nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Legitimate views: Exactly. But...
Not sure why you keep arguing against my alleged position. As said before, I asked you to defend your position, not make up a position that I might have and attack it. And with your tight eyewitness standard, and insistence that you can only make falsifiable claims about the present, you kind of got rid of all possible evidence you might have to support you claims, just because you hoped it would undermine my position that you don't know. But to shed some light on my view on the matter, this little anecdote. Earlier today I read an article explaining that the scientific explanation for the origin of the moon might have to be changed due to new evidence. Especially the time when the moon formed. I read the article, and once I was done I thought to myself, that it is interesting to know, but that this probably not the last word on the subject. And I amended my previous held belief with the new information in less than three seconds, mostly because the origin of the moon doesn't affect any of my core beliefs. See I got no problem with the fact that scientific theories can be wrong or change. That they are wrong doesn't make your explanation right. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)
Not sure why you keep arguing against my alleged position. As said before, I asked you to defend your position, not make up a position that I might have and attack it. And with your tight eyewitness standard, and insistence that you can only make falsifiable claims about the present, you kind of got rid of all possible evidence you might have to support you claims, just because you hoped it would undermine my position that you don't know. But to shed some light on my view on the matter, this little anecdote. Earlier today I read an article explaining that the scientific explanation for the origin of the moon might have to be changed due to new evidence. Especially the time when the moon formed. I read the article, and once I was done I thought to myself, that it is interesting to know, but that this probably not the last word on the subject. And I amended my previous held belief with the new information in less than three seconds, mostly because the origin of the moon doesn't affect any of my core beliefs. See I got no problem with the fact that scientific theories can be wrong or change. That they are wrong doesn't make your explanation right. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: Just because you can't ''scientifically test'' past events doesn't mean that you can't "make any statements about the past". There are other sources than scientific tests. You can, for example, look at the language used (vocabulary, idioms, etc.) and see when that language was used to see when it was written. This is not absolute like a scientific test would be, but neither does it mean that you have no idea. Depending on what evidence is available, you can often come to reasonably certain conclusions.
: I didn't deny that natural selection is non-random. I said that if natural selection wasn't designed, then it must be random. However the evidence is that it's non-random, which means that it was designed.
: I'm not making up a position that you might have. I'm responding to claims that you are making.
: "''I amended my previous held belief with the new information in less than three seconds, mostly because '''the origin of the moon doesn't affect any of my core beliefs.'''''" (emphasis added) Exactly. The same applies to me. But if it did?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:29, 21 December 2007 (EST)
===Motivations===
===Motivations===