Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski

On Mar 25, 2:35 pm, reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 25, 2:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Mar 25, 9:08 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip

The only division that *real* science makes is between *testable* and
*nontestable* explanations.  The latter includes explanations that are
not currently testable because there is no currently available
evidence to test it and fantasy explanations that are inherently
untestable, like an invisible fairy did it.

This comment admits to limitation, which is a hallmark of
pseudoscience.

No, the hallmark of pseudoscience is lack of limits.    An idea that
can explain anything, really explains nothing.

Real science has no bounds or limitations.

No, real science is bounded by what can be observed, and tested.
Without such limits, there is no way to determine which alternative is
more likely correct, and which is wrong.

Science has
always proven the existence of God----only Darwinists deny.

Of course, Ray defines anyone who points out his folly as a
"darwinist".   A nice bit of circular reasoning.    When asked to
provide an example of science proving the existence of God, Ray runs
away.


And I have answered this request hundreds of times. Once again: Darwin
was arguing against the nine great scientific authorities that he
mentions by name on page 310 of the "Origin." Each of these men were
special creationists who accepted immutability and rejected
transmutation. These facts are basic History of Science available for
anyone to confirm. "On The Origin Of Species" (1859) is a re-
explanation theory. Darwin re-explained scientific evidence originally
uncovered by British and French natural theologians. The original
explanation supported the existence of God. Every claim seen in the
preceding sentences can be supported using scholars who are arch-
Darwinists themselves.



The former (testable explanations) often includes explanations that
are due to probabilistic chance or the non-interaction of variables.

Acceptance of the concept of "chance" to play any role in biological
production is a statement against the existence of Intelligent
causation to play any role in biological production.

Again, Ray demonstrates his ignorance, or limited thinking ability.
Chance does not rule out "intelligent causation".    

They are antonymic concepts; enemy combatants; each says the other
does not exist----that is why they are postulated. You have shown zero
understanding of any argument based on the conceptual level.

Human selective
breeding is intelligent causation, but it still relies on random
mutations.    

These comments support the fact that you did not understand that the
discussion or debate presupposed the topic of this News Group; or you
have flupped up and admitted to a bait-and-switch.

Ray seems to think that "intelligent causation" is the
same thing as "supernatural causation", [SNIP....]


Of course they are.

This comment recognizes that I was arguing on-topic, which confirms my
previous observation that Dana was not.

Until Ray can show some evidence of supernatural causation, the only
intelligent causation available is that provided by humans.

snip of what Ray runs away from
DJT

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski
    ... *nontestable* explanations. ... No, real science is bounded by what can be observed, and tested. ... Darwin re-explained scientific evidence originally ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Rejects the Object Truth and with this his melt down is complete
    ... explanations, interpretations and conclusions, against ... Unfortunately this is NOT what Ray previously claimed: ... Atheists invent false ad hoc concepts like "methodological ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski
    ... *nontestable* explanations. ... provide an example of science proving the existence of God, Ray runs ... Chance does not rule out "intelligent causation". ... Until Ray can show some evidence of supernatural causation, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Education: Teach Science or Teach Evolution
    ... appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez ... interpretations, explanations and "reasoning." ... it's been pointed out to you numerous times that all of ... Only to those unable or unwilling to evaluate evidence ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: question about wire antenna and tuner
    ... explanations and evidence are a waste of time. ... theory with the evidence and redirect their thinking. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)