NOMA - Is this the answer?

I will return to the first in the series of posts to show by qouting the POPE that Gould could have been a bit more sentential when displacing the creationist insistance in this instance for I have come to consider Steve's Philosophy flawed but I like what he says about compartive zoology in the name of Aggasiz. I do not think the loss of purpose is "cultural". 9-11 proved otherwise to me. Gould wrote a few pages on this as well.i AM Not so sure thaT there is as much magic in Egpyt than the prof had led us to believe for I can still not discount Jerimiah 23:24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LOrd. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.and"I have heard what the profets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed."Concerning the Fox Natl geo special last nite and further from my Grandfather's speech at the 1965 Honors Convocation SUNY fredonia :"As a result of this philosophy, man's concept of his universe underwent radical changes.Some humanists have charged that science has dealt mankind four serious body blows:
1)Galileo removed man from the center of the universem,
2)Newton made God unnecessary,
3)Darwin thrust man back into the animal kingdom, and
4)Freud put him at the mercy of his subconscious.These blows to man's solar plexus are held to explain modern man's self-contempt and justify his giving up will and responsibility. We are told that "scientifically speaking" man is altogether a conditioned and helpless being.The scientific creed is that man must make himself a edisembodied eye before the universe...This may all be very well for certain scientific workers, but, to most men, the abdication of purpose seems to equate with a denial of life within."If I am still not clear read two more verses "The profet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. what is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord...but if resistence still can not find the handle to the place spaced consider that Stan continued to say..."parentheticaly, since scientists are also men, we have a second super-imposed spectrum" which again may not be mere magic if for instance fundamental series explain energy absorption in the former space attribuited to electrons.

My grandfather said that there were TWO spectra man-made and on purpose but that there was some denial in the creating of both by humans and that he doubted this was soemthing for all science to continue. I think GOuld disagreed with me on this and this is why he asked me what vegtables I had in my brown bag yet he knew full well but I as the two spectra can be writ by drag and drop were not picked up at CU even thought we were using this technology and I was called the vegtable in this culture that could not even at this place do what AD White said the place was meant to do. I do not speak of US court invovlement in the same but there is even some overlap here.I understand that you may have some reservations with Steve as well but as I intend to show more about the POPES position I think it a bit premature to conclude about "Full Philosophy" as I heard being said in Providence Legislature for any of this stuff that would be rigorously CATHOLIC.

I think the CHRUCH as a position in writing and Gould one on the philosophy of science. More later on the plenum vs the continuum and Croizat on Catholisim and Panbiogoegraphy for the answer to ? do seeds fall to earth, sun, somewher elese???Q, this is from memory and so I may have change it as I read again where I may have marginalized Gould's text. All is not White Mythology circled squares...etc for any crack Gould Did depict.Boltzmann wrote, "At present it appears that we cannot define infinity in any other way than as the limit of ever increasing finite way than as the limit of ever increasing finite quantities; at least, until now no one has been able to fashion any other concept of infinity that can be grasped." Whether or not this refers rigorously to Bosocovich or the itch that Dean may neve have disembodied his eye for now with Pope John Paul one may in the continuance of some common steady motion fancy such fashion as Cantor did send info to the Pope of his day about this infinity Pascal did not have but doubled if.But to do so would require more than a denail of Gould's philosophy in attention(to Croizat's position on the man ornot) to the Church's text on the essence of the matter in man's linej of ascent to descend into the popularization that still argues against any technicality in error.For instance Boltzmann said, "In order to find the sutiable assumptions, we have to bear in mind that we must presume, for the sake of explanation of apparently continuous bodies that of each species of atoms, or, more generally, mechanical individuals an exceedingly great number be present in the most diverse intitial conditions. In order to treat this assumption mathematically, a special science has been invented, whose aim is not..." and if this in fact referred to Gibbs1902 "The only error into which one can fall, is the want of agreement between the premises and the conclusions." then the independence in the writing of Pope Paul need NOT be in the infinity of Gould's fracted breach of a position stewed or not if evolutionary theory only used in that philosophy componentibilty infinity of which it has had reason to do and discuss.I would need a closer textual synthesis to show the two sentences I may be refrecening not "he will be shown wanting"(about Bill Clinton) to from THE POPE are as theyappear this time to me to be.Gibbs requires if ANY assumption was that some one time be given. Only God... I would take this as the timing of Cantor to his' Pope. There may be a science of adaptations that does not first agree as to gene frequiencies but matches shapes in the process of forming such etc.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-18-2002]

