I read with any dedication is Walt Brown's work. I generally don't go looking for evolutionary proofs.

And you don't find them? (Actually, you won't find "proofs" in any field of science; I assume here you're referring to the lack of tested predictions you mentioned earlier). Do you detect the irony of criticizing evolution because you haven't found something you think it needs that you haven't looked for?

Biology is far from a strength of mine and evolution is a crock.

So do you detect the irony of rejecting something you admit you know so little about?

That aside I'm perfectly capable of responding to simple concepts and challenging questions over my faith. If you're now going to question my involvement in this thread then it was a simple attempt to answer Jukia's question.

So you've seen the GENBANK database, and you've read a couple of posts since then. Do you still think your simple answer to Jukia's question is likely to justify Bob's exclamations of mathematical impossibility?

I accept that. Star light travel is another.

Good, so you don't reject every model because it can't yet reasonably explain everything it should be able to! An interesting thought experiment: how many biological observations could be reasonably explained by an evolution-free YEC model vs. the conventional evolutionary model? How many geological observations could reasonably be explained by a YEC model vs. the conventional old-earth model? The main problem I see with this thought experiment is making sure the bar is set to the same height for both models (you know, like evolution doesn't explain it all, so we should reject all of evolution vs. our vaguest YEC notions are correct because they don't actively contradict this one piece of data). So maybe a better the question is which model provides a better explanation? Because there's at least a chance that both sides could agree, in general, what "better" means (e.g., more complete, fewer contraindications, fewer assumptions, etc.).

I have reason to suspect problems. Just nothing to do with the actual data presented. :chuckle:

That's not quite how I'd put it. The data may very well be accurately portrayed, but I'd still disbelieve evolution if it were.

Why, I wonder? Well, since evidence = f(data, chain of logic), I'd say a rational rejection of evolution in the face of data would have to be based on flaws in the chain of logic, i.e., in either the underlying model or the connection between the data and the hypothesis. Those should be identifiable and resolvable. On the other hand, it's possible (though we're still waiting for your take here) that your disbelief would remain even if the chain of logic was as robust as the data, which takes us out of the realm of useful scientific discussion.

As an aside, I once stumbled upon a good indicator of the future of science as envisioned by creationists. Two sets of creationist geologists disagreed in print about how to interpret some geologic feature, and I'm hardly paraphrasing the ultimate arguments as being "Well, the God we know would not do things that way!" I can't remember the details, but I think I've posted them elsewhere on TOL (as helpful as that may not be!)

Start a new thread and I'll be all over this one! You promise there's no biology, right?

I'm intrigued, so I'll go ahead and start that thread. However, I should tell you that fossils are actually the remains of previously living organisms, so there's really no way to keep biology out of this!

 

[Stripe]

Not quite my point, mate! The point being that you can always dismiss otherwise compelling evidence by assuming there's somehow something wrong with it.

And my point is that by not being shifted one is dismissing compelling evidence. Of course there will be a reason. Yours may well be it.

Okay, forget the last sentence. What about "And I do get the idea that if the Bible is literal and inerrant, and if you believe your understanding of it is inerrant, then you don't need to understand any supposed evidence that contradicts any part of it to know that the evidence must be in error." Do you agree with this?

Uh. Sure. I don't claim all of what you have said here though. The bible is true to itself, not to the terms of today's scientists. My understanding of it is not perfect nor is my understanding of the evidence presented.

And you don't find them? (Actually, you won't find "proofs" in any field of science; I assume here you're referring to the lack of tested predictions you mentioned earlier). Do you detect the irony of criticizing evolution because you haven't found something you think it needs that you haven't looked for?

No. Evolution is just plain silly when looked at through my eyes. It takes several weeks of listening to rational sounding people present earnest and compelling evidence for me to start worrying that everything I believe might not be true.

So do you detect the irony of rejecting something you admit you know so little about?

Nope.

