NoToReligion and SA Huguenot creation evidence.

[Subduction Zone]

So, your argument gets down to...
You are wrong because you could not spell Kant's first name?
Are you serious?

Now this is an example of poor logic on your part and a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. You swear you know so much about Kant, but you could not even spell his first name or, and this is the more important part, you could not support any of your claims about him.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Now this is an example of poor logic on your part and a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. You swear you know so much about Kant, but you could not even spell his first name or, and this is the more important part, you could not support any of your claims about him.

So, lets start with you teaching me about the "Scientific method".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why dont you start with the scientific method?

Rather than using the Britannica article that you did not understand I like to start with a simplified flow chart:

 

[SA Huguenot]

Rather than using the Britannica article that you did not understand I like to start with a simplified flow chart:

OK, Got it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first step in the scientific method is to ask a question. It can be an easy one or a hard one. The easy questions were answered a long time ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, Got it.

Probably not. We need to go over it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The second step is where we are getting closer to doing "science" , do background research. If we want to understand how things fall for example we could time how fast they fall in all sorts of environments and using all sorts of objects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing controversial so far, right?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Nothing controversial so far, right?

Cool, I got it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cool, I got it.

Good, the next step is an important one, construct a hypothesis. In your own words do you think you can explain that?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Good, the next step is an important one, construct a hypothesis. In your own words do you think you can explain that?

No, you already said I dont understand science,
I asked you to teach me.
So, now you must teach me a hypothesis on why something falls at different rates in different environments.
I am scared to do it wrong.
You will laugh at me again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you already said I dont understand science,
I asked you to teach me.
So, now you must teach me a hypothesis on why something falls at different rates in different environments.
I am scared to do it wrong.
You will laugh at me again.

Part of teaching is testing the knowledge of the student. I will not ridicule in any way as long as you honestly try to learn. It was when you tried to preach nonsense that you needed a little grounding.

So please,give it a try. In your own words what is a scientific hypothesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

On a sidenote, I read up a bit on Kant while I was waiting and between the Wiki article on him and this one I doubt that Kant was a Christian at all:
Kant’s Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Immanuel Kant - Wikipedia

That was why I found your claims about him rather surprising. He was not know for his Christianity at all.

 

[SA Huguenot]

On a sidenote, I read up a bit on Kant while I was waiting and between the Wiki article on him and this one I doubt that Kant was a Christian at all:
Kant’s Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Immanuel Kant - Wikipedia

That was why I found your claims about him rather surprising. He was not know for his Christianity at all.

This is what the world would like you to believe.
I agree, he hated the formal practices of churches, the repeditive worship, etc.
But never did Kant once deny God or the Bible.
As a matter of fact, when he allowed his books on reasoning to be published, he asked not to use any of his previous publications where he solidly worshipped God as a pietist.
The reason was that he wanted his works to be used as a method to determine emperical truth, and did not want it to be connected with his religion thereby allowing Agnostics and atheists to mock his philosophy.
let me give you the evidence in a nutshell, I bet you did not know that Kant wrote on the Nebular theory.
I spoke to few of my colleques who teaches philosophy, history and science, and not one of them knew about it.
If you buy books on philosophy, such as what I do, you will find a lot of references to his works, but not a single reference to the natural history of the heavens.
Anyhow, this is way off the point.
lets continue with you teaching me how the scientific method works.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Part of teaching is testing the knowledge of the student. I will not ridicule in any way as long as you honestly try to learn. It was when you tried to preach nonsense that you needed a little grounding.

So please,give it a try. In your own words what is a scientific hypothesis?

I dont know how too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what the world would like you to believe.
I agree, he hated the formal practices of churches, the repeditive worship, etc.
But never did Kant once deny God or the Bible.
As a matter of fact, when he allowed his books on reasoning to be published, he asked not to use any of his previous publications where he solidly worshipped God as a pietist.
The reason was that he wanted his works to be used as a method to determine emperical truth, and did not want it to be connected with his religion thereby allowing Agnostics and atheists to mock his philosophy.
let me give you the evidence in a nutshell, I bet you did not know that Kant wrote on the Nebular theory.
I spoke to few of my colleques who teaches philosophy, history and science, and not one of them knew about it.
If you buy books on philosophy, such as what I do, you will find a lot of references to his works, but not a single reference to the natural history of the heavens.
Anyhow, this is way off the point.
lets continue with you teaching me how the scientific method works.

You do not seem to realize that for you to claim he was a Christian he would have to confirm that he believed in the Christian God. That does not seem to be the case. He appears to be more deist than anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I dont know how too.

Alright. A scientific hypothesis is merely a testable idea that explains some aspect of nature. Testable means that a reasonable test where the concept could be shown to be wrong based upon its own merits could be formed.

if you have an idea, but cannot think of a reasonable possible refutation of it then that idea is not scientific in nature.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well, It is true.
I only replied on the first point.
Now if you were totally wrong then, why should I continue with the rest

Haha... nice try. Not buying it. You were frightened, plain and simple.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now, science is not a story of what I think science should tell me!
Science is the written record of the different entities of the Natural world as OBSERVED AND VALIDATED BY EXPERIMENT.
If I claim that there are aliens, it is a theory, or a story.

