A Test For Ironhorse.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Ironhorse.  

 

Please follow this link... https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic0710a/zoomable/...which will take you to a 'zoomable' image of the galaxy M 81.

This object lies almost 12 million light years away, so we see it as it was...12 million years ago.  Light from M 81's stars takes 12 million years to reach us, so there is no possible way that we could see it as it is now.  Today.  07/13/2016.  Yet, scientists conclude that there are planets orbiting the stars of this galaxy... today.  Not 12 million years ago.  Today.  

 

Yet, these planets cannot be seen or detected in any way by any of our instruments.  Not even Hubble.

If you use the slider at the bottom of the Hubble image you can zoom in until you can see the individual stars making up M 81.  (For best effect, please zoom in on one of the spiral arms.  The core of the galaxy is too bright.)  But, no matter how deeply you zoom in you'll never be able to see any of the planets that scientists say are there.  That's because planets are hundreds of times smaller than the average star and don't emit any light of their own.  They just reflect a tiny amount of light that falls upon them.  So even the keen vision of Hubble falls far short of bringing any of these planets into view.  But scientists like Bhim... http://www.ex-christian.net/user/20773-bhim/#.V4Z_3fkrJD8...who is an astrophysicist, are quite certain that M 81's stars are orbited by many planets.

 

Now, this a twofold test, that I hope will determine how much you understand of the workings of science and also what you consider to be legitimate knowledge.

Therefore, please be so good as to answer these questions.  Thank you.

 

1.  

Do you understand how scientists conclude that things they cannot possibly see or detect in any way, actually do exist?

 

2.

Do you know of any other examples where scientists have made this kind of conclusion?  (If so, please specify.)

 

3.

Do you accept that their conclusion (these planets exist, today) qualifies as legitimate knowledge?

 

4.

Do you consider that scientists can only make legitimate statements about things that they can directly detect, investigate and measure, right here and now?

.

.

.

Many thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

My dear fellow members...

 

Please do Ironhorse and me the courtesy of not answering the four questions in the OP.  

By all means please comment or ask your own questions.  

But please allow Ironhorse the time and space to answer as he sees fit.  

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

BAA.

[quinntar]

They say that they can detect planets by observing the star they're orbiting, theres a slight wobble.

 

Doppler spectroscopy - Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia

Doppler spectroscopy is an

indirect method for finding

extrasolar ... as large as Jupiter,

for example, would cause its

parent star to wobble slightly as

the two objects orbit around their

center of mass.

[bornagainathiest]

They say that they can detect planets by observing the star they're orbiting, theres a slight wobble.

 

Doppler spectroscopy - Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia

Doppler spectroscopy is an

indirect method for finding

extrasolar ... as large as Jupiter,

for example, would cause its

parent star to wobble slightly as

the two objects orbit around their

center of mass.

 

Good call, AC.

 

Yes, the Doppler Spectroscopy does indeed reveal the presence of 'unseen' planets orbiting their host stars.  However, this technique is limited to relatively near (less than 1,000 light years) stars to us.  Beyond this distance there is simply too great a signal-to-noise ratio for the planets to be detected.  So all of the many exoplanets so far discovered... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets...lie within our own galaxy, the Milky Way.

 

Which is why I selected another galaxy, M 81.

It's about 11.9 million light years from us, which puts it just within the Hubble Space Telescope's ability to resolve individual stars - but too far away for any of our methods of detecting exoplanets to actually work.  And this is the whole point of presenting this scenario to Ironhorse.  We cannot detect any exoplanets in that galaxy, yet scientists are confident that they are there.  What I'm hoping to discover from him is if he understands how and why scientists are able to draw this conclusion.  Or if he rejects their conclusion.  And if so, why.  His understanding and the limits of what he's prepared to accept are being tested here.  I do hope that he will respond.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[quinntar]

 

They say that they can detect planets by observing the star they're orbiting, theres a slight wobble.

 

Doppler spectroscopy - Wikipedia,

the free encyclopedia

Doppler spectroscopy is an

indirect method for finding

extrasolar ... as large as Jupiter,

for example, would cause its

parent star to wobble slightly as

the two objects orbit around their

center of mass.

Good call, AC.

 

Yes, the Doppler Spectroscopy does indeed reveal the presence of 'unseen' planets orbiting their host stars. However, this technique is limited to relatively near (less than 1,000 light years) stars to us. Beyond this distance there is simply too great a signal-to-noise ratio for the planets to be detected. So all of the many exoplanets so far discovered... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets...lie within our own galaxy, the Milky Way.

 

Which is why I selected another galaxy, M 81.

It's about 11.9 million light years from us, which puts it just within the Hubble Space Telescope's ability to resolve individual stars - but too far away for any of our methods of detecting exoplanets to actually work. And this is the whole point of presenting this scenario to Ironhorse. We cannot detect any exoplanets in that galaxy, yet scientists are confident that they are there. What I'm hoping to discover from him is if he understands how and why scientists are able to draw this conclusion. Or if he rejects their conclusion. And if so, why. His understanding and the limits of what he's prepared to accept are being tested here. I do hope that he will respond.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I did not know that, the only response I could think of is that what can happen will happen.

 

If the settings are right.

[quinntar]

Ok I have to come back to this.

 

Christians on the other hand say what can't happen always happens.

 

It's a miracle.

[Jeff]

IH will not understand what you're getting at, or will act like he doesn't to avoid an honest discussion of your point.

That's my fairly safe prediction

 

Lurkers watch this thread carefully.

[bornagainathiest]

IH will not understand what you're getting at, or will act like he doesn't to avoid an honest discussion of your point.
That's my fairly safe prediction

Lurkers watch this thread carefully.

 

Noted, Jeff.

.

.

.

I can reduce the number of questions and/or simplify them, if need be.

 

Ironhorse has been at pains to tell us that he's a 'reader' who has a desire to understand and to discover things for himself.

 

And I have a near-infinite store of patience when it comes to helping others read, understand and discover things for themselves.

 

 

 

(BIG, toothy smile.)  

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[florduh]

Ah, tirelessly battling blind faith with mere science. Good luck, and lurkers, pay attention to responses (if any).

[bornagainathiest]

Ah, tirelessly battling blind faith with mere science. Good luck, and lurkers, pay attention to responses (if any).

 

Florduh,

 

Ironhorse has nothing to worry about... so he's bound to eagerly take this test.  

 

No, seriously!  

 

He recently gave a one word reply to the question, 'What would cause him to give up his Christian faith?"

 

That one word?  NOTHING.

 

So, taking this test and then going on to learn how science understands a great deal about ALL of space and ALL of time should be nothing for him to worry about.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

BAA,

In my considered opinion, you are biting off more than Ironhorse can chew.

Thanks,

TRP

[quinntar]

 

Ah, tirelessly battling blind faith with mere science. Good luck, and lurkers, pay attention to responses (if any).

Florduh,

 

Ironhorse has nothing to worry about... so he's bound to eagerly take this test.

 

No, seriously!

 

He recently gave a one word reply to the question, 'What would cause him to give up his Christian faith?"

 

That one word? NOTHING.

 

So, taking this test and then going on to learn how science understands a great deal about ALL of space and ALL of time should be nothing for him to worry about.

 

What's nothing without evidence, what's nothing without proof?

[ironhorse]

Hello Ironhorse.  

 

Please follow this link... https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic0710a/zoomable/...which will take you to a 'zoomable' image of the galaxy M 81.

This object lies almost 12 million light years away, so we see it as it was...12 million years ago.  Light from M 81's stars takes 12 million years to reach us, so there is no possible way that we could see it as it is now.  Today.  07/13/2016.  Yet, scientists conclude that there are planets orbiting the stars of this galaxy... today.  Not 12 million years ago.  Today.  

 

Yet, these planets cannot be seen or detected in any way by any of our instruments.  Not even Hubble.

If you use the slider at the bottom of the Hubble image you can zoom in until you can see the individual stars making up M 81.  (For best effect, please zoom in on one of the spiral arms.  The core of the galaxy is too bright.)  But, no matter how deeply you zoom in you'll never be able to see any of the planets that scientists say are there.  That's because planets are hundreds of times smaller than the average star and don't emit any light of their own.  They just reflect a tiny amount of light that falls upon them.  So even the keen vision of Hubble falls far short of bringing any of these planets into view.  But scientists like Bhim... http://www.ex-christian.net/user/20773-bhim/#.V4Z_3fkrJD8...who is an astrophysicist, are quite certain that M 81's stars are orbited by many planets.

 

Now, this a twofold test, that I hope will determine how much you understand of the workings of science and also what you consider to be legitimate knowledge.

Therefore, please be so good as to answer these questions.  Thank you.

 

1.  

Do you understand how scientists conclude that things they cannot possibly see or detect in any way, actually do exist?

 

2.

Do you know of any other examples where scientists have made this kind of conclusion?  (If so, please specify.)

 

3.

Do you accept that their conclusion (these planets exist, today) qualifies as legitimate knowledge?

 

4.

Do you consider that scientists can only make legitimate statements about things that they can directly detect, investigate and measure, right here and now?

.

.

.

Many thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

My initial answers: 1. I knew there were things, from what I remembered seeing on some science programs or reading but I could not answer yes as meaning I fully understood. 2. Gravity was my first thought. 3. Yes, but not sure what is meant by legitimate knowledge. 4. Reading question 1 again, I answered no.

 

I admit my knowledge of science is basic at best. It has always been an interest but I am not expert.

 

Not sure of my answers and understanding I submitted the questions to a scientist for some help.

 

In his reply he first asked me a question: Have you made a statement like "Science can only make legitimate statements about what they can directly measure, right here and now"?

I tried to go back in the threads and see. I couldn’t find it but I guess I did make such a statement.

 

His reply to the questions:

 

I'm not sure why these questions are relevant.  I'll try to answer them below.  Have you made a statement like "Science can only make legitimate statements about what they can directly measure, right here and now"?  Because I don't think that's true, unless you are defining 'legitimate' and 'directly' in an unusual way. 

 

There's actually no need to talk about scientists and exoplanets; you can find better examples in daily experience.  For example, take the claim: "there is at least one uranium atom in my bowl of cereal."  Now, no one has actually measured that.  But you can make an incredibly strong inference that this statement is true just based on the tiny (but finite) concentration of uranium found just about everywhere. 

So I'd personally would answer these questions the following way:

 

1.  Yes, through induction or abduction, the same way a non-scientists can draw conclusions about things they cannot possible see or detect directly.

 

2.  Yes.  You can indirectly infer that all kinds of things exist (e.g. uranium atoms in my cereal).

 

3.  Yes, assuming that you're defining 'knowledge' as 'justified true belief' and not 'certainty'

 

4.  No.

 

His site: http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/WhyChristianity.htm

[bornagainathiest]

 

Hello Ironhorse.  

 

Please follow this link... https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic0710a/zoomable/...which will take you to a 'zoomable' image of the galaxy M 81.

This object lies almost 12 million light years away, so we see it as it was...12 million years ago.  Light from M 81's stars takes 12 million years to reach us, so there is no possible way that we could see it as it is now.  Today.  07/13/2016.  Yet, scientists conclude that there are planets orbiting the stars of this galaxy... today.  Not 12 million years ago.  Today.  

 

Yet, these planets cannot be seen or detected in any way by any of our instruments.  Not even Hubble.

If you use the slider at the bottom of the Hubble image you can zoom in until you can see the individual stars making up M 81.  (For best effect, please zoom in on one of the spiral arms.  The core of the galaxy is too bright.)  But, no matter how deeply you zoom in you'll never be able to see any of the planets that scientists say are there.  That's because planets are hundreds of times smaller than the average star and don't emit any light of their own.  They just reflect a tiny amount of light that falls upon them.  So even the keen vision of Hubble falls far short of bringing any of these planets into view.  But scientists like Bhim... http://www.ex-christian.net/user/20773-bhim/#.V4Z_3fkrJD8...who is an astrophysicist, are quite certain that M 81's stars are orbited by many planets.

 

Now, this a twofold test, that I hope will determine how much you understand of the workings of science and also what you consider to be legitimate knowledge.

Therefore, please be so good as to answer these questions.  Thank you.

 

1.  

Do you understand how scientists conclude that things they cannot possibly see or detect in any way, actually do exist?

 

2.

Do you know of any other examples where scientists have made this kind of conclusion?  (If so, please specify.)

 

3.

Do you accept that their conclusion (these planets exist, today) qualifies as legitimate knowledge?

 

4.

Do you consider that scientists can only make legitimate statements about things that they can directly detect, investigate and measure, right here and now?

.

.

.

Many thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

My initial answers: 1. I knew there were things, from what I remembered seeing on some science programs or reading but I could not answer yes as meaning I fully understood. 2. Gravity was my first thought. 3. Yes, but not sure what is meant by legitimate knowledge. 4. Reading question 1 again, I answered no.

 

I admit my knowledge of science is basic at best. It has always been an interest but I am not expert.

 

Not sure of my answers and understanding I submitted the questions to a scientist for some help.

 

In his reply he first asked me a question: Have you made a statement like "Science can only make legitimate statements about what they can directly measure, right here and now"?

I tried to go back in the threads and see. I couldn’t find it but I guess I did make such a statement.

 

His reply to the questions:

 

I'm not sure why these questions are relevant.  I'll try to answer them below.  Have you made a statement like "Science can only make legitimate statements about what they can directly measure, right here and now"?  Because I don't think that's true, unless you are defining 'legitimate' and 'directly' in an unusual way. 

 

There's actually no need to talk about scientists and exoplanets; you can find better examples in daily experience.  For example, take the claim: "there is at least one uranium atom in my bowl of cereal."  Now, no one has actually measured that.  But you can make an incredibly strong inference that this statement is true just based on the tiny (but finite) concentration of uranium found just about everywhere. 

So I'd personally would answer these questions the following way:

 

1.  Yes, through induction or abduction, the same way a non-scientists can draw conclusions about things they cannot possible see or detect directly.

 

2.  Yes.  You can indirectly infer that all kinds of things exist (e.g. uranium atoms in my cereal).

 

3.  Yes, assuming that you're defining 'knowledge' as 'justified true belief' and not 'certainty'

 

4.  No.

 

His site: http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/WhyChristianity.htm

 

 

Thank you for responding, Ironhorse.

 

I notice that you've given two sets of answers, the first being yours and the second being Shenvi's.  Now, one of the purposes of this thread is to determine how much you understand of the workings of science.  Therefore, would you please be so good as to explain... in your own words ...what you understand Shenvi to mean in his four replies.  Please note that asking him to explain and then cutting and pasting his words would not help us find out how much you understand.  Nor would paraphrasing what he might explain to you, should you ask him. Nor would referring to some other source for help.  The goal here is to discover if you understand what he means by induction, abduction, inference and justified true belief.   

 

I look forward to your explanation of all four points.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Hello Ironhorse.  

 

Please follow this link... https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic0710a/zoomable/...which will take you to a 'zoomable' image of the galaxy M 81.

This object lies almost 12 million light years away, so we see it as it was...12 million years ago.  Light from M 81's stars takes 12 million years to reach us, so there is no possible way that we could see it as it is now.  Today.  07/13/2016.  Yet, scientists conclude that there are planets orbiting the stars of this galaxy... today.  Not 12 million years ago.  Today.  

 

Yet, these planets cannot be seen or detected in any way by any of our instruments.  Not even Hubble.

If you use the slider at the bottom of the Hubble image you can zoom in until you can see the individual stars making up M 81.  (For best effect, please zoom in on one of the spiral arms.  The core of the galaxy is too bright.)  But, no matter how deeply you zoom in you'll never be able to see any of the planets that scientists say are there.  That's because planets are hundreds of times smaller than the average star and don't emit any light of their own.  They just reflect a tiny amount of light that falls upon them.  So even the keen vision of Hubble falls far short of bringing any of these planets into view.  But scientists like Bhim... http://www.ex-christian.net/user/20773-bhim/#.V4Z_3fkrJD8...who is an astrophysicist, are quite certain that M 81's stars are orbited by many planets.

 

Now, this a twofold test, that I hope will determine how much you understand of the workings of science and also what you consider to be legitimate knowledge.

Therefore, please be so good as to answer these questions.  Thank you.

 

1.  

Do you understand how scientists conclude that things they cannot possibly see or detect in any way, actually do exist?

 

2.

Do you know of any other examples where scientists have made this kind of conclusion?  (If so, please specify.)

 

3.

Do you accept that their conclusion (these planets exist, today) qualifies as legitimate knowledge?

 

4.

Do you consider that scientists can only make legitimate statements about things that they can directly detect, investigate and measure, right here and now?

.

.

.

Many thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

My initial answers: 1. I knew there were things, from what I remembered seeing on some science programs or reading but I could not answer yes as meaning I fully understood. 2. Gravity was my first thought. 3. Yes, but not sure what is meant by legitimate knowledge. 4. Reading question 1 again, I answered no.

 

I admit my knowledge of science is basic at best. It has always been an interest but I am not expert.

 

Not sure of my answers and understanding I submitted the questions to a scientist for some help.

 

In his reply he first asked me a question: Have you made a statement like "Science can only make legitimate statements about what they can directly measure, right here and now"?

I tried to go back in the threads and see. I couldn’t find it but I guess I did make such a statement.

 

His reply to the questions:

 

I'm not sure why these questions are relevant.  I'll try to answer them below.  Have you made a statement like "Science can only make legitimate statements about what they can directly measure, right here and now"?  Because I don't think that's true, unless you are defining 'legitimate' and 'directly' in an unusual way. 

 

There's actually no need to talk about scientists and exoplanets; you can find better examples in daily experience.  For example, take the claim: "there is at least one uranium atom in my bowl of cereal."  Now, no one has actually measured that.  But you can make an incredibly strong inference that this statement is true just based on the tiny (but finite) concentration of uranium found just about everywhere. 

So I'd personally would answer these questions the following way:

 

1.  Yes, through induction or abduction, the same way a non-scientists can draw conclusions about things they cannot possible see or detect directly.

 

2.  Yes.  You can indirectly infer that all kinds of things exist (e.g. uranium atoms in my cereal).

 

3.  Yes, assuming that you're defining 'knowledge' as 'justified true belief' and not 'certainty'

 

4.  No.

 

His site: http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/WhyChristianity.htm

 

 

Thank you for responding, Ironhorse.

 

I notice that you've given two sets of answers, the first being yours and the second being Shenvi's.  Now, one of the purposes of this thread is to determine how much you understand of the workings of science.  Therefore, would you please be so good as to explain... in your own words ...what you understand Shenvi to mean in his four replies.  Please note that asking him to explain and then cutting and pasting his words would not help us find out how much you understand.  Nor would paraphrasing what he might explain to you, should you ask him. Nor would referring to some other source for help.  The goal here is to discover if you understand what he means by induction, abduction, inference and justified true belief.   

 

I look forward to your explanation of all four points.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

I'm still looking forward to your explanation of all four points, Ironhorse.

 

Thank you.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again Ironhorse.

 

This is a gentle reminder that I'm patiently waiting for you to provide an explanation (in your own words) of the four points, as per my request in post # 14, over a week ago.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[ironhorse]

BBA,

You stated one of the purposes of this thread is to determine how much I understand of the workings of science.
I do not need a test to show I am ignorant of many scientific matters.

I know I am. I’ve taken only the basic high school and college science classes. I barely passed chemistry. I can’t remember everything from those classes. I can’t remember the definitions of all the scientific terms.

So I fail your test.

I would appreciate it if you post questions to me in other threads.
I will reply with either an answer or an “I don’t know the answer” or where we might could find an answer.

Thank you

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you for your reply, Rionhorse.

 

BBA,

You stated one of the purposes of this thread is to determine how much I understand of the workings of science.
I do not need a test to show I am ignorant of many scientific matters.

I know I am. I’ve taken only the basic high school and college science classes. I barely passed chemistry. I can’t remember everything from those classes. I can’t remember the definitions of all the scientific terms.

So I fail your test.

 

I see.

 

If that's so and you don't understand the roles of induction, abduction and inference in science, then I must conclude that your rejection of the science underpinning the theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the science itself or the evidence that is presented to support that theory.  I therefore further conclude that your rejection of evolutionary theory stems solely from your Christian faith.  This faith being an unreasonable and highly subjective belief in things you cannot see, things you cannot produce any evidence for and things you cannot present a logical argument for.  

 

Please feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented you in any way here. 

 

 

I would appreciate it if you post questions to me in other threads.
I will reply with either an answer or an “I don’t know the answer” or where we might could find an answer.

Thank you

 

If you check Rionhorse, you'll see that there are two other threads in the Den where my questions await you.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you for your reply, Rionhorse.

 

BBA,

You stated one of the purposes of this thread is to determine how much I understand of the workings of science.

I do not need a test to show I am ignorant of many scientific matters.

I know I am. I’ve taken only the basic high school and college science classes. I barely passed chemistry. I can’t remember everything from those classes. I can’t remember the definitions of all the scientific terms.

So I fail your test.

 

I see.

 

If that's so and you don't understand the roles of induction, abduction and inference in science, then I must conclude that your rejection of the science underpinning the theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the science itself or the evidence that is presented to support that theory.  I therefore further conclude that your rejection of evolutionary theory stems solely from your Christian faith.  This faith being an unreasonable and highly subjective belief in things you cannot see, things you cannot produce any evidence for and things you cannot present a logical argument for.  