So you've seen the GENBANK database, and you've read a couple of posts since then. Do you still think your simple answer to Jukia's question is likely to justify Bob's exclamations of mathematical impossibility?

Sure! The claim on the radio show simply said that there was a mathematical problem for evolutionists. Jukia asked what that problem was. I answered Jukia's question. Whether you all accept it as a problem or not is not my concern. If you don't agree with the radio show then Give Bob a call.

Good, so you don't reject every model because it can't yet reasonably explain everything it should be able to! An interesting thought experiment: how many biological observations could be reasonably explained by an evolution-free YEC model vs. the conventional evolutionary model? How many geological observations could reasonably be explained by a YEC model vs. the conventional old-earth model? The main problem I see with this thought experiment is making sure the bar is set to the same height for both models (you know, like evolution doesn't explain it all, so we should reject all of evolution vs. our vaguest YEC notions are correct because they don't actively contradict this one piece of data). So maybe a better the question is which model provides a better explanation? Because there's at least a chance that both sides could agree, in general, what "better" means (e.g., more complete, fewer contraindications, fewer assumptions, etc.).

Umm ... yes.. ?

Why, I wonder? Well, since evidence = f(data, chain of logic), I'd say a rational rejection of evolution in the face of data would have to be based on flaws in the chain of logic, i.e., in either the underlying model or the connection between the data and the hypothesis. Those should be identifiable and resolvable. On the other hand, it's possible (though we're still waiting for your take here) that your disbelief would remain even if the chain of logic was as robust as the data, which takes us out of the realm of useful scientific discussion.

If you're suggesting that perhaps one day there will be compelling and logically sound evidence for evolution upon which nobody could rationally reject the idea then you're speaking hypothetically. I choose answer C. None of the above. If you're suggesting that I should do so on the face of evidence available today then I probably have nothing left to offer in this thread.

As an aside, I once stumbled upon a good indicator of the future of science as envisioned by creationists. Two sets of creationist geologists disagreed in print about how to interpret some geologic feature, and I'm hardly paraphrasing the ultimate arguments as being "Well, the God we know would not do things that way!" I can't remember the details, but I think I've posted them elsewhere on TOL (as helpful as that may not be!)

Sounds like two atheists arguing over what Darwin meant by something.

I'm intrigued, so I'll go ahead and start that thread. However, I should tell you that fossils are actually the remains of previously living organisms, so there's really no way to keep biology out of this!

But .. they're dead though aren't they? There's no DNA left. Right?

 

[aharvey]

And my point is that by not being shifted one is dismissing compelling evidence. Of course there will be a reason. Yours may well be it.

Okay, that's an interesting way to look at it, though troublesome, as I think it makes it too easy for you to dismiss compelling evidence, one piece at a time. The scientist's view is (or should be, I'm sure we don't all follow this always!) that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary evidence rarely comes in a single shocking package, but rather in many many complementary packages. Thus, I won't accept an extraordinary claim based on one piece of evidence unless it is by itself truly extraordinary, but I won't reject it in the face of that supporting evidence either. So, for scientists, not being shifted does not mean dismissing compelling evidence, it means waiting to see what the larger body of evidence says.

Uh. Sure. I don't claim all of what you have said here though. The bible is true to itself, not to the terms of today's scientists. My understanding of it is not perfect nor is my understanding of the evidence presented.

Sometimes you surprise me, stipe!

No. Evolution is just plain silly when looked at through my eyes. It takes several weeks of listening to rational sounding people present earnest and compelling evidence for me to start worrying that everything I believe might not be true.

What troubles me is the notion that you think that everything you believe in hinges on the correctness of evolutionary theory, which surely doesn't speak to the beliefs that are most important. Evolutionary theory says nothing about God, pro or con. So why is it such a threat to your fundamental beliefs?

Nope.

Fair enough.

Sure! The claim on the radio show simply said that there was a mathematical problem for evolutionists. Jukia asked what that problem was. I answered Jukia's question. Whether you all accept it as a problem or not is not my concern. If you don't agree with the radio show then Give Bob a call.