My grandfather was agnostic to atheisitic so are you saying that a generation does not exist?? I can only conclude that you would have to agree with ICR that evolutionists are religious to "overly" religious which is something I never thought. GOuld was correct to criticize the cone of diversity in science and my grandfather while not this religious as far as I know kept his teaching of "evolution" well within the clearly communicated and understood version of either side.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Originally posted by Brad McFall:My grandfather was agnostic to atheisitic so are you saying that a generation does not exist??Irrelevant.[/QUOTE][/B]to start- i willedit back no all time now. NOT-- The Trend to species selection can have an adaptation which croizat was saying was what law of growth was being taken in advantage of and is in Maxwell stat etc that he said was ok to have two ways of seeing the results etc etc that my granddad said there were two spectra of larger which is passed on by people not objects for which the non-overlapping phil nature of GOuld would be in this instance the "independent systems" of Gibbs WIHOUT the narrowed start of the science which even the Pope may not object to. I didnt find the Vatican document in the first pass pass my mess of papers but more later on to how to get out of Russel's geodesic andnot ball and chained top Whiteheads generation (boyds ) of philosophy. That is not even evoution writ differntly.Since atheism and agnosticism are not cohesive belief systems with any common rites, rituals, or doctrine what one atheist or agnostic may do or believe is totally unrelated to others may do.it was not unrelated to me doing herpetology. I think he as agnoistic may have seen a "baramin" unawares " etc [QUOTE][B]
This is not the same with theists, though, since they do have common beliefs in this regard.[/QUOTE][/B]BUT my mother for instance being one in this category assuming you had maintained a dichotmy would have said evolution and personal god are compatible but this belief failed me when the serious ness of my generations case reached actual legal status and began to be played out in the courts in the wrong theories evolving judgement for the punishement of not cleaning up room etc.
[B][QUOTE] Religion:

​

1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destinyThere is nothing supernatural, or divine, about evolution.[/B][/QUOTE]Ok you are taking mom's disagreement with grand ma.

quote:

---

GOuld was correct to criticize the cone of diversity in science and my grandfather while not this religious as far as I know kept his teaching of "evolution" well within the clearly communicated and understood version of either side.

​

Knowing creationists this is either a misquote or quoting out of context.

​

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]

---

[/B][/QUOTE]it is not out of context and if you want more of my grandfathers writing typed in let me know under the other post in this thread. You have to find biology in the middle of two spectrums that go from servant to master etc and what I, BSM, rather than any other familty member meant to summarize and conclude the PREmiss was what I actually got discussed with EVOLUTIONISTS on Taxacom before I was kicked off there as well as out cornell. I am sorry if the epistemology of c/e is such a maze so rest assured you and I can sare a very confident ontology no matter the talkinpast that occurs. I will try if you stay cool.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-18-2002]

You could understand that choice of the generation to discuss evolution really isnt an option. The points were spoken by my Grandfather, Willard F . Stanely when I was 1 here is a bit of the larger context. we could argue "time" as I am with q interalia but I hope you choose to see to words in BOLD I have spaced out rather as my dad of grand did embolden."I do not have the necessary time at my disposal to try to develop the thesis that s c i e n c e i s m e r e l y a s e r v a n t o f m a n; that it has no moral or immoral significance; that it was the inevitable evolution of human intelligence - a more efficient way of applying the human mind to certain kinds of problems. However, the application of its thinking, its skills and its products is a matter for a l l m a n k i n d - probably through their practicing political scientists. As an example - let us take what most people consider the most terrifying product of science the atomic bomb...Who supplied the astronomical finances that threw the normal progress of physics research completely off its natural time table? Society, through its practicing political scientists, wanted a job done. They turned to the only facet o fthe population which could do the job. Once again science, became the servant of man.Now, to return to our former question -"What happened to this promised Utopia?"It is usually conceded that the three important ingredients developed by 18th century science were:
1)statement of fact shcould be based on observation and experimentation, no upon unsupported authroity
2)the inanimate world is a self-acting, self-perpetuating system, in which all changes conform to natural laws; and
3)the earth is not the center of the universe, and man is not its purpose. Furthermore, p u r p o s e itselrfr is a scientfically useless concept.As a result of this philosophy, man's concept of the universe underwent...{words I already quoted in the meathead of a family...The scientific creed is that man must make himself a disembodied eye before the universe. Only in this way can objectivity be obtained: by recognizing the natural phenomena are without purpose. Truths are to be known only by their complete divorce from man-like characteristics. In this way they become postitive truths. One of the chief inventions of the scientific point of view is the denial of man of his own consciousness and his rejection of any purpose for himself in the universe. This may all be very well for certain scientific workers...The biological science necessarily occupy a middle position between these two extremes..If you want more of this text let me know.

