Flat Earth Christians

Originally posted by KellyJay
False, the reason why we publish is so that corrections can be made
and introductions to new things get added to the mix. Where we part
company is that you have a level of confidence I don't share, it seems
to me that once something becomes accepted in some circles you
have just followed along as if it were gospel, but you go beyond what
those that fol ...[text shortened]... just
grasping reality in your logic and are on the solid ground of reason
error free.
Kelly

Sorry KJ - If the results you attempt to publish are biased, they will NOT get published! Papers get reviewed before publishing. However, the peer review process will continue after publishing.

You seem to know little about this process either..

No one said anything was error free, its why we use statistics to provide the level of confidence in our findings.

What you really seem to fail to understand, is that in science people don't just accept things on face value. Hypothesis and theories are put through rigourous testing, by many independent..... blah blah..... why do i bother with the anti science man? This will just fall on deaf ears again and cause another response which equals your conspiracy theory that "science is faith"..... Science is never faith based, but until you understand science you will never see that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
False, the reason why we publish is so that corrections can be made
and introductions to new things get added to the mix. Where we part
company is that you have a level of confidence I don't share, it seems
to me that once something becomes accepted in some circles you
have just followed along as if it were gospel, but you go beyond what
those that fol ...[text shortened]... just
grasping reality in your logic and are on the solid ground of reason
error free.
Kelly

Repeat previous post:

"I would sincerely love to see your evidence for design, especially if it has the same strength as the evidence for evolution (as you claim)"

Still waiting for the evidence KJ, just admitt it, it will never come...... or it will just be your opinion.

Prove us all wrong KJ! If your evidence equals that for evolution you should get something published in Nature with no trouble😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I start giving you my reasons do you think you will stick around
and answer them or just let them get stated and move on?
Kelly

well it's all a journey, if we weren't open to ideas we would not be here. Here are my questions again, in case we lose them... 😉

back to basics. What about the eye is so special, in your perception, that makes it stand out as perfection of design?

And so what are the differences between a (say) snail's eye, and ours, and why do snails and humans share much of the same DNA, and the eyes of a snail are not 'perfect design' like humans?

Originally posted by timebombted
Repeat previous post:

"I would sincerely love to see your evidence for design, especially if it has the same strength as the evidence for evolution (as you claim)"

Still waiting for the evidence KJ, just admitt it, it will never come...... or it will just be your opinion.

Prove us all wrong KJ! If your evidence equals that for evolution you should get something published in Nature with no trouble😵

Don't get in such a hurry I have a life and I don't want to give this
post just an off the top of my head response. I'd like to give you
something with a little more effort behind it than just what I'm thinking
as I sit down and read these.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess when you look at reality you are not looking at evidence?
Kelly

What does that mean?
Is there any way you can “look at reality” without looking at the evidence! ?
-give my a hypothetical scenario where this can be done?
-I challenge you to give my a hypothetical scenario where this can be done.

If I “look at a bit of reality” by, say, confirming that there is a moon in the sky by seeing the moon in the sky with my eyes, how can I possibly do this without using the evidence of what I see with my eyes?

I may also “deduce” what a bit of reality may be using qualified assumptions that have been extremely careful designed so that they are very hard for most people to refute (such as ‘the external world exists’ etc) and using logical reasoning -in which case, the “evidence” for “seeing that bit of reality” would not be an observation but rather the logical reasoning -but either way, you have to have some kind of evidence to “look at reality”.

This doesn’t relate to the questions I asked in my past posts which you still provide no answer.
So I ask you again;

-do you deny that it IS possible to interpret evidence without bias? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What does that mean?
Is there any way you can “look at reality” without looking at the evidence! ?
-give my a hypothetical scenario where this can be done?
-I challenge you to give my a hypothetical scenario where this can be done.

If I “look at a bit of reality” by, say, confirming that there is a moon in the sky by seeing the moon in the sky ...[text shortened]... sk you again;

-do you deny that it IS possible to interpret evidence without bias? Yes or no?

Evidence, if it isn't really a reflection of reality is false, so to make
claims about having mountains of evidence isn't worth much if your
mountain is filled with opinions about things that may or may not be
true.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
Repeat previous post:

"I would sincerely love to see your evidence for design, especially if it has the same strength as the evidence for evolution (as you claim)"

Still waiting for the evidence KJ, just admitt it, it will never come...... or it will just be your opinion.

Prove us all wrong KJ! If your evidence equals that for evolution you should get something published in Nature with no trouble😵

Detection of Design is a science. For those skeptics who complain that the eye or the nose seems not to be a perfect design, in doing this you admit that design is imperically detectable.

That is a self defeating argument for those who say Intelligent Design Detection is not a science.

So some boast "well, the eye is not very well designed. We could have done better than your Designer here, there, and over there."

Of course a not perfect design is still a design. Your perception of imperfection may be accurate. Then again, it may overlook something which will come to light as optimal latter on. At any rate there could be reasons for a less than perfect design in nature.

