Re: Disorder: "fantasy-prone personality"

"All-Seeing-I" <allseeingi@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1b510aa9-d867-4d42-92c7-ab7adc7c3f92@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.

Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
molding them into complex theories.
[...]

And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
goddidit."

You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.

It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.

The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
was written by real people describing real events.

which is what most sound minded people believe.


Real people describing real events? Uh, not really. First off, personal
obervations of complex, confusing events are notoriously innacurate, even
when recorded immediately after the event, especially when recorded by those
ill-equipped to understand what they are seeing. That is easily -- and
often -- demonstrated in most law courses on evidence. When the stories are
long removed from the actual event, and passed down word-of-mouth through
mutliple generations before being written down, they are even further from
being reliable.

When passed through multiple interpreters they are more likely to be heavily
influenced by the biases of those doing the interpretation, and subject to
"improvements" to juice up the story. A good example are the fantastic tales
of King Arthur and his magical sword Excaliber. It's a good story, but it is
only a story, told more to reinforce the moral standards of the tellers than
to be taken as literal truth. While there may be some small kernal of truth
vaguely connected to the story, most of the details of the story were
clearly made up afterwards.

Most of your stories fall into that category. Confusing events passed down
by people who were trying to make sense of things, but severely limited by
their lack of understanding of the real world. Hence the descriptions of
rabbits chewing their cud. Ooops -- kind of got that one wrong. Also heavily
influenced by the fears and biases of those doing the telling. Hence the
long sections of the Bible obsessed with diagnosing leprosy by seeing if a
white hair sprouts up.

You are aware that there are alternative approaches to simply repeating the
same stories? Ones that account for and remove the biases of the observer?
One of those approaches is science, which insists that what one person
observes is simply not good enough. It has to be repeatable, so that
independent observers observing similar events under similar conditions will
record consistent results. That is the basis of all chemistry and physics
laboratory experiments.

Gravity is an accepted concept not because Galileo did experiments on an
inclined plane and Newton worked out the mathematics, but because any
observer can design an experiment to test the concept and will get
consistent results. Repeated experiments reinforce that the concept is
valid. Those repeatable experiments are not "proof" in a Euclidean sense,
but the consistent results provide confidence that the description is valid.
You can work that out to your own satisfaction as well -- calculate how long
it will take a dropped object to fall from a tall building and try it out
yourself. Be sure to let us know if you come up with something drastically
different than about 9.81 m / sec squared as the acceleration of the dropped
object.

Evolution is an accepted concept not because Darwin meticulously recorded
his observations and spent over twenty years trying to make sense of them
before publishing The Origin of Species, but because any competent observer
can -- and have -- designed experiments to test the concept and come to the
same conclusion. It is consistent. It is repeatable.

Ghosts haunting old buildings is not an accepted concept for the opposite
reason. Notwithstanding popular nonsense, competent observers designing
experiments to confirm the results do not get consistent results. There's a
good reason that Ghost Hunters is a TV show on the SciFy channel and not a
peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Do you understand Special Relativity?
    ... If one is proposing something different it is a good idea to clarify what it is which is different. ... 'consistent' is pretty much meaningless. ... The statement makes no mention of the observer ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Parallel universes proven by Quantum Computers
    ... Is the argument like "worthless troll" is a part of your polemical ... One of basics of existence is the following to a particular consistent ... picture is the role of observer awareness in forming of this set. ... natural selection of consistent set is the process where observer and ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Building a Light Clock
    ... >> composition with a velocity less than that of light. ... > to be c from any observer which happens to hit it. ... > All perfectly consistent, if very mind-bending. ... this change in distance has to be consistent. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Fudge Factors and a new physics.
    ... measurable quantity in a consistent way for all spacetime intervals. ... In the frame of the barn observer A observes that rod has a real ... If a ship is viewed as 2 inches long from 2km away, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)