"theory" is a word that means something very specific in science.
So using this word within the context you are using it, shows you seem to be unaware of that fact.

It can never be science untill such time as there are repeated observed occurances, supported by experimental validations.

"there are aliens" is just a claim to fact. It's not a "theory" or "hypothesis". It has no explanatory power.
The point of science is to come up with models (hypothesis / theory) which explain our observations, make testable predictions and thereby wield reliable explanatory power.

Observing a space rock and then claim "there are rocks in space", is not what science is about. That's just stating what is being observed. Mapping data.

In Other Words.
Show me an alien, and allow me to touch, smell, perhaps taste, hear him make noises or communicate, and only then can we say the existance of aliens is a scientific fact.
IF NOT, IT REMAINS A THEORY! PERIOD!

Not how theories work, not what theories are, not what science is about.

Then we have other entities of the Natural world which can not be tasted, or seen, or heard, and can not even be touched, such as gravity or radiation.

These things aren't exactly "entities" though.
But anyway, both gravity and radiation can very much be detected and measured and calculated pretty precisely.

The scientific method still remains the same, it can be felt and we observe it has an effect on our bodies.
This means it can be measured.
Then we can theorize about its strength, and do experiments.
The same experiments can be replicated, and the observed results will support our theory, which will only then be accepted scientific fact.

And you'll have confirmed your observations after that.
But you'ld still not have an explanation of these phenomenon.

If anything can not be tested by experiment, and replicated again to produce the same results, it is not scientific fact, BUT THEORY!

1. once again, that's not what theories are or are about

2. good luck testing your creationism and measuring your god

IN CONCLUSION.
ANY ATHEIST BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION, BELIEVES IN A FAIRY TALE, AND NOT IN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

LOL!!!!

Here's the selective acceptance of science again, where the only selection parameter seems to be "whatever fits my supernatural narrative".

Evolution doesn't fit it, so it is rejected.

Regardless, evolution is, off course, an extremely well demonstrated and supported explanatory model of the origins and development of biological diversity, with enormous explanatory power.

OR THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO FORCE FAIRYTALES INTO SCIENCE.

Perhaps you should start learning what a "theory" is, before making stupid comments about what does and doesn't fit the scientific method. :rolleyed:

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Just look at what you wrote!
You make a claim that God made the Earth, and only later the Moon.

And just where did I claim this? Please... go ahead and show me the post that states this... because this had absolutely nothing to do with any of my points. Nothing. I am sitting here wondering where you even got the idea. And you want to blame me for building "strawmen?" You sit here just making things up and attacking them. All I said was that your graphic stated that God created the Earth first as a "dark empty space" - that He called that "Earth." COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THAT was the point about the moon not "shining" with light. It gives off none of its own light. It is merely reflection of the sun's light. Genesis is obviously written from the perspective of someone who is ignorant of this fact.

You need to comprehend what others write a bit better. In no way did I connect the Earth's creation to the moon's... I don't even know why the hell the chronology of that matters. I certainly wouldn't have mentioned it.

Where did you get that idea?
I was very clear that God made the earth from a shapeless collection of solids, liquid and gas.
I was also very clear that God made light, before the first day of the earth.
I was clear to say that if the earth was a collection of accreted matter, the Sun was also undergoing the same procedure and eventually fell in on its own mass, and started to ignite. This is exactly what science also says.
I was clear to say that the other planets also accreted the same way the earth did.
The Moon obviously also accreted from this nebular cloud together with the Sun and the Earth and other planets, because the Bible clearly say the sun started to shine very bright on the 4th day, resulting into the light of the planets (aka stars) and the moon, as well as the light of the Sun, shining onto the atmosphere.
Never did I say, nor does Genesis say the Moon was made after the Earth.

All these things you saw you were "clear" on - are these all points you think were made by that idiotic graphic you first posted to me asking for a critique? I can assure you... NONE of the above details are "clear" AT ALL from the presentation of that graphic. None of it. There is precisely zero scientific knowledge imparted by the words on that graphic. You'd have to be crazy to think that's something it accomplishes.

Please show me where I said anything like that!
Why these straw puppets?
You are making up stories, and hold me accountable for your claims.
Wow!

Once again... never made the claim you are foisting on me. Nothing about the relationship between the Earth and the moon was mentioned by me. This was you not reading for comprehension, or reading too fast, or seeing what you wanted to see. One of those, I bet. Could be something else - and you can tell me what you think it was that caused you to go off on such a tangent, and try to attribute things to me that I never said. As it stands, you are just further failing to impress. You've got a long way to go to get where you pretend that you are, that is for sure.