TimK wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

There is what is known as the "scientific method". This is an
alien concept to creationists who neither grasp it nor care for
it, but this is what it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method

I pretty much don't agree with that article - or the notion
that there is a "scientific method." They got close but
dropped the ball by excluding a large subset of the science
being done in the world.

In general, I think it's fair to say that that article really,
really over-analyzes the matter. Then again, that's hardly
surprising when you get people philosophizing about science....

Anyway, this should do the trick for the essence of the method
used by pretty much all the hard sciences:

1. Observe.

2. Predict.

3. Test.

4. Go to 1.

When you've been through that cycle enough times for your ***** to
be up to community standards, publish what you've go so other
people can join in on the fun.

The neat thing is that it's a fantastic general-purpose algorithm
for figuring out just about anything you're curious about.

Oh -- the observations and testing can very easily consist of
having a fresh look at old data. Astronomy and paleontology are
the classic examples.

And testing eventually needs to be in the form of, ``If I observe
something-or-other, then my prediction is worng.'' Starting out
with the opposite can help you get going on the right path (``If
I do such-and-such, I should observe this-and-that.''), but
falsification is the gold standard.

Cheers,

I challenge any creationist or ID supporter (not that there's any
difference between the two) to define for me what the difference is
between the scientific method as pursued by a theist and the scientific
method as pursued by an atheist.

The atheist, doesn't ignore results that don't fit into his preconceptions of
how the universe *should* be.

On 1 Dec 2006 15:16:48 -0800,

I challenge any creationist or ID supporter (not that there's any
difference between the two) to define for me what the difference is
between the scientific method as pursued by a theist and the

scientific

method as pursued by an atheist.

Ideally, none at all.

Ted


No - the answer is that one exist and one does not. One is a search for
truth. The other is a denial of truth. One pursues fact. The other
maintains itself only by unfounded assertions.

I don't think you really understood the scope of the question.

On 1 Dec 2006 15:16:48 -0800,

I challenge any creationist or ID supporter (not that there's any
difference between the two) to define for me what the difference is
between the scientific method as pursued by a theist and the

scientific

method as pursued by an atheist.

Ideally, none at all.

Ted


No - the answer is that one exist and one does not. One is a search for
truth. The other is a denial of truth. One pursues fact. The other
maintains itself only by unfounded assertions.

I don't think you really understood the scope of the question.

On 1 Dec 2006 15:16:48 -0800,

I challenge any creationist or ID supporter (not that there's any
difference between the two) to define for me what the difference is
between the scientific method as pursued by a theist and the

scientific

method as pursued by an atheist.

Ideally, none at all.

Ted


No - the answer is that one exist and one does not. One is a search for
truth. The other is a denial of truth. One pursues fact. The other
maintains itself only by unfounded assertions.

I don't think you really understood the scope of the question.

"Köi-Lö" <JhemHaddar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165154136.944751.159980@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Budikka666 wrote:

There is what is known as the "scientific method". This is an alien
concept to creationists who neither grasp it nor care for it, but this
is what it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method

Now there are both atheists and theists who are scientists. Both
"flavors" of scientist investigate nature and have papers published in
peer-reviewed journals.

I challenge any creationist or ID supporter (not that there's any
difference between the two) to define for me what the difference is
between the scientific method as pursued by a theist and the scientific
method as pursued by an atheist.

I'm waiting.

Budikka

Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not
only describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing
about science is the scientific method-a way of thinking
systematically, a way of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way
of conducting experiments

So associational research is not science? Pardon me but that's just
ignorant.

Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: "I
have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program." Since it is not
testable,

This is *****. Every single aspect of evolution's definition and the
central dogma of biology is quantifiable and thus testable. Anyone who

otherwise is simply wrong. Period.
Popper was a philosopher, not a biologist thus we can easily dismiss
anything he says that runs counter to accepted biological thought.
Please read about Popper's background and then get back to us on why

believe anything he says about biology.

"K=F6i-L=F6" <JhemHaddar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165154136.944751.159980@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Budikka666 wrote:

There is what is known as the "scientific method". This is an alien
concept to creationists who neither grasp it nor care for it, but this
is what it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method

Now there are both atheists and theists who are scientists. Both
"flavors" of scientist investigate nature and have papers published in
peer-reviewed journals.

I challenge any creationist or ID supporter (not that there's any
difference between the two) to define for me what the difference is
between the scientific method as pursued by a theist and the scientific
method as pursued by an atheist.

I'm waiting.

Budikka

Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not
only describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing
about science is the scientific method-a way of thinking
systematically, a way of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way
of conducting experiments

So associational research is not science? Pardon me but that's just
ignorant.

Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: "I
have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program." Since it is not
testable,

This is *****. Every single aspect of evolution's definition and the
central dogma of biology is quantifiable and thus testable. Anyone who s=

otherwise is simply wrong. Period.

Popper was a philosopher, not a biologist thus we can easily dismiss
anything he says that runs counter to accepted biological thought.
Please read about Popper's background and then get back to us on why shou=

believe anything he says about biology.

K=F6i-L=F6 wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

There is what is known as the "scientific method". This is an alien
concept to creationists who neither grasp it nor care for it, but this
is what it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method

Now there are both atheists and theists who are scientists. Both
"flavors" of scientist investigate nature and have papers published in
peer-reviewed journals.

I challenge any creationist or ID supporter (not that there's any
difference between the two) to define for me what the difference is
between the scientific method as pursued by a theist and the scientific
method as pursued by an atheist.

I'm waiting.

Budikka

Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not
only describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing
about science is the scientific method-a way of thinking
systematically, a way of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way
of conducting experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen
under given circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing
one's own errors, a way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas.
Science itself is constantly changing, largely as a result of the
scientific method."-Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.


Evolution as the origin of Man fails:

Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable
(repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly
happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them.

Does that mean you think murders cannot possibly be solved if there are
no witnesses?