Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

You have a bad habit of putting words in other people's mouths. I never said that theory and fact meant the same thing in science.

Secondly empiricism blah, blah, blah...are you just trying to sound smart?

Thirdly that is a link that I got from Wikipedia regarding Scientific Theory: #26 (Harding 1999) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#cite_note-26

 

No wrong. You cannot posit the supernatural as a credible explanation of anything just because we have yet explain its cause. Name one thing, just one thing that has been proved to have supernatural explanation.

Just one.

No, there remains a host of things yet to be explained. Period. A supernatural cause is not the null hypothesis or even a working hypothesis as the existence or requirement for supernatural intervention has never been proved or shown.

All you're doing is showing how vested you are in your "god of the gaps" position.

 

So disappointing!
I was so looking forward to your explanation of the dark and light sides of the sky and how the light side faces the sun and the dark side doesn't. It's so insane I was dying to see how you cleaned up this abortion of thought. How can space surrounding a sphere face or not face that sphere?
Oh pleasepleaseplease address this. It won't go away. I will be quoting it until you do.

 

Aye, it's often difficult to know which target a fellow is aiming at in discussions along these lines because so much depends on everyone agreeing upon the meanings of certain definitions.

 

Here it is!
This is an all-time classic!

 

Sure, in theory.

 

It's a real shame that science is a joke to you. It explains a lot, though.

 

Or...."Sure, that's where the Leprechauns live."

 

You won't even respond to me.
Does that mean I was "creamed" too?
Now, tell us all about the dark and light parts of the sky!

- - - Updated - - -

Seems I made that point to you just a short while ago.
LOL!

 

What are you doing now, if not "acting like you've won"?

 

Anything science cannot explain automatically is in the wheelhouse of the supernatural . . . simply because science cannot prove them wrong. This is not rocket science.

- - - Updated - - -

Hah! Everything is theoretical until it's not. That may or may not be true, but it sounds great.

 

Just because you were right doesn't mean that you were wrong. Hmmm . . . I believe I might just have made a zen koan. I do beg your pardon!

 

eeeeewwwwhhhh NOT the thing about a theory turning into a fact, no not again!

- - - Updated - - -

 

No, it's not Rocket Science because Rocket Science IS A REAL (combination of) SCIENCES. Using your logic (and I say that with a smile) until someone proves David Copperfield didn't really make the plane disappear with magic...Magic is considered the credible, valid reason...right?

Hah! Everything is theoretical until it's not. That may or may not be true, but it sounds great. [/QUOTE]

No, you need to learn what constitutes a "theory" in the world of Science. You're wrong.

 

No, you need to learn what constitutes a "theory" in the world of Science. You're wrong.[/QUOTE]

No . . . what science cannot currently explain is automatically open to any other branch of argument. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. But saying it's not so is pretty much like arguing against gravity when you are two thirds of the way towards the ground after jumping out of a high flying plane and having forgotten your parachute. It's just not going to do you any good.

 

OK, let's consider that claim. What is your proof?...And, please be specific.

 

Fine. You have to prove Supernatural exists before it can be considered valid. Where is your proof? How do you know David Copperfield didn't create the Universe?

 

I so apologize. Here's the quote. Verbatim.



Originally Posted by PatriotNews
There were different areas of the sky. The one facing the Sun is day, and the one facing away is night. How is that really bad & ridiculous.

I am enjoying this, if you're wondering.

 

Which is why you're too cowardly to answer the question of whether you believe Leprechauns exist or not. You know by answering this question you will expose your intellectual dishonest and hypocrisy.

 

No, I would have to prove that the supernatural exists for it to be valid in the natural world in which science and mathematics holds sway. But -- equally valid -- is that science and mathematics has to prove that the supernatural world concept does not exist.

Now as an atheist I flat out don't believe in the supernatural . . . until I'm all alone and unarmed at night in a spooky place sans artificial illumination and my heart rate is accelerated and I'm trying to see in all directions at once while I listen for the sound of a pin dropping. Then I tend to 'believe' in the supernatural despite my reliance on science. So it would be nice if science and mathematics would get off their duff and finish proving that the supernatural flat out does not exist.

 

I didn't say that.

 

No, 100% wrong. You, and those like you, are making the claim a supernatural world exists...therefore, god, unicorns, easter bunny and santa are all possible. Those who make the claim, carry the burden of proof. I've ask you for proof of a supernatural or that a requirement for a supernatural has ever been proved.....and you can't.

I'm pretty sure it's near impossible to prove a negative.

 

Eh? You really care about that? Okaaaaaaay . . . personally I don't believe in leprechauns but that does not mean that leprechauns don't exist. It merely means that I don't believe in them. Now if ever science can get around to wasting time and research money to definitively prove that they do not exist, then I will KNOW for an irrefutable fact that leprechauns do not exist. Until or if that happens however nobody -- and I do mean nobody -- has established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the existence of leprechauns is impossible. Of course before one goes really far into the silly end of logical arguments one would have to establish precisely what one means by the term leprechaun and be certain that there are no alternate definition contenders.