I doubt JP has position ON NOMA. I could be wrong. we would all be interested to know that. What I said was that NOMA is part of the parcel etc of GOuld Philosophy which to be true philosophically *should* be true in the emprics as well than any inherent apriori for which I would rather attempt to falsify THE PHILSOPHY if it is not true. That is a larger project than quouting from vatican documents to the tune of *any* philosophy. I only said "the position" of the CHRUCH was in writing. It involved some modern penmanship about the discipline of biology NOT being the phyics and chem and so while there is much (see E. Mayr) work on this as a seperate disipline my grandfather had found this in the middle but then if it was not seperate the extremes from which it would isolate or not would hardly ever be agreed to by any two intellectuals with an interest in the case etc. But that the continuum of space having been "reduced" to atomic science (feynamn's position)IS NOT the independence of systems that Gibbs was willing to generalize for stat mechanics and I am willing to conitnue to discuss evolution under the discipline of so unless a rational mechanics for evolution be forthcoming as ICR requires it cerainly seems potential true that whether learned from an elelctric and elastic spirit or other such as theology rational thermodynamcs and molecular mechanics may &run counter&(Pope's words in report)to the split IN BIOLOGY but not some discontinutiy of space time and form in the physics for some bottling of chems etc. This is a differentiation in my own words of two sentence in the vatican report and may not be true. But it is wrong to say that whether motiviated by creationist induction or not it is not not unscientific. I see you do not need to agree with me. OK. but you are probably interested in molecular mechanics.

Anne,what would you do in my case where I was tried for hear say about a potential child abuse in a country abroad and found guilty of child neglect when this DID NOT come out of the result but out of the morality for which Family Court, Judge Judy, would never even have jursidication over.This is no academic issue. There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.

Gould insists THESE to be INDEPENDENT. That doesnt mean that seperation of Church and State means I am schizo double minded carnal man 24-7. The legal restriction of seperation does not mean the mental is physically altered but the sociobiologist say who thinks religion is a manifestation of inclusive fitness MAY (disreading some of my ideas on stat mechanics for instance) conflate these two. ANd the actual situartion of the ACLU IS BY EXPERIENCE against some rights of people that co-exist with them and HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY WRONGED IN US COURT ROOMS!!!!!

meet me over at ORIGIN OF LIFE thread if you want my own ideas. I used him for whom I know who not only taught teachers evolution lived a "belief" in and is sort of "switch and bait" or the reverse just to gage someonelese opionion I do not know and am not face to face.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Anne,

​

what would you do in my case where I was tried for hear say about a potential child abuse in a country abroad and found guilty of child neglect when this DID NOT come out of the result but out of the morality for which Family Court, Judge Judy, would never even have jursidication over.

​

This is no academic issue. There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.

---

​

All morality is subjective. It is dependant on wheither it is that of a society or an individual. Atheists and agnostics are just more honest about where they get their morality from.

---

wOOW this is an awfully strong third period. Are you sure you can mean this? I think Amorality is subjective but there are some objects in ethics that no matter what calculs text one learned from ought be aboslute even if by law they were or are not. I hope you are part of the latter.BTW, much of what you say comes out as being disjointed and confusing like this;There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.What does that mean?[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002][/B][/QUOTE]In a text on Chinese Science Needham (a good biologist) notes how often things came to the west FROM China thru areas of Muslim and Indian living etc and I suspect that the turn made on the graph of what in the West is known as "Pascal's triangle" may have come ultimatiely from China through Muslim scholarship or not (I do not know)but any absolute rotation still I have left undecided about the anti-Aristotelianinsm inherent in Galelio's defense of natrual facts use which still could be more from Islamic sources than Chinese. I do notknow. NO edit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Hi,

​

A few questions.

​

"It involved some modern penmanship about the discipline of biology NOT being the phyics and chem and so while there is much (see E. Mayr) work on this as a seperate disipline my grandfather had found this in the middle but then if it was not seperate the extremes from which it would isolate or not would hardly ever be agreed to by any two intellectuals with an interest in the case etc."

​

Am I reading it correctly that some in the church think that the dicipline of biology is NOT a part of chemistry or physics? What was meant by this statement?

