Look at it this way Oliver. They can stay here and pray, while the rest of us goes out and explores the galaxy, eventually they will get the picture, and hey! We need someone to do the gardening.lol

All the best.

EVO

Vanilla, Vanilla, Vanilla ...

" ... a tree in Sweden that is nearly 10,000 years old ... "

Don't you know?

A creationist explained such phenomena to me. G-d is testing your faith.

If you believe this tree is 10,000 years old, you are DOOMED.

We're all ... well most of us are ... doomed I tell you ... DOOMED. Damned to hell and all its torments, grinding and gnashing of teeth (those without teeth will be provided for), for believing the tree is 4,000 years older than it actually is ... if you know what I mean.

Perhaps the tree had magical fertilizer ... some devoted soul. Or, perhaps g-d exilerated its growth ... JUST TO UPSET YOU ... and you ... and even you.

Having been warned about g-d and his machinations ... he's found his match in me ...

Now about the Chaos theory ...

freediver,
"As I understand it, Popper's view differs in that Kuhn focuses on the emergent properties of science as a community, whereas Popper focuses on the ground rules. Popper makes them too restrictive and placed unnecessary demands on the motives of scientists, rather than the methods."

I nearly spat my beer out all over my monitor when I read this. Your argument hinges entirely on the restrictiveness of definitions and 'ground rules'!

Periods of 'normal science' described by Kuhn do not mean that scientists "move in and out of the scientific method at will", I believe that you do not understand what is being talked about here.

No scientist is in any doubt about the value of the scientific method. However, the semantic part of your argument is where you fail. It is even more restrictive than Poppers, it has to be to define evolutionary theory as 'non-scientific', Kuhn would not put such a label on it at all.

So, if you believe your theory is a blending of these two major perspectives, I don't think you've succeeded very well. Neither of them (Kuhn nor Popper) concluded that evolution is non-science, with good reason. You have seriously failed to elucidate how you achieve your conclusions from using Kuhn's line of reasoning (if indeed you do use it).
In summary, what appears to be the case is that you are quite restrictive in what constitutes science (unnecessarily so in my opinion, and I'm sure it would be Kuhn's also) and that is all your argument hinges on.

That you have completely failed at properly attributing (ie referencing) ANYBODYS work in all your writings, other than to say you've 'read such and such', makes your blog not in the least credible, I suggest you work to improve that.
You haven't really outlined an argument in your latest effort, more like written bits and pieces and called it one.

Evo.,

Enjoyed your comment.

Freediver,

Popper and Kuhn use the terms confirmation differently. Popper is deferring away self-confirmation without the possibilty of refutation.

Kuhn, explains confirmation in terms of "reasonable agreement" in the scientific community. That determines scientists choice between theories, which later require further measurement. Here, Kuhn alludes to Lord Kelvin's dictum, "if you cannot measure; your knowlege is meagre and unsatisfactory".

To Kuhn, confirmation, and I am typing with a Kuhn journal aticle {Issis , Vol. 52, No.2 (1961), pp. 161-193] open to me, is a "function" and an "aid in the choice between theories"... "In scientific practice the real confirmation questions involve comparison between two theories and the world, not the comparison of one theory and the world. In these three way comparisons measurement has particular advantage." -- [Thomas S. Kuhn [1961]

Cosmology presents competing models to explain "the world" [Kuhn], the universe, actually. Hence, I ask again how do you explain God's estistence? ... And ask you to quantify God's model of the universe [to compete with other scientific theories]? What is your theory of God and what instrumentation and experiment can you bring to show that God is the best explanation

Sells,

Kuhn, I think makes an interesting point about the need to not have just one model and "the world" (say, also, universe or creation). Competing religions do not suffice, because history can show how these relegions were developed by humans and the faithful tend commence the investigations from a prior conclusions, as I have suggested to you, previouly. Hence I ask:

[1] What is your explanation for the existence of God?

[2] Cosmologists can present conceptual models and experiment for the competing models of The Big Bang and The Solid State Universe. Both must address "the work" in Kuhn's terms snd be refutable in Popper's terms.

- Hence, what is your conceptual model for divine creation and what experimentation and instrumention will confirm the Theory of God's creation?

To start with Jesus is a prioi rationale. Before claims on Jesus is God, one must define/prove the concept, "God", validly, reliable and with internal consistency. Idea should normally read to theory and theory to experimentation which provided qualifications and quantifications, showing better agreement [preferably measurable agreement] than a competing the theory, say The Big Bang.

God is a prime construct in creationism and is therefore relevant to evolutionary theory.

[Thanks a again for your earlier good wishes. Still under treatment.]

Sancho opened with “latest attempt by Christian fundamentalists to put a fake moustache on creationism and call it science.”

Go check out

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

and then tell me you reckon this is a challenge to evolutionist theories.

Without seeing more, I would suggest it has more in common with Mel Brooks than either Michael Moore (the big flab) or Al Gore (the big fake).

As for the rest. Evolution is a continually changing thing, hence theories will and should abound as knowledge expands to support new theories and delete the old ones.

ID is a deliberate attempt to define in those absolute terms what is evolving ad the last time I looked, “evolution” means “change” and “change” was something which is incompatible with “absolute definition”.

Whilst I choose to believe in a higher being, common sense suggests if he wanted us to be absolute in our evolution, he would not have endowed us with the freewill which enables us to invent, change and to some degree, control and direct our circumstances.