Can't have it both ways. If you have some concept of what perfection should look like and can detect less than optimal design - then you admit that Intelligent Design is a science.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What does that mean?
Is there any way you can “look at reality” without looking at the evidence! ?
-give my a hypothetical scenario where this can be done?
-I challenge you to give my a hypothetical scenario where this can be done.

If I “look at a bit of reality” by, say, confirming that there is a moon in the sky by seeing the moon in the sky ...[text shortened]... sk you again;

-do you deny that it IS possible to interpret evidence without bias? Yes or no?

-do you deny that it IS possible to interpret evidence without bias? Yes or no?

I'd say it is very difficult, nearly next to impossible, you'd have to
be both detached and without a point to prove, since we all have
points we agree and disagree with we can run into the danger of
filling in the blanks with our points of view. We all tend to fill in
the blanks with our assumptions and if we feel strongly about
something our filling in the blanks becomes very problematic in
being very objective. Which is why I admit I’m bias, I have some
very strong ideas about things, and I tend to question many of the
assumptions I see being presented as proof, but I believe we all
do that too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evidence, if it isn't really a reflection of reality is false, so to make
claims about having mountains of evidence isn't worth much if your
mountain is filled with opinions about things that may or may not be
true.
Kelly

There must be a mountain of evidence that the Earth is round and not flat.
Is it true that “this mountain of evidence isn't worth much because it is filled with opinions about things that may or may not be”?
-if yes, then explain to me just one of these “options” that you could use to credibly argue that the Earth is flat.
-if no, then that means a mountain of evidence CAN prove something so -so explain to me you criteria for deciding when a mountain of evidence is “filled with opinions about things that may or may not be” -oh let me guess; it is when the mountain of evidence proves your beliefs wrong -which means you first decide what to believe BEFORE you even consider the evidence.

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]-do you deny that it IS possible to interpret evidence without bias? Yes or no?

I'd say it is very difficult, nearly next to impossible, you'd have to
be both detached and without a point to prove, since we all have
points we agree and disagree with we can run into the danger of
filling in the blanks with our points of view. We all tend to fill ...[text shortened]... of the
assumptions I see being presented as proof, but I believe we all
do that too.
Kelly[/b]

In other word, no.
-a truly absurd and delusional belief!
-and it doesn’t answer the main questions I put to you that I hoped would make you see this:

On page 29 I asked you:

“Suppose I observe a reading on a thermometer of 100 C while it is in boiling water and I conclude that water boils at 100 C -how is that interpretation biased?”

-I mean, for example, can you give me a credible and plausible example of how most people could have a 100 C reading on a thermometer and, because of their “bias”, conclude that the water is, say, at 20 C ?

- explain to me how, in this example, in what way it is “hard” to avoid giving a “biased” (so, presumably, probably incorrect) interpretation of this evidence.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
In other word, no.
-a truly absurd and delusional belief!
-and it doesn’t answer the main questions I put to you that I hoped would make you see this:

On page 29 I asked you:

“Suppose I observe a reading on a thermometer of 100 C while it is in boiling water and I conclude that water boils at 100 C -how is that interpretation biased?”

-I m ...[text shortened]... to avoid giving a “biased” (so, presumably, probably incorrect) interpretation of this evidence.

I can buy into if you read 100C , it a 100C, yes.
If you tell me the eye is there because of evolution or design I'd say
it has a lot more to do with your starting postion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I can buy into if you read 100C , it a 100C, yes.
If you tell me the eye is there because of evolution or design I'd say
it has a lot more to do with your starting postion.
Kelly

..I can buy into if you read 100C , it a 100C, yes. ..…

At last you answer the question (I think). So this means you DO believe that it is possible to interpret evidence without a “bias” because this is one example of that -correct?

Originally posted by jaywill
Detection of Design is a science. For those skeptics who complain that the eye or the nose seems not to be a perfect design, in doing this you admit that design is imperically detectable.

That is a self defeating argument for those who say Intelligent Design Detection is not a science.

So some boast "well, the eye is not very well designed. We could ...[text shortened]... nd can detect less than optimal design - then you admit that Intelligent Design is a science.

Intelligent design is not a science - no evidence for it, no tests, just faith.

Science is not faith based, clear and simple really.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Don't get in such a hurry I have a life and I don't want to give this
post just an off the top of my head response. I'd like to give you
something with a little more effort behind it than just what I'm thinking
as I sit down and read these.
Kelly

Well I'll be on the edge of my seat waiting then......

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b] ..I can buy into if you read 100C , it a 100C, yes. ..…

At last you answer the question (I think). So this means you DO believe that it is possible to interpret evidence without a “bias” because this is one example of that -correct?[/b]

It depends again on what it is we are talking about, context will always
play apart. You and I can read your processor is now at 100C while
operating, but what does that mean, why is it 100C...there discussion
and disagreements can occur with the same data sets.
Kelly