Quote
Quote
Your version goes observe, then fantasize, than brag about how your fantasy fits the observation.

I thought that the scientific method required someone to test their hypothesis rigorously, that other scientists need to be able to replicate the results, and that the results should be subject to peer review.
Apply this to your Öort cloud.

Quote
According to you, scientists just make things up.
Some do. 4D space wasn't observed or implied. It was imagined.

Anyone can test it. Take four sticks (straws, pens, toothpicks will do) and mark the midpoint on each stick. Begin attaching them one-by-one after the following manner: Each stick must attach midpoint-to-midpoint and be attached at a right angle to all preceding sticks.

If you can attach the 4th stick in the manner described, save the assembly & contact the Nobel committee. If you can properly attach a 5th stick, I'll buy you dinner.

Quote
The science-as-conspiracy-and-lies brigade is strong here, but scant on proof that scientists are just making things up.
'Strong' is a relative term. How strong was the X Club?

Quote
It's easy to claim this without actually researching the evidence for a hypothesis; for example, claiming that neanderthals are modern human with heavy brow ridges, while neglecting to look up what the actual morphological evidence is that they are different from us.
It's equally easy to claim folks haven't looked up the evidence. Fortunately, not everyone speaks from ignorance.

Quote
Quote
How can we believe anyone forms their hypothesis without any observations? I mean it just doesn't happen very much.

Maybe you should explain that to Ken Ham, who says:

Quote
You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world

Presupposition: the Bible is correct. Therefore, all observations must be consistent with this idea. He also claims that evolutionary scientists presuppose evolution to be correct, ignoring the body of evidence that is the reason for this theory gaining acceptance in the first place. Bias and science make bad bedfellows. A scientist should follow where the evidence leads, not presuppose an idea and then try to fit the facts to it. Good and workable hypotheses are based on evidence.
Quote
You misunderstand. "The Bible is correct" is not a presupposition. It's an established fact. Only a fool initiates an hypothesis which fails to account well for most established facts.

Who builds an hypothesis contingent upon the nonexistence of hydrogen? Or George Washington? Only a fool. We know hydrogen exists, and it silly to pretend otherwise. We know George Washington lived, and no hypothesis conflicting the fact is going to succeed.

Likewise, we know that the Bible is true, and any hypothesis contingent on the Bible being false is certain to fail miserably. In the other two cases I mentioned, there are no examples available for examination. But in this case the examples are too abundant for me to list.

[quote]You have mentioned several things of which you appear to know very little, including Einstein's theory of relativity. I've just finished reading a book on quantum physics and I can tell you that he did not pull the idea out of his hat.
No. Like Darwin, he took other people's ideas & combined them. As I brought up in the "Open Conspiracy" thread, he glommed on to one of the early eugenicists' books. He also tossed in the formula intended to correct the results of the Michelson/Morley experiment & reconcile them to the aether of the heliocentric cosmos, which was at that time believed to exist.

Quote
Learn about what you're criticising before you dismiss it as nonsense.
Heh heh You're one to talk!

Quote
[quote]Show me the book.

Why don't you look it up yourself, or buy it, since it espouses what you believe in?
You brought it up. You claimed it was evidence that ID = religion. But then the only evidence you derived from the book was that it contained ID, and "ID = religion". Isn't that what you were setting out to prove? Yep, circular again. Trying to make us dizzy?

Quote
Quote
Why can't evolutionists find even one reference to religion in the book?

So because it presumably does not use the word "religion," it is therefore not a religious text? No possibility that the word was removed in order for people like you to make this claim?
If the words were removed that made it religious, it would no longer be religious. Words make the book, you know.

Quote
You've said several times, in various ways:

Quote
Creation science is compatible with all legitimate observations and experiments.

You could prove this so easily by presenting a legitimate experiment for creationism, yet you have not done so. I am not aware that anyone else has either, but the invitation here is open for you.
What? Are you now asking what kind of research is currently being performed by creation scientists? That would've been simple enough to ask in the first place. Why don't you decide what you want to ask before complaining about my answers.

Quote
Quote
How do you test for a creator?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Usually indirectly, if the results are to be displayed to others. In the past, some very direct tests were performed. Care to view some of the results?

Your answer is to quote the Bible? This is your idea of a scientific test?
I linked to a report of scientific tests of the Creator. Isn't that what you asked for?

Quote
Quote
We're not interested in watching you twist words in an attempt to justify your private definition.

How is it twisting words to point out that saying "I'm incredulous" and "I'm incredulous for these reasons" are the same thing?
Because they're not the same thing. If I told you my brother walked to the rings of Saturn & back yesterday, would you believe me? Would you be incredulous? You seem to think there's something inherently wrong, like it's a sin to be incredulous. It isn't. Everybody is incredulous and everybody is credulous. If one has valid reasons, it's stupid to be otherwise.

In fact, it can't be done. If one is credulous about any thesis, one must be incredulous about its antithesis. /sigh/ why do I bother?

Quote
If a scientist thought either of these things, the matter would go ininvestigated, and an opportunity to learn would have been lost.
Nonsense. You're trying to prop up your evodoctrines again. One can always verify anything. It's common in physics & chemistry classes to repeat the experiments of the pioneers. The science teacher is absolutely incredulous that the experiments will obtain different results. So are the writers of the textbooks.

Quote
I'm still not sure what you think you're showing with the helium balloon example. You said:

Quote
Based upon the observation that a helium balloon rises, I don't think gravity works. That's an example of an argument which isn't based upon incredulity.
Obviously I was wasting time. You hold your evodoctrine so dear & you're so afraid to question one single tenet... Can you not see that you cannot classify everything as an argument from incredulity simply on the basis of your own personal distaste for the argument? You must classify arguments based on their contents - not whose "side" they're on.

No. I'm going back to my original hypothesis. It's a practice of evolutionists to sidetrack the discussion with this incredulity trash whenever they have no way to make progress.

Quote
No IDer has presented rigorously-tested new evidence to show that anything is irreducibly complex, which leads me back to asking where the evidence for a designer is. I can see it as a philosophy someone might hold, but I can't see how it fits anywhere with empirical science. Instead of more mudslinging at evolutionists, why not just focus on this and show how ID/creationism are scientific, by proposing a scientific test for them?
Mudslinging at evolutionists? Who's going about policing thought & preventing people from working on science? They pull this crap, and everyone's supposed to shut up & cower in fear? Think again!

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson