Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fred Williams goes down in flames... again
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 42 (5472)
02-25-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by John Paul
02-21-2002 9:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
And yes I am dangerous. I have a free and open mind. My search for the truth, which is what science is all about, will not be constrained by the narrow vision of materialistic naturalism.

Does this mean you intend to push the envelope of Science ( the study of matter & Nature ) to include something OTHER THAN matter & nature ?
What could this be ?
How did you detect it ?
If your idea works, I'll renew my subscription to 'Nature' and scan every word, waiting for your work to arrive.
Or perhaps I'm mistaken as to WHAT science actually is...
Is it NOT the study of the material, physical, natural universe ?
regards,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John Paul, posted 02-21-2002 9:28 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 02-25-2002 4:02 PM Jeff has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 42 (5481)
02-25-2002 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jeff
02-25-2002 1:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jeff:
Does this mean you intend to push the envelope of Science ( the study of matter & Nature ) to include something OTHER THAN matter & nature ?
What could this be ?
How did you detect it ?
If your idea works, I'll renew my subscription to 'Nature' and scan every word, waiting for your work to arrive.
Or perhaps I'm mistaken as to WHAT science actually is...
Is it NOT the study of the material, physical, natural universe ?
regards,

John Paul:
Yes, you are mistaken. Science is the search for the truth.
"Science is the search for the truth," wrote chemist Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes. Bruce Alberts, current president of the US NAS, agrees. "Science and lies cannot coexist," said Alberts in May 2000, quoting Israeli statesman Shimon Peres. "You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie scientifically. Science is basically the search for the truth." page 1 Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells.
So yes, in that context, I have every intention of pushing the envelope of science.
Just so we have this straight- I am all for science doing what it supposed to do- search for the truth. Why? Because it is out there and it will not be constrained by the narrow vision of materialistic naturalism.
The way I see it, you and your ilk are doing as much damage (if not more) to science than the Church and Aristotelians (the group who black-balled Galileo) did centuries ago.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jeff, posted 02-25-2002 1:46 PM Jeff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by joz, posted 02-25-2002 4:11 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 34 by DCox, posted 02-25-2002 4:37 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 35 by TrueCreation, posted 02-25-2002 4:54 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 39 by Jeff, posted 02-26-2002 1:18 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 42 (5483)
02-25-2002 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John Paul
02-25-2002 4:02 PM


For the third time JP it was the Ptolemaic model of a geocentric universe that the copernican model supplanted.....
So Ptolemaic would be a better term than aristotlean.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 02-25-2002 4:02 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by John Paul, posted 02-25-2002 5:57 PM joz has not replied

  
DCox
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 42 (5484)
02-25-2002 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John Paul
02-25-2002 4:02 PM


So in your opinion, are there any ground rules for discovering the truth? Is there a system or is it a free-for-all? It seems like what you are proposing is a system in which ANY explanation for ANYTHING qualifies as science, regardless of how ludicrous it may seem.
How is it that we are to agree on a conclusion? Is agreement necessary to validate the conclusion?
How are we to determine whether or not a conclusion is "the truth"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 02-25-2002 4:02 PM John Paul has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 42 (5485)
02-25-2002 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John Paul
02-25-2002 4:02 PM


Firstly, I'd like to say welcome back, JP, havent seen you in a while.
Second, I concur on the statment, were in agreement on that science is a search of truth in such a context. Though we can only experiment and illustrate on what is detectable. I don't believe that a supernatural entity has the ability to fit within, though it still may be a scientific truth yet undiscovered or undiscoverable. Though I do in my humble opinion, see that the observable in a quantitive scenario, admits such an entity.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 02-25-2002 4:02 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 42 (5491)
02-25-2002 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by joz
02-25-2002 4:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
For the third time JP it was the Ptolemaic model of a geocentric universe that the copernican model supplanted.....
So Ptolemaic would be a better term than aristotlean.....

John Paul:
I know what model it was, but there wasn't a group of people called the Ptolemaicians or would it be Ptolemyians.?
There was, however, a very influential group- the Aristotelians- that promoted the Ptolemaic PoV. They were the ones who used there influence on the Church to oppose Galileo (who supported Kopernik).
From "Refuting Evolution":
"As many historians of science have noticed, the
first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment.
The prevailing scientific wisdom of his day was the
Aristotelian/Ptolemaic theory. This was an unwieldy
geocentric system; that is, with the earth at the center
of the universe and other heavenly bodies in highly
complex orbits around the earth. As Arthur Koestler
wrote:
"But there existed a powerful body of men
whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the
Aristotelians at the Universities.
Innovation is a twofold threat to academic
mediocrities: it endangers their oracular
authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that
their whole laboriously constructed edifice
might collapse. The academic backwoodsmen
have been the curse of genius it was
this threat not Bishop Dantiscus or Pope
Paul III which had cowed Canon
Koppernigk [i.e., Copernicus] into silence.
The first serious attack on religious groundscame also not from clerical quarters, but from
a layman none other than delle Colombe,
the leader of the [ardent Aristotelian] league.
The earthly nature of the moon, the
existence of sunspots meant the abandonment
of the [pagan!] Aristotelian doctrines on the
perfect and unchangeable nature of the
celestial spheres." 1
Conversely, at first the church was open to Galileo’s
discoveries. Astronomers of the Jesuit Order, the
intellectual spearhead of the Catholic Church, even
improved on them. Only 50 years later, they were
teaching this theory in China. They also protected
Johannes Kepler, who discovered that planets move in
ellipses around the sun. Even the Pope, Paul V, received
Galileo in friendly audience.
The leading Roman Catholic theologian of the day,
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine said it was excellent good
sense to claim that Galileo’s model was mathematically
simpler. And he said:
"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the
centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the
third sphere, and that the Sun does not go
round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun,
then we should have to proceed with great
circumspection in explaining passages of
Scripture which appear to teach the contrary,
and we should rather have to say that we did
not understand them than declare an opinion
false which has been proved to be true."
1. A. Koestler, The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the
Universe (London: Hutchinson, 1959), p. 427.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by joz, posted 02-25-2002 4:11 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by toff, posted 02-26-2002 7:26 AM John Paul has replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 42 (5523)
02-26-2002 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by John Paul
02-25-2002 5:57 PM


I always find it odd when creationists cite Galileo, thinking somehow it supports their case. In fact, it's a perfect example of what we see again today, in creationism. A few narrow minded people who have set beliefs (ie., 'unchangable') about their religion decide to 'black ball' someone/something discovered by science which they think contradicts that belief. Fortunately, Galileo's theory won out in the end, as evolutionary theory will...and creationists will go down in history with Galileo's oppressors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by John Paul, posted 02-25-2002 5:57 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 7:07 PM toff has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 38 of 42 (5551)
02-26-2002 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
02-25-2002 11:24 AM


As my AOL inbox remains empty, I conclude that JP is comfortable hiding behind his computer and using macho rhetoric. Such is the life of the creationist, and I will not be responding to anything that he posts in the future, as it is typically a complete waste of time anyway, as most of you have probably noticed. Plus, I get the feeling that Pamboli ALWAYS has that smug feeling.
Anyway, I was hoping that at least one person would respond to my refutation of Williams. Not even Pamboli attempted to do that.
Instead, it seems the replies consist of comments about other peoples comments.
where is the discussion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 02-25-2002 11:24 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 7:06 PM derwood has not replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 42 (5556)
02-26-2002 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John Paul
02-25-2002 4:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Yes, you are mistaken. Science is the search for the truth.
"Science is the search for the truth," wrote chemist Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes. Bruce Alberts, current president of the US NAS, agrees. "Science and lies cannot coexist," said Alberts in May 2000, quoting Israeli statesman Shimon Peres. "You don't have a scientific lie, and you cannot lie scientifically. Science is basically the search for the truth." page 1 Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells.

So let’s get this straight.
Science is.what ever Linus Pauling, Jonathon Wells & Shimon Peres say it is.
Did Henry Morris and Duane Gish give their approval ? then it’s NOT official
=o)
I’m sorry, subjective words like truth have no real meaning unless given a relative frame of reference.
For instance, many people consider the Bible as ‘truth’. But many of these same people are not interested ( nor should they be ) in how this version of ‘truth’ relates to the facts. Persons of another religious persuasion may take issue with these claims of truth, because they contradict another religion’s ‘truth’.
Truth is too vague to be of any use here.
Try this: if science is more than the study of matter & naturethen what ?
If you say ‘truth’ again, then you’ve gone no where with this. How about something specific ? Science MUST observe some methodology. Science began as the quest for explanations for naturally occurring phenomena. You know.likewhat makes lightening ??.why does it rain? is the moon made of cheese and HOW did it get there ?
According to you, something must have been added recently & I’d like to know about it.
Is a ‘fact’ the same as the ‘truth’ ?
Is a ‘fact’ a subset of the ‘truth’ ?
And if science cannot identify ‘truth’ from the study of matter & nature, then tell us WHAT we must study to obtain ‘truth’.
Regards,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 02-25-2002 4:02 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 42 (5602)
02-26-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by derwood
02-26-2002 12:30 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by SLP:
[B]As my AOL inbox remains empty, I conclude that JP is comfortable hiding behind his computer and using macho rhetoric. [/QUOTE]
John Paul:
As usual you have a faulty conclusion. Why email you when you already said you (and Robert) were coming to see me in March? Did Robert cop out and you couldn't come without him?
quote:
slp:
Such is the life of the creationist, and I will not be responding to anything that he posts in the future, blah, blah, blah.
John Paul:
What's this? The 5th time you posted those words in the last year? 6th? 7th?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by derwood, posted 02-26-2002 12:30 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 02-26-2002 7:20 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 42 (5603)
02-26-2002 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by toff
02-26-2002 7:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
I always find it odd when creationists cite Galileo, thinking somehow it supports their case. In fact, it's a perfect example of what we see again today, in creationism. A few narrow minded people who have set beliefs (ie., 'unchangable') about their religion decide to 'black ball' someone/something discovered by science which they think contradicts that belief. Fortunately, Galileo's theory won out in the end, as evolutionary theory will...and creationists will go down in history with Galileo's oppressors.
John Paul:
Sorry toff, but I didn't site Galileo. I used what happened to him as an example of what materialsic naturalism is doing to today's science.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by toff, posted 02-26-2002 7:26 AM toff has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 42 of 42 (5606)
02-26-2002 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by John Paul
02-26-2002 7:06 PM


JP,
Please leave the personal issues aside and focus on topics under discussion. Let the moderator deal with the rest. Thanks!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 7:06 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024