[_ Old Earth _] Gideon and the fleece

[Gary]

keebs: Because science can't prove things that don't happen...

Gary: Can you NOT prove that fish + water = chicken.

keebs: Yes I can. TRY IT.

Gary: Oh....... so fish + water does NOT convert to a chicken?

keebs: Of course not...

Gary: So.... science PROVES that fish + water does NOT = chicken.

keebs: Yes.

Gary: So science can prove things that don't happen...

keebs: hmmmmmmm ???????!!!???

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[keebs]

Ahhh, you still don't undestand!

Keebs: Science cannot prove things that don't happen...

Gary: Can you not prove that fish + water = chicken?

Keebs: No, you can't, because fish + water != chicken.

Once again...YOU CANNOT PROVE THINGS THAT CANNOT HAPPEN...

 

[keebs]

You see, you've changed your argument, hoping nobody would notice. At first, you asked to prove that something that doesn't happen (light traveling at a speed of 0) doesn't happen. Now, you are asking to prove something that doesn't happen (fish+water=chicken) happens. Hhhmm...flip-flop :

 

[Gary]

ONCE AGAIN...... how many times will I need to put the fish into water to convince you that it will not happen? Will it convert to a chicken?

Yes or no?

IF you say NO...... you show that putting a fish into water does NOT convert it into a chicken.

Care to differ?

When last did your fish (which you put into water) convert to chicken?

:-D :-D

 

[keebs]

Hahaha I just can't believe how you aren't understanding this.

You are asking to prove that putting a fish in water will not turn it into a chicken...Brutus was asking to prove that putting a fish in water will turn it into a chicken. You cannot prove something that isn't true. You can prove that something that isn't true isn't true, but you can't prove that something that isn't true is true.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Keebs, are willing to admit that there is no way to disprove this story in the Bible or would you rather continue the enlightening discussion you are having with Gary.

P.S. Keebs where did I ever mention this?

...Brutus was asking to prove that putting a fish in water will turn it into a chicken.

 

[keebs]

P.S. Keebs where did I ever mention this?

You're taking the quote too literal. You originally wanted a scientific explanation for something that doesn't happen, so there is no way to give you one. When Gary made his fish and chickens comment, I just applied his words to your concept. Don't read into too much, it was merely rhetoric.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Gary you are confusing things, you're pointing out false dillemas. So I'll refine keebs' point to make it clear.

Science cannot explain phenomena when the explanation of those things would directly contradict phenomena we know to happen.

"things that do not happen" = "speed of light is zero"

No one has claimed that the speed of light were zero, were someone to claim such a thing, NO scientific explanation could be given as there are things we know with high levels of confirmation that directly contradict the statement.

Atheist: Science can prove that the speed of light is not zero.
Christian: You agree that the speed of light is NOT zero. So you have PROVED that things that don't happen (i.e. Light = Zero speed) CAN be proved!!!

You seem to have an imprecise definition of the word, proved. Since it is roughly interchangable with "shown" then lets replace it in your quote.

Atheist: Science can show that the speed of light is not zero.
Christian: You agree that the speed of light is NOT zero. So you have SHOWN that things that don't happen (i.e. Light = Zero speed) CAN be shown!!!

What you lack is three words here, tack "not to happen" on to the end of your statement and then it's complete.
Thus: "Things that do not happen can be shown, by science, not to happen."

Without this your statement is contradictary, you are saying that the speed of light can be shown to be !=0 and thus it can be shown that the speed of light is =0.

Atheist claim: Science can't prove things that don't happen
Christian: Science can't prove speed of light is not ZERO?

Look at the statement I've just quoted and then look at the first quote. You're stating two different things, and confusing your argument because you think you have one. I'll fix your statement so that it fits logically with what is said above.

Science can't prove things that don't happen
Science can't prove speed of light is ZERO?

Now both are true.

 

[Gary]

Keebs: Science cannot prove things that don't happen...

Gary: Can you not prove that fish + water = chicken?

Keebs: No, you can't, because fish + water (not)= chicken.

Gary: Each time I put a fish into water it does NOT become a chicken.
Hence, I can show you (first) by observation conducted several hundred times that fish + water (not)= chicken.

Therfore, science (repeatable experiments) has shown that fish + water (not)= chicken

Science HAS proven (beyond reasonable doubt) that fish + water does not happen to produce chicken.

Gary: So.... science PROVES that fish + water does (NOT)= chicken.

keebs: Yes.

