nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 643:
Line 643: + + + +
→Scientific Claims: Definition of "random"
The Creation Study Committee for the Presbyterian Church made very detailed report about how you could be wrong. It is nice that you ask me to come up with a theory, but you might already have noticed that I am fairly reluctant to play along with the creationist game of criticizing others, under the assumption that this proves their theory to be right. If you claim to have the evidence on your side, you could tell us what this evidence is. We will then see how strong your evidence is and if it measures up to your testability criterion. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:49, 21 December 2007 (EST)
The Creation Study Committee for the Presbyterian Church made very detailed report about how you could be wrong. It is nice that you ask me to come up with a theory, but you might already have noticed that I am fairly reluctant to play along with the creationist game of criticizing others, under the assumption that this proves their theory to be right. If you claim to have the evidence on your side, you could tell us what this evidence is. We will then see how strong your evidence is and if it measures up to your testability criterion. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:49, 21 December 2007 (EST)
: That a "lack of purpose...makes it random" is true ''by definition'': "Random, ''adj.'' 1. going, made, occurring, etc., without definite aim, purpose, or reason." <small>(The Penguin Macquarie Dictionary)</small>.
: You'll need to remind me what it is that you think I "could be wrong" on.
: Creationists do not criticise others under the assumption that this proves their theory to be right.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:50, 29 December 2007 (EST)
===Interpretations===
===Interpretations===