Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Induction and Science
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 151 of 744 (328311)
07-02-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by CK
07-02-2006 4:13 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
All of the genetics we see in different races, used to be one. When we re-combine them we get some of the most beatiful people, both physically, culturally, emotionally, psychologically etc...
It's an important point CK...
Man has devolved into his own ways and cultures from what was originally perfect and pure.
If evolution is true, then the concept of the superior race is a ruthless and monsterous reality.
In that case, Native Africans are closer to monkeys than you and I.
I for one do not believe that. I believe we are all precious in Gods sight, and that He seeks to restore us to His (perfect) glory. Part of that restoration will be physical with the resurection.
I know it is tough for some of you...
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added "off-topic" banner (after ReverendDG had replied)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by CK, posted 07-02-2006 4:13 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by sidelined, posted 07-02-2006 7:00 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 153 by ReverendDG, posted 07-03-2006 3:33 AM Rob has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 152 of 744 (328339)
07-02-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rob
07-02-2006 4:25 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
Rob
If evolution is true, then the concept of the superior race is a ruthless and monsterous reality.
I am calling you on this assertion of yours Rob and I would like you to take time in answering it please.
What are the precise issues of evolution that lead you to believe that this quoted statement of yours is valid?
Please take your answer to this on topic discussion thread.
EvC Forum: Is the TOE Racist?
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 4:25 PM Rob has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 153 of 744 (328402)
07-03-2006 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rob
07-02-2006 4:25 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
Man has devolved into his own ways and cultures from what was originally perfect and pure.
any evidence for this? we have plenty pointing to this being wrong, considering we have 3-4 differnet places where cilivization started
go read about some digs a good majority so very few people lived past 35 in a lot of cultures
If evolution is true, then the concept of the superior race is a ruthless and monsterous reality.
this is a strawman, please so where evolution points to this
In that case, Native Africans are closer to monkeys than you and I.
sorry but this is wrong and still a strawman, africans are just as evolved as the rest of the world, the fact that thier cultures for a long time didn't require things other cultures needed, doesn't make them any less human
I for one do not believe that. I believe we are all precious in Gods sight, and that He seeks to restore us to His (perfect) glory. Part of that restoration will be physical with the resurection.
nice downward spiral to preaching
I know it is tough for some of you...
it seems harder for you to understand that people don't want to hear about your sky-man all the time
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 07-02-2006 4:25 PM Rob has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 154 of 744 (329772)
07-08-2006 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by nwr
06-29-2006 11:35 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
Hypothesis become a theory only when it is backed by evidence.Today, evolution is still a theory when all the evoltionists are desperate to find any evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by nwr, posted 06-29-2006 11:35 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by ReverendDG, posted 07-08-2006 2:10 AM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 156 by Discreet Label, posted 07-13-2006 1:11 AM inkorrekt has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 155 of 744 (329775)
07-08-2006 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by inkorrekt
07-08-2006 1:59 AM


Re: So is with Evolution
Hypothesis become a theory only when it is backed by evidence.Today, evolution is still a theory when all the evoltionists are desperate to find any evidence.
there is evidence, tons of it, but you would rather just ignore it, and think of some narrow strawman of science that doesn't include induction or observation of how things work

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 1:59 AM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 156 of 744 (331361)
07-13-2006 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by inkorrekt
07-08-2006 1:59 AM


Re: So is with Evolution
True that hypothesis become a theory only when backed by evidence. In Evolutions case its evidence is the world. In creationism case its evidence is a written book, jotted down from GOD etc. etc.
While I appreciate your fervent support of the word of GOD. However, since GOD spoke it, its relationship is to only that of GOD, and thus anyone who follows the book his or her relationship is to GOD. Perfectly fine i agree entirely with that. It may speak of other relationships, but you are working with a book associated with GOD.
When you follow Evolution you form another seperate/differnt relationship and