Gary: So science can prove things that don't happen...

:-? :-? :-?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Keebs: Science cannot prove things that don't happen...

Gary: Can you not prove that fish + water = chicken?

Keebs: No, you can't, because fish + water (not)= chicken.

Gary: Each time I put a fish into water it does NOT become a chicken.
Hence, I can show you (first) by observation conducted several hundred times that fish + water (not)= chicken.

Therfore, science (repeatable experiments) has shown that fish + water (not)= chicken

Science HAS proven (beyond reasonable doubt) that fish + water does not happen to produce chicken.

Gary: So.... science PROVES that fish + water does (NOT)= chicken.

keebs: Yes.

Gary: So science can prove things that don't happen...

Gary have you not read my post!?

 

[keebs]

Gary: So science can prove things that don't happen...

No, science cannot prove things that don't happen. You just don't understand the word "prove." In order for your statements to be consistent, the above quote should read:

Gary: So science can disprove things that don't happen...

 

[Gary]

syntax: Science CAN'T prove (things that don't happen)

Gary: Science CAN (dis)prove (speed of light = zero)
Now (speed of light = zero) = (thing's that don't happen)
Therefore, science CAN (dis)prove (thing's that don't happen)

Q.E.D. (for those who know Latin)

:wink: :wink:

 

[keebs]

No...science cannot prove things that don't happen, science disproves things that don't happen. Two different words, two different meanings. Get a dictionary.

 

[Gary]

keebs: You just don't understand the word "prove."

Gary: Please enlighten me. What is "scientific proof"? How do YOU define it?

 

[keebs]

I wasn't even talking about something as specific as scientific proof, I was talking about the word in general. When you prove a statement, it means you show it to be true. When you disprove a statement, it means you show it to be false. You are confusing the two.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

syntax: Science CAN'T prove (things that don't happen)

Gary: Science CAN prove (speed of light = zero)
Now (speed of light = zero) = (thing's that don't happen)
Therefore, science CAN prove (thing's that don't happen)

Q.E.D. (for those who know Latin)

:wink: :wink:

Here Gary, I'll simplify your statement.

Premise 1: Science can prove statement C(c=0) is true.
Premise 2: C is something that is false.
Conclusion: Therefore, Science can prove things that are false to be true.

Like it or not this is what you said, because of your imprecision with the word, "prove."

Furthermore, you STILL didn't understand the point I was making, which in turn was a simplification of keebs' point. So I'll take your simplification of my statement and amend it so it actually fits with what I and keebs have been saying.

{Science CAN'T prove that (things that don't happen) can be shown to happen}

Gary for some reason you have been saying that:
By showing that the speed of light is equal to c, science has proved (speed of light=0).
You seem to think that prove means "to show the truth or falsehood of the subject." But this is not the definition of prove used in a scientific context.
Here is the definition for prove that clusty gave me:
[establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment; "The experiment demonstrated the instability of the compound"; "The mathematician showed the validity of the conjecture"]

Not that you cannot establish the validity/demonstrate to be true which is false, that's a simple absurdity. And this is the fault in your logical statements. So please, please address this problem.

 

[Blazin Bones]

P.S. Keebs where did I ever mention this?

You're taking the quote too literal. You originally wanted a scientific explanation for something that doesn't happen, so there is no way to give you one. When Gary made his fish and chickens comment, I just applied his words to your concept. Don't read into too much, it was merely rhetoric.

I feel you all are neglecting a possibility. What if this occurance was a miracle? Doctors who practice in the field of medical science except that what can not be explained is a miracle.

Websters helps with this definition: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

This definition suggests that God is involved.

Websters aslo offers this more scientifically exceptable defintion: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment.

Isn't God's power amazing. The problem with most of todays science is that they try to take God out of the picture. In the end it takes the same amount of faith to believe in God as it does to believe in no God. God is the explaination for what happened here.

 

[keebs]

I feel you all are neglecting a possibility. What if this occurance was a miracle?

Miracles aren't science. Miracles are not subject to the scientific method, nor do they make trustworthy predictions.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Then why does the medical field except them, keebs?

 

[Gary]

syntax: Science CAN'T prove that (things that don't happen) can be shown to happen

Gary: Science CAN (dis)prove that [(speed of light = zero) can be shown to happen]

Seems like it is a problem of definition.

"Can't prove" is not the same as "can disprove"

:-? :-?