|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist scientific methods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
That's all well and good.
Got any evidence for creationism? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You might want to start by looking at your own knowledge about freedom, comparing it with strong anticipation theory. On an intellectual level your knowledge about freedom is very probably false. That should raise some concern for somebody who likes science, if their knowledge about something as fundamental as freedom is flawed. But the knowledge about freedom you use on a practical level in your day to day life is very probably correct, so no need to be overconcerned.
So then when you have some sound intellectual knowledge about freedom, then you might start to comprehend creationism a bit, and begin to understand how evidence for creation is arrived at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Got any evidence for creationism? That would be a "no", then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You might want to start by looking at your own knowledge about freedom, comparing it with strong anticipation theory. On an intellectual level your knowledge about freedom is very probably false. That should raise some concern for somebody who likes science, if their knowledge about something as fundamental as freedom is flawed. But the knowledge about freedom you use on a practical level in your day to day life is very probably correct, so no need to be overconcerned. So then when you have some sound intellectual knowledge about freedom, then you might start to comprehend creationism a bit, and begin to understand how evidence for creation is arrived at.
You perhaps could look at the scientific method and the various evolutionary sciences through something other than a strict creationist filter. You'd be amazed what you might learn. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You didn't answer Coyotes question. He asked
Got any evidence for creationism?
and I will also ask for any evidence of creation not how to get evidence, simply what is the evidence. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
As before, the evidence is Dubois' strong anticipation theory, which posits anticipation in nature itself, as distinct from weak anticipation, which only talks about anticipation as in predictive models of a thing.
So science says that your view of freedom / decisions is false. Your view of it is anthropocentric, meaning you only attribute freedom / decisions to people (and very probably your view of freedom and decisions of people is false as well). Try and get a handle on the view of decisions / freedom that is consistent with the strong anticipation view, because otherwise you can understand nothing about creation. Do some googlesearch on hyperincursive and read the various introductions to the concept of strong anticipation. regards,Mohammad Nur Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I suggest you start dealing with your lack of knowledge about freedom / decisions. Why not???????????????????????????????
Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
So to make it clear. This reputable awardwinning scientist who chaired several conferences with many scientists attending including some big names, has this theory which says that decisions are part and parcel of the laws of nature.
Based on that, the scientist Taborsky then says that biological systems choose what species come to be by a reasoned and informed process. Obviously you all have a difficult time of it to understand the word decision and choosing in a context outside of human beings. But you should just take a look at how you are using those words practically in every-day life. There you don't neccessarily use those words in the context of human beings only, in common knowledge you use those words just to talk about having alternatives, and having the one alternative realized and the other alternatives not realized. That is a decision according to common knowledge, and it's got nothing to do with brains, it just has to do with alternatives, and one of them getting to be realized. The alternatives are not in the head, they are in the future of the system. So your practical common knowledge is basicly consistent with strong anticipation theory, but the philosphy about freedom, decisions, choosing etc. of all of you is just false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You still have not answered the main question as to evidence of creation. You pose one scientist's hypothesis as fact and simply use this to evade the question in this and the next 2 messages. (22 & 23)
Answer the question directly, please. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Specifically Dubois used strong anticipation theory to describe Mercury's perihellion more accurately.
There is some experimental evidence of slime mould computing, that the slime mould behaves according to strong anticipation theory. As for Taborsky identifying specific choices in biological systems, no she didnt. But I can ask you the same, is there any evidence whatsoever that natural selection occurs? Because natural selection as far as I understand Taborsky, does not take place except in the minds of Darwinists. This can be quite clearly understood if we make a comparitive theory to natural selection theory applied to rocks. Say a volcano or something produces some rocks which then roll down the hillside. These rocks have different shapes and sizes, and some of the rocks roll down further than other rocks. How far a rock rolls down is generally correllated to the shape and size of the rock. So is there then a process of differential rolling down the hill success going on in nature, just as there is a process of differential reproductive success going on amongst organisms? Or are these things merely after the fact statistical rationalizations of what has been going on, do these processes basicly occur only in scientists minds? Taborsky says that natural selection is just such an after the fact rationalization. Remember, I am not saying that all laws of nature are not real, quite the contrary I am saying that some laws of nature are much more real than we make them out to be currently, while other theories such as natural selection theory, are only occurring in people's minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But I can ask you the same, is there any evidence whatsoever that natural selection occurs? Because natural selection as far as I understand Taborsky, does not take place except in the minds of Darwinists. Nonsense. Is this the best that creation "science" can come up with these days? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
This is indeed the best creationism has to offer.
As before, your ideas about decisions / freedom, are proven false by science. Show some concern for having correct knowledge about fundamental things, why not? Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Please give references to where I can find Dubois & Taborsky.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jester4kicks Junior Member (Idle past 5524 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
quote: Nonsense. Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia Page Unavailable - ABC News It should be noted that these are relatively-small changes. Major changes caused by natural selection take MUCH longer to become evident and truly distinctive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jester4kicks Junior Member (Idle past 5524 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
quote: I'm still trying to understand how you came to this conclusion. I've read your OP(s) several times, and I'm still not seeing through the haze of your distorted logic. It seems you do have an unhealthy perception of science and the idea that things are explained "100%". Science certainly makes predictions about what will happen under certain circumstances... and when those predictions are not absolutely on the mark (which frequently happens), there is a process for examining the method and the data to determine where the error came from. It's not a matter of percentages though. Let's say one experiment produces a result that is 91% of the prediction... scientists don't say "ok, we have to account for exactly 9%". They examine the data, and look for areas where additional variables could have affected the experiment. If a variable is found, they will probably isolate and remove the variable to see what happens. This happens a LOT... it's expected and it's just part of the process. Did you get that? We're talking about a field where error and multiple tests are simply an expectation. If science is anything, it is perfect because of its imperfection!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024