>Free Lunch wrote:
>

>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:50:30 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
>> Roy Jose Lorr comcast.net> wrote in
>> comcast.com>:
>>

>>>Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>

>>>>On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:39:44 -0800, in alt.atheism
>>>>Roy Jose Lorr comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>comcast.com>:
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>Ralph wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>>"Budikka666" netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:1165268985.001626.18990@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>Josh Miles wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Köi-Lö 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?

>>>>>
>>>>>Straw man.
>>>>>
>>>>>Circumstantial evidence is not [scientifically] conclusive.
>>>>>
>>>>>circumstantial evidence
>>>>>n : evidence providing only a basis for inference about the
>>>>>fact in dispute.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you consider physical evidence to be circumstantial?

>>>
>>>Yes, unless it is absolutely, conclusively tied to the fact
>>>in dispute. Which part of the above definition did you not
>>>understand?

>>
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out how you are so willing to dismiss
>> circumstantial evidence but will believe the silliest rumor.

>
>I do not dismiss circumstantial evidence in general, only
>when it is used to promote a fact that is in dispute.
>
>The 'silliest rumor' you think I believe is?