I asked whether you felt it was a problem. I'm as likely to visit a professional creationist radio talk show host in his home turf as he is to submit a research paper to a mainstream scientific journal. Okay, I'm more likely to call than that, but probably not much. He's a car salesman who knows how to deal with every potential suspicious customer type.

Umm ... yes.. ?

Yeah, I'll try to rein it in. My mind tends to race a bit, and I'm unfortunately a fast typist!

If you're suggesting that perhaps one day there will be compelling and logically sound evidence for evolution upon which nobody could rationally reject the idea then you're speaking hypothetically. I choose answer C. None of the above. If you're suggesting that I should do so on the face of evidence available today then I probably have nothing left to offer in this thread.

No, I was just wondering what it meant that you accept the data but reject the explanation, and whether you rejected the explanation because there was something wrong with it or for some other reason.

Sounds like two atheists arguing over what Darwin meant by something.

Yeah, that'd be pretty pointless, wouldn't it? Good thing science doesn't work that way. For now, at least!

But .. they're dead though aren't they? There's no DNA left. Right?

Despite the impression you may get from the godless mainstream media, there's a lot more to biology than DNA!

 

[Jukia]

Sure! The claim on the radio show simply said that there was a mathematical problem for evolutionists. Jukia asked what that problem was. I answered Jukia's question. Whether you all accept it as a problem or not is not my concern. If you don't agree with the radio show then Give Bob a call.

I have no problem accepting "problems" in science. That is what keeps researchers busy.
I relistened to the show. Made me drool and made my hair hurt again, but I did it in order to be sure of what I heard. The statement by Pastor Bob's guest did not refer to a "problem" rather he claimed that the differences between human and chimp DNA was in the 89-95% range and therefore "mathematically impossible" for there to have been a common ancestor for humans and chimps.
I asked for the specifics of the mathematical impossibility. None forthcoming.
But thanks anyway.

 

[Stripe]

Okay, that's an interesting way to look at it, though troublesome, as I think it makes it too easy for you to dismiss compelling evidence, one piece at a time. The scientist's view is (or should be, I'm sure we don't all follow this always!) that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary evidence rarely comes in a single shocking package, but rather in many many complementary packages. Thus, I won't accept an extraordinary claim based on one piece of evidence unless it is by itself truly extraordinary, but I won't reject it in the face of that supporting evidence either. So, for scientists, not being shifted does not mean dismissing compelling evidence, it means waiting to see what the larger body of evidence says.

I think I'm just really confused by a scientific approach. It sounds good and ideal to hold opinion off in favour of learning the facts, but people just don't operate that way. I certainly do not.

Sometimes you surprise me, stipe!

:chuckle: I'm trying really hard not to start jumping up and down and ranting like a madman.

What troubles me is the notion that you think that everything you believe in hinges on the correctness of evolutionary theory, which surely doesn't speak to the beliefs that are most important. Evolutionary theory says nothing about God, pro or con. So why is it such a threat to your fundamental beliefs?

I'm not sure where you get this idea from. I've studied the subject .. never .. all the information I have is from discussions with people on TOL and from a couple of lectures I went to on the debate front.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about God from a scientific perspective because science has an agenda to leave God out of the picture. I cannot operate under that condition. Everything that science says I will weigh against what God says. And God will always win any debates.

Don't pretend that makes me inflexible when it comes to analysing data and theories. I simply have a higher standard for what is true. For me scientific issues become facts when they pass a certain level of evidence. Part of that evidence is how well the idea fits with what God says. So with things like gravity and chemistry and maths we are likely to be able to agree quickly. But with something as difficult to trap under a microscope as evolution.....

No, I was just wondering what it meant that you accept the data but reject the explanation, and whether you rejected the explanation because there was something wrong with it or for some other reason.

I don't know if I accept the data yet. I'll have to go back to gen bank and see if I can see the things they are talking about. Even then I'm not sure I'll understand it...

