I can perform many mental contortions, freediver, but this one is beyond me I'm afraid.

>>I have outlined the basic argument above. Perhaps you should respond to that, rather than asserting I made no argument.<<

Since my view is that you have not succeeded in putting forward any credible argument, it is by definition impossible for me to respond to it. The moment you do state a position that holds some validity, I'll be happy to assess it on its merits.

Your argument still seems to rest upon the "I've said this in my blog" stance, which unfortunately sheds no light at all, as it says the same thing only using more words.

>>In any case, understand the argument first before declaring it lacks value.<<

I have freely admitted that I cannot see any rationale to your argument. You are free to suggest that this is down to my own stupidity, whereas I propose that it is due to your inability to put your ideas across lucidly. Either way, it is perfectly in order for me to determine that because your argument is both incomprehensible and unsupported by external sources, it lacks value.

>>Perhaps you still haven't noticed my references to other peoples work? Do try to keep up<<

I notice that, typically, you do not point to any of these, which would be a sure way to close off the discussion that you are primarily self-referential.

Like in the very next paragraph, addressing TRTL:

>>His arguments merely reflect his assumptions about God, not the liklihood of God's existence. For example...<<

Once again, the URL points to your blog.

Careful. Too much of that turns you blind

Sancho said on Tuesday, 22 April "Considering that every claim about the natural world made in the Bible is wrong .... you'd think that loyal Christians would be railing against astronomy and geograhy as much as evolution.

So, why aren't the fundamentalists producing hysterical propaganda about the "big lie" of quantum physics or dark matter? What is it about evolution that frightens them so much?"

This argument is based in ignorance of what Christians actually believe about the universe, astronomy, geography, quantum physics and dark matter. There is no dichotomy between natural science and Christian faith. Some of the leading research into natural science id done by committed Christians. The CSIRO has several Christians leading research into natural science fields

Hello Philo,

"There is no dichotomy between natural science and Christian faith."

If not so, it is a recent compromise.

The Early Church was against Gnosis [knowledge], the Medieval Church against Science in General [Read, "the Starry Messenger" chapter from Bronowski's, "The Ascent of Man'], supressing Mendel's work in the nineteenth century, and, in the US, the Monkey trials of the twentieth century. In the US too, there was recently built a creationist theme park. I

I know you personally would agree, with science, not older religious interpretations, on many matters. If I recall correctly, you feel that the churches distort the meaning of virgin birth. Me too.

Thiering suggests that an illegitimate birth would have negative implications for Jesus vis~a~vis James in establishing a new House of David, as only the latter, James, would regarded, as legitimately born in wedlock, by all the Jewish sects. Jesus would have had a harder time.

You see no dichonomy, yet millions of Christians do; Christians having as much faith in priests and ministers, as if they were god-substitutes. Herein, churches have historically led flocks into blind alleys and stustained ignorance of the natural world on many occassions.

I maintain whether one believes in Jesus, Zeus or another entity; one should study source documents, not the decrees and doctrines of clerics and councils.

In studying Jesus: Where I would differ from a Christian is that I would research the Hedronian and Davanic dynasties in context with Roman and to lesser extent Greek histographies and relate these studies to the OT projections, commentary [e.g., Plutarch] and relevant documents [Roman Law and the Dead Sea Schools].

Cheers.

"Your argument hinges entirely on the restrictiveness of definitions and 'ground rules'!

No it doesn't. I was trying to put it into context, by differentiating it from Kuhn's focus on emergent properites.

"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.

It doesn't rule it out either. This is just common sense. Does a scientist eat his breakfast in a 'scientific' manner? Must they avoid all other methods and fields (eg politics) while calling themselves a scientist?

"No scientist is in any doubt about the value of the scientific method.

that is odd, coming from someone who can't even define the scientific method.

"It is even more restrictive than Poppers

How so?

"it has to be to define evolutionary theory as 'non-scientific'

Argumentum ad consequentium is a loigcal fallacy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20consequentiam

"So, if you believe your theory is a blending of these two major perspectives

Not really. I can't find anything in it that conflicts with Kuhn's views. It is more complimentary to Kuhn's views. I do think it conflict with Popper's views.

"Neither of them (Kuhn nor Popper) concluded that evolution is non-science

Did either of them conclude that it is science? Did either consider the distinction between evolution and antural selection?

"You have seriously failed to elucidate how you achieve your conclusions from using Kuhn's line of reasoning

I never claimed to do so.

"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.

I have encouraged you to come up with an alternative that isn't so restrictive, but you are unable to. It doesn't make sense to change the definition just so you can include evolution.

"That you have completely failed at properly attributing (ie referencing) ANYBODYS work in all your writings....

There is no need to attribute what is common knowledge. I consider what I was taught in grade 8 science to be common knowledge. The rest is my original work. that's not to say no-one else has thought of it, but it does mean I do not have to credit others. I have had a look around and no-one has come up with exactly the same thing.

Oliver:

"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]

While he uses a different approach to me, it would appear he would reach the same conclusion.

To the intellectual. Smile.