---

I meant to quote the Vatican Document directly rather than arguing from what philosophy Gould was inclined to believe etc. You are free to interpret it differently but even reporters for major newspapers were unable to discern what Gould rather clearly in his own typewriter wrote etc. I take that reading I did of the text TO denote for any misconnotation still invloved etc etc words "runs counter". My post on Origin of LIfe idicates why time is of essence here such that two periods of more than two sentences is unable to merely bracket out the content that is or is being referenced.
[B][QUOTE] What do you think? I am sorry, I lost where this is going. But is that not why we have lumped all the "hard" sciences into one magesterium, to avoid biology not being chemistry and physics, or do we do so becuase there are some overalapping there?[/B][/QUOTE]It was "going" to Germany as you can see even once again in Mayrs recent intro to Margulius and Sagan new book on microbes. My Grandfather FIRST taught ALL SCIENCE at a college, then was Chair OF Biology and eventually became an expert in Field Biology. Mayr is correct that Biology can not be lumped with chem and physs as some philosophers of science have thought etc and I would agree it needs some autonomy but I do not hold the "organacist" position sensu stricto as my materialism should yield etc.I did not take that line of thinking farther becasue it either in the context of this thread was able to deny or reject GOuld's empricism (as for instance S. wright may have thought he did etc etc Phillip Johsnon ad nauseum etc etc etc.) or merely showed that word for magesterium on my view is "system". From which the talk could re-iterate or hermenutic all over again,

quote:

---

"This is a differentiation in my own words of two sentence in the vatican report and may not be true. But it is wrong to say that whether motiviated by creationist induction or not it is not not unscientific. I see you do not need to agree with me. OK. but you are probably interested in molecular mechanics. "

​

Molecular mechanics is my focus and interest, but one has to look at the large picture.
OK

​

That is why I consider all when I look at evolution of life or of the earth.

​

Ok
Yes molecular mechanics is where I want to spend the rest of life in, but it will only give me a limited view.
Why do you say so?? What if the 1/2 eternity so invovled had use of actual infinity that continues to bifurcate in behaviorisms relative to any internal field???? by increasing a finite quantity only. I dont only think this way but it is possible.

​

It think, this is what the creationist are hung up on, they do not consider the "big" picture outside their beliefs.

---

I did, and do. [B][QUOTE] I believe that anything may be considered science regardless of where it comes from, if it is accepted by the consensous. I believe that this was made in the Magesterium of Religion,
What was?? anything that was made????but it does have some impact on the Magesterium of Science.OkAs I go on, in reading Gould's book, I am wondering how he thought it would have been possible to keep the different Magesterium from affecting eachother.
[/B][/QUOTE]GOT me. I think he was thinking of his heritage and where he had already landed with respect to some cone which I have indicated i think was any residual Marxism that his surrounds would not allow him to disabuse himself of if he had wanted but I do not know Steve this well. Maybe he really was married to this philsoohy out of respect to Richard Lewotin. I dont know.
[B][QUOTE] And no, I am compleltly open to the other side.[/B][/QUOTE]Yeah, I did miss this. ThanksOSPECIALK ADDED"'

Would you mind giving another synonm of "scale of culture". I said OK to your notion @ "big picture" but if one was programming GIS for instance this would be the whole bottom line and yet if you leave the phrase such I will not know how to read any intent(for instance not my own)for molecular biology since this COULD be a ref to inter alia "molecular mechanics" but the size of a replicator would I my own notion NOT be objective to changing criticism of "group selection" on the notion of additive variance into the additivity defintion. I would find with homology rather a MORE formal and less empric consequence than I have begun to specify as to the implementation of computer assisted exploratory data analsyis still a part of this "culture" but likely not on the "scale". IE still my speculation does not exist but could be taught.

Yes, but when I "said" MUSLIM SCIENCE, I was not refering to my own reading but any support GALELIO may have got (put) in writing or not from Averooes that provided evidence of social distrust of Aristotle. Some of wESTERN herpetologists have gotten this declination about over the edge of Magog etc by saying that the evironment of color change in Chamelons does not exist objectively as Aristole had reformed it or not from prior Chinese (but this I have no info on ...)when all that was really being discussed was if Galelio had dropped the ball. This was not afoot ball it may have been the sound of a frog however.If one reads Jammer on the history of force and mass(two books) and figures out how to avoid Einstein's inflection then it becomes quite critical how this notion of mass arose out of medieval thought and if it is larger due to infinite compoenetability both ying yang, hindu and muslim science etc etc others etc may be germain to what magnetisim materially is in our ciruclation of words that may be a response to egyptian secrect places that cause strife when only localized as non-spiritual materiality BY NON RELIGOUS PEOPLE in power of the people.The declaration declared people equal not matter.

Oh, yes of course I understand THAT. Peace out.I am not undercover in Toronto but it may sound like I can cross that boarder at will.