Despite the impression you may get from the godless mainstream media, there's a lot more to biology than DNA!

:chuckle: As long as we aren't going to start discussing teleomimas... tele... phones... I'm fine.

 

[Johnny]

Would that include the raw data?

Of course.

 

[aharvey]

aharvey writes: Evolutionary theory says nothing about God, pro or con. So why is it such a threat to your fundamental beliefs?

stipe responds:

Evolutionary theory says nothing about God from a scientific perspective because science has an agenda to leave God out of the picture. Everything that science says I will weigh against what God says. And God will always win any debates.

Wow. When I first read this I was all set to ask you "So why would evolutionary theory's 'motives' for not explicitly incorporating the supernatural differ from every other branch of scientific inquiry, all of which likewise fail to explicitly incorporate the supernatural?" But then I reread and realized that, at least as you've written this, you do believe that all science has an agenda to leave God out of the picture. Again I say, wow! What, pray tell, is that agenda, specifically? Is it malicious? If so, why do you think so? And why would you accept any statements that were arrived at using an approach that is not just indifferent but actively hostile towards that which you hold dearest? What possible use could you have for science? This is truly mysterious.

And God will always win any debates.

Don't pretend that makes me inflexible when it comes to analysing data and theories.

Sorry, but "always" is pretty "inflexible." You will always reject data and theories unless you can figure out a way to make them fit your biblical preconceptions. How can you be any less flexible?

 

[Stripe]

When I first read this I was all set to ask you "So why would evolutionary theory's 'motives' for not explicitly incorporating the supernatural differ from every other branch of scientific inquiry, all of which likewise fail to explicitly incorporate the supernatural?" But then I reread and realized that, at least as you've written this, you do believe that all science has an agenda to leave God out of the picture. Again I say, wow! What, pray tell, is that agenda, specifically? Is it malicious? If so, why do you think so? And why would you accept any statements that were arrived at using an approach that is not just indifferent but actively hostile towards that which you hold dearest? What possible use could you have for science? This is truly mysterious.

People who define science make it very clear that science can only comment on natural things. That agenda is not obviously malicious, but why one would want to ignore God's input into things is beyond me.

Sorry, but "always" is pretty "inflexible." You will always reject data and theories unless you can figure out a way to make them fit your biblical preconceptions. How can you be any less flexible?

A whole lot of things can be true without requiring a change in what I believe about the bible. It's not like Genesis has detailed records of every gene God designed.

 

[aharvey]

People who define science make it very clear that science can only comment on natural things. That agenda is not obviously malicious, but why one would want to ignore God's input into things is beyond me.

Your first sentence is correct. Calling it "an agenda" is demonstrably wrong. If I won't do something, I have an agenda. If I can't do something, I have a limitation, but I don't have an agenda. If I don't do something, you can't really determine whether or not I have an agenda until you know why I don't. Science can't study the supernatural scientifically. The only agenda is that of those who won't acknowledge the difference.

A whole lot of things can be true without requiring a change in what I believe about the bible. It's not like Genesis has detailed records of every gene God designed.

Like I said, you will always reject data and theories unless you can figure out a way to make them fit your biblical preconceptions. That's going to be easiest to do for those things not obviously discussed in the Bible. Perhaps my favorite example, from AIG I think: The Bible doesn't actually say dinosaurs didn't have feathers.

 

[Stripe]

Your first sentence is correct. Calling it "an agenda" is demonstrably wrong. If I won't do something, I have an agenda. If I can't do something, I have a limitation, but I don't have an agenda. If I don't do something, you can't really determine whether or not I have an agenda until you know why I don't. Science can't study the supernatural scientifically. The only agenda is that of those who won't acknowledge the difference.

The only reason science cannot comment on the supernatural is because people define science as incapable of doing so. I can discuss things with you under this restriction, but we will likely not arrive at the same conclusions. One reason why we may not is because you do not appreciate that the people involved in presenting any evidence always have an agenda.

Like I said, you will always reject data and theories unless you can figure out a way to make them fit your biblical preconceptions. That's going to be easiest to do for those things not obviously discussed in the Bible. Perhaps my favorite example, from AIG I think: The Bible doesn't actually say dinosaurs didn't have feathers.

Not at all. If I find observable evidence that doesn't fit my ideas from the bible then it is entirely possible that my understanding of the bible is incorrect and the evidence right.

 

[Johnny]

The only reason science cannot comment on the supernatural is because people define science as incapable of doing so.

I hate this. It's wrong. Science cannot comment on the supernatural because it is (a) science is guided by natural law, (b) science explains things according to natural law, (c) supernatural phenomena cannot be reliably reproduced, (d) supernatural variables cannot be reliably controlled, (e) supernatural phenomena are not falsifiable.

 

[aharvey]

Originally Posted by stipe
The only reason science cannot comment on the supernatural is because people define science as incapable of doing so.

I hate this. It's wrong. Science cannot comment on the supernatural because it is (a) science is guided by natural law, (b) science explains things according to natural law, (c) supernatural phenomena cannot be reliably reproduced, (d) supernatural variables cannot be reliably controlled, (e) supernatural phenomena are not falsifiable.

So, stipe, here's a golden opportunity for you. You claim that the only reason science cannot comment on the supernatural is because people arbitrarily define it that way. Johnny has given you a nice, clear list of seemingly non-arbitrary reasons why science cannot comment on the supernatural. All you have to do to soundly win this argument is demonstrate the actual arbitrariness of Johnny's five reasons! Show us how to falsify supernatural phenomena. Show us how to control supernatural variables. Show us how to reproduce supernatural phenomena. Actually, do this and I think you may have rendered the first two items moot as well (?).

stipe, I can't speak for the entire scientific community on this, but I personally can't think of anything more exciting than being able to study supernatural phenomena legitimately scientifically. I look forward to learning from you how to remove this arbitrary limitation put in place by those agenda-driven (meaning what, God-hating?) scientists.

 

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by stipe
The only reason science cannot comment on the supernatural is because people define science as incapable of doing so.

So, stipe, here's a golden opportunity for you. You claim that the only reason science cannot comment on the supernatural is because people arbitrarily define it that way. Johnny has given you a nice, clear list of seemingly non-arbitrary reasons why science cannot comment on the supernatural. All you have to do to soundly win this argument is demonstrate the actual arbitrariness of Johnny's five reasons! Show us how to falsify supernatural phenomena. Show us how to control supernatural variables. Show us how to reproduce supernatural phenomena. Actually, do this and I think you may have rendered the first two items moot as well (?).

stipe, I can't speak for the entire scientific community on this, but I personally can't think of anything more exciting than being able to study supernatural phenomena legitimately scientifically. I look forward to learning from you how to remove this arbitrary limitation put in place by those agenda-driven (meaning what, God-hating?) scientists.

There are good reasons why science does not acknowledge God. Those in order to eliminate the opportunity for people to attribute things to causes we cannot study. So, like I say, I am perfectly willing to analyse things within a science context, but anytime I am denied the right to place God atop that study it is then that science shows its limitations.

Some things we cannot explain because we don't have the data. Some things we cannot explain because we will never have the data. Some things we cannot explain because God did it.

 

[aharvey]

There are good reasons why science does not acknowledge God.

Boy, you just can't help yourself, can you? You're still writing this as if science will not acknowledge God, which is wrong, instead of as if science cannot study God, which is very different, and right!

Those in order to eliminate the opportunity for people to attribute things to causes we cannot study.

What scientist has ever said "You can't study this thing scientifically, so you are not allowed to attribute any cause to it"? If you can't study something scientifically, then you can't attribute a scientifically supported cause to it. That's all we're going to limit you. You can't claim scientific support for an idea that can't be studied scientifically. Does that seem unfair to you? If not, then kindly stop yapping about how science won't let anybody say anything about the supernatural. That's just not true. And if it does seem unfair, then remember that we're counting on you to show us how to study the supernatural scientifically, by any definition of science that retains the essential ingredients of repeatability, falsifiability, and experimental controls.

So, like I say, I am perfectly willing to analyse things within a science context,...

... which I seem to recall your recently admitting you didn't understand, so this supposed willingness rings a little hollow ...

... but anytime I am denied the right to place God atop that study it is then that science shows its limitations.

No one has ever said science had no limitations. However, no one has been able to produce a better way to understand the natural world. And no one, including you even when asked point blank, has been able to suggest how science could rationally study the role of the supernatural.

And I don't see why you couldn't "place God atop that study." Here's an example from a truly superb bit of science (red means deleted from the original): "[Thanks to their God-given abilities,] virtually all the paramecia completed the trials in the wide mazes, but [God made] the narrow mazes seemed to be somewhat more difficult for the paramecia, especially P. caudatum, to complete during the 15-min trial (Figures 2 and 3)." You could probably do this for every study.

We could probably even put God atop the studies that, if you ever bothered to read them, would really tee you off. From another amazing bit of scientific research: "Another important result of these analyses is that the Blepharipodidae (Blepharipoda + Lophomastix) is monophyletic and not the sister taxon to the Albuneidae sensu stricto; in both analyses the Blepharipodidae is not even part of the Hippoidea no matter where the trees are rooted (Figs. 4, 5), suggesting that blepharipodids have convergently evolved to resemble albuneids[, although of course none of this is really worth thinking about because we already know that God created them all separately regardless of how much or in what ways they happen to resemble each other].

Sarcastic, yeah, I know, because I'm just so disappointed that after all this running around, it's clear that your mind is only open to ideas that support your preconceptions.

Some things we cannot explain because we don't have the data. Some things we cannot explain because we will never have the data. Some things we cannot explain because God did it.

Do you work for Microsoft tech support? This is precisely correct and totally useless.
Without divine revelation to tell you in advance which things are which, of course.

 

[Stripe]

This is precisely correct and totally useless.

I don't think it's useless. If it's precisely correct then we can apply it in order to understand which things are worthwhile from a science point of view.

Naturally it takes some wisdom in order to apply it correctly. Something science probably cannot help us with.

 

[aharvey]

I don't think it's useless. If it's precisely correct then we can apply it in order to understand which things are worthwhile from a science point of view.

It's only precisely correct because you've simply covered all possible outcomes: "Everything is something." That's also why it's useless; it provides zero criteria for assigning anything to anything. And there's no objective way to do this, especially before you study it.

Naturally it takes some wisdom in order to apply it correctly. Something science probably cannot help us with.

Ah, wisdom. Now there's a subjective concept! I guess you agree with my last statement above after all. And safe from scrutiny; how do we evaluate the wisdom of others? How do we know they are using it correctly? Do I sense the old "appeal to authority" fallacy lurking around here somewhere?

 

[Stripe]

It's only precisely correct because you've simply covered all possible outcomes: "Everything is something." That's also why it's useless; it provides zero criteria for assigning anything to anything. And there's no objective way to do this, especially before you study it.

Ah, wisdom. Now there's a subjective concept! I guess you agree with my last statement above after all. And safe from scrutiny; how do we evaluate the wisdom of others? How do we know they are using it correctly? Do I sense the old "appeal to authority" fallacy lurking around here somewhere?

You seem to be saying that nobody should do anything for fear of not being scientifically or logically valid. Like I said, wisdom has nothing to do with science.

 

[aharvey]

You seem to be saying that nobody should do anything for fear of not being scientifically or logically valid.

I'm not saying that at all, but when you put it like this, I suppose it does take a bit of courage (or something!) to stake a position that is backed by neither logic nor evidence!

Like I said, wisdom has nothing to do with science.

Wisdom has exactly the same to do with faith.