 

Please feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented you in any way here. 

 

 

I would appreciate it if you post questions to me in other threads.

I will reply with either an answer or an “I don’t know the answer” or where we might could find an answer.

Thank you

 

If you check Rionhorse, you'll see that there are two other threads in the Den where my questions await you.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

Ironhorse,

 

I'd appreciate it if you would acknowledge that what I wrote about you (in blue, above) is correct and doesn't misrepresent you in any way. 

 

If I receive no response I'll conclude that my comments are fair, correct and truly representative.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Thank you for your reply, Rionhorse.

 

BBA,

You stated one of the purposes of this thread is to determine how much I understand of the workings of science.

I do not need a test to show I am ignorant of many scientific matters.

I know I am. I’ve taken only the basic high school and college science classes. I barely passed chemistry. I can’t remember everything from those classes. I can’t remember the definitions of all the scientific terms.

So I fail your test.

 

I see.

 

If that's so and you don't understand the roles of induction, abduction and inference in science, then I must conclude that your rejection of the science underpinning the theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the science itself or the evidence that is presented to support that theory.  I therefore further conclude that your rejection of evolutionary theory stems solely from your Christian faith.  This faith being an unreasonable and highly subjective belief in things you cannot see, things you cannot produce any evidence for and things you cannot present a logical argument for.  

 

Please feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented you in any way here. 

 

 

I would appreciate it if you post questions to me in other threads.

I will reply with either an answer or an “I don’t know the answer” or where we might could find an answer.

Thank you

 

If you check Rionhorse, you'll see that there are two other threads in the Den where my questions await you.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

Ironhorse,

 

I'd appreciate it if you would acknowledge that what I wrote about you (in blue, above) is correct and doesn't misrepresent you in any way. 

 

If I receive no response I'll conclude that my comments are fair, correct and truly representative.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Thank you for your reply, Rionhorse.

 

BBA,

You stated one of the purposes of this thread is to determine how much I understand of the workings of science.

I do not need a test to show I am ignorant of many scientific matters.

I know I am. I’ve taken only the basic high school and college science classes. I barely passed chemistry. I can’t remember everything from those classes. I can’t remember the definitions of all the scientific terms.

So I fail your test.

 

I see.

 

If that's so and you don't understand the roles of induction, abduction and inference in science, then I must conclude that your rejection of the science underpinning the theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the science itself or the evidence that is presented to support that theory.  I therefore further conclude that your rejection of evolutionary theory stems solely from your Christian faith.  This faith being an unreasonable and highly subjective belief in things you cannot see, things you cannot produce any evidence for and things you cannot present a logical argument for.  

 

Please feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented you in any way here. 

 

 

I would appreciate it if you post questions to me in other threads.

I will reply with either an answer or an “I don’t know the answer” or where we might could find an answer.

Thank you

 

If you check Rionhorse, you'll see that there are two other threads in the Den where my questions await you.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

Ironhorse,

 

I'd appreciate it if you would acknowledge that what I wrote about you (in blue, above) is correct and doesn't misrepresent you in any way. 

 

If I receive no response I'll conclude that my comments are fair, correct and truly representative.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

Ironhorse,

 

I have no wish to misrepresent you in any way in Ex-C.

 

So please respond to my polite request for you to correct anything inaccurate that I might have written about you in post # 18.

 

Not knowing what your response is leaves this thread in a kind of limbo.

 

While you've indicated that you will reply to me about other questions in other threads, I still don't know if the conclusions I've drawn from this one misrepresent you in any way.

 

And so I request your response on this matter, to prevent this thread from hanging unfinished for want of your input.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[Lyra]

BornAgainAtheist, didn't you also have some still-unanswered questions on your posts on threads that I'd started? (Debates between you and IH)

[bornagainathiest]

BornAgainAtheist, didn't you also have some still-unanswered questions on your posts on threads that I'd started? (Debates between you and IH)

 

That's right, Lyra.

 

Ironhorse's 'In' tray is quite full at the moment.

 

There are outstanding questions from you, me and other members piling up for him, here in the Den.

 

I hope he doesn't think that if he ignores them, they'll go away.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Lyra]

We really are circling around like a couple of hungry lions.