Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
183 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 181 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,028 Year: 2,776/23,288 Month: 967/1,809 Week: 86/313 Day: 3/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Creationism Science?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3449 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 27 (8837)
04-23-2002 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-23-2001 9:45 PM


I am nearing by ready to post what I consider the purpose on purpose a conclusion in the debate relative to .... still to come .... but here is a preview:: "our empirical knowledge is a compund of that which we recieve through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies, from itself (sensous impressions giving merely the OCCASion) maps with character bought out or purchased hardware an addition..."(with additions) Bertrund Russl is of the opinion that non-euclidean geometry plus Frege's math did away with some reason behind Kant's transcendental asethetic. But this opinion was a pine tree not an angiosperm. Map creation is a form of writing often confused with Art but Russel would have known this. 7+5 both can be in software domain testing and when this gained orthogonal technique (even when NOT biological orthology) shows that, transfinites aside (to look into Kant's GREATER number) biological symmetry with an actual working relationship between software testing metrics and morphometrics linked to a deductive biogeography CAN expand as I N Kant's systematic constitution thickness as man explores outer space and electronic map READING offers more if not all the truth available a priori in terms of the limites question, now finally be answered on this board,, in empirical math as to how is THAT possible and how is natural science possible no matter the writing of metaphysics. M&m.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-23-2001 9:45 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3449 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 27 (9017)
04-26-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
04-24-2002 9:13 AM


Ya, know, I like just about all of this except that vitalism does not "violate" natural laws and yet it seems to have been suFFERING the same fate as the supernatural in any ontology between natrualism and materialism. This certainly not only does not seem fair but certainly does not need to use the same hyperbolic vs parabolic curve homogenously. I know the last was crpytic but so is the failure to see that indeed no tension exists really between FIsher and Wright any more or am I just tisue injuried.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-24-2002 9:13 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3449 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 14 of 27 (11323)
06-11-2002 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-23-2001 9:45 PM


What is left P??

Seems to me if perversions (a mcfall concept of Gibbs in the original) can pass Absolute Motion between generations (meaning that the data would so indicate) this limitation to debating infact would not exist for economic optimizations only.

I am trying to see how to carry out a DAY LILY business (not simply flower color yellow or orange) and I see no reason that 3phases of Wright can not supply an oversight of Fisher. Only I need much NON-ECONOMIC data on mass selection before I can even propose how short of a direct derivation of Newton's Bucket in the relative space and time involved per linakage group transforms by DNA secondarily not primarily providing the information.

Seems to me it is only$ not actual thought that made (not makes) the c/e debate to remain a friend in second gear etc. I would understand then also. So then if that WAS true it would mean that we have discussed both mutation and information theory beyond the simplistic versions discussed in web chats. I have not read Gitt at all. Only seen AIG titles. Henery Morris suggested Creation and Biology to me and I am aware that I do not think numbers accurtely wrote the CREATIONISTS as Lammerts seems to have only been thought of by posters as to basic kinds that Falwell gave an airing for also prior. I am obviously not Lane Lester and Kurt Wise and I did not go to the same school. Wise got out because he "played" Gould's game. It was Provine who refused to debate, not me. I know Gould would not have mine and yet it appears rather clearly that it was for anti-Lysenkoism only that I was traded to creationism for there is nothing anti-creationist in my ideas.

Perversions were in the literature that Morowitz uncovered and until the defition of Newton's easy fits of transmisison and reflexion be applied to plant organelle detailed distributions under selection inbreeding as well as mass selection both ways for whatever mechanism is spaced in to the meta data standardization it can not really be maintained that no matter the Galelio that creationism being religous is in a part of space that ipso facto is not applicable to science. Science is not paying for the work needed to turn the creationism into the science that it ALREADY is. IF what I say works for some actual a posteriori abosulte space and time and the only reason no one took Newton on in population biology is because of marxism dominating the philsophy no "ought" of Levin (lewontin's co-author in the Dialetical Biologist will gain say the Kant that is NOT inclined to in the currently taught neo-darwininsm incentive) nature not science is the incentive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-23-2001 9:45 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3449 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 27 (11421)
06-12-2002 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jet
06-11-2002 5:05 PM


Jet it sounds to me you would be "fond" of SJ Gould's notion of NOMA when considering the Popes' magestirium of 96'. Seems to be that Einstein even said "god" does not play dice. The Pope asked a question that athesists like Will Provine would probably rather follow you then me but ask WHY (about a detail that in my opinion really only needs to know "when" for the POpe asked a good question that was really bothering me as an undergraduate-- If the disconinuty that defintions data support of geneotype and phenotype is not in a "run counter" (Pope's language or functionary's) to the continuum being pursued in chemisty and physics. Problem is that Quantum Mechancis tends to enlarge rather than heal this wound even if all concerned were able to do otherwise.

Do you know of Gould's proposed idea for science and religion he abbreviated NOMA? and does that fit if I may say as JUDGE did of my own amalgam Your "world-veiw". I have opnions I guess but no so-called thing 'world-view' but it seems to be some C/E talk


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:05 PM Jet has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3449 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 27 of 27 (15106)
08-09-2002 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Percy
06-13-2002 3:20 PM


In my rather most obtuse biological semantics I found room to refer to something I call "macroscopic unobservable" (for a philosophy I could adhere to between biology and physics for any position on a new analytic chem or older more synthetic chem) but I will not subject you all here to this seemingly accidental understanding of min on water, air, earth and fire etc. Someday it may not be so clear to me that I think it appropriate to get beyond simply criticizing Mayr etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 06-13-2002 3:20 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020