quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
The unchanging belief in a particular interpretation of the Protestant Christian Bible is at the core of Scientific Creationism.
"There was a Flood, now we just have to find evidence for it."
"Kinds were created specially and suddenly, now we have to find evidence for this."
"The Earth is a few thousand years old, now we have to find evidence for it".
NEVER will these assumptions about what is "supposed" to be found ever change,
Dear Schrafinator,
You are quite correct here, as in question to HM Morris in a snail mail letter I suppose I 'supposed' this "supposed" and yet Dr. Morris' response stays with me. He had said in so many words that biology and math must remain seperated in any conversation on evo/crea illusion discussions. But one thing that IS "Supposed" to be found in evolution thinking (say RA FISHER if a name is needed) is a supremecy of natural selection but while reading the detail between Fisher and Wright it is right apparent for the same dispute of pure vs applied math between Borel and Lebesque (only confined to one country rather than across the Pond) that on ordiantions of the same evidence ( thus also the same for creation or evolution) the collection can be suppposed that the set does not. But then the logic of the math would also have to be quite seperate that not even in Boole's Laws of Thought is this maintained. The internet medium may permit the nats to be so teased in or out till the "debate" progresses. It is certainly possible in this directum to adhere to HM Morris of the Defender's Study Bibile where Internal Designs In The Bible are discussed to be adhered to but unless the seperation maintained engage the acutal evolutionary content the debate will be like a mock trial and I would have quickly lost interest long ago. There is something here.
quote:
because then the paricular interpretation of the Bible would be wrong.
By contrast, Science changes constantly as new information
While it is true that Science in general does change as fast as time exists if such a thought could be really expressed but in fact evolutionary theory remains hidden behind a simple point drawn by Fisher in response to Wright that Croizat made 1000pages in many languages a big joke out of and the debate must resolve the extension of this point some time. Evolutionists simply have more narrative than good usable theory. The Journal of Theoretical Biology is full of models that have never been tried out.
quote:
is found, and science does not assume it knows what will be found.
I am not assuming but writing about something I have read that you could too if one want, to. But lead us not into ____.
I would like people to use Cantor's math but that would be assuming too much even from Wright's "back variable" yet the infinity need not remain convergent for secular purposes only.
Thanks, but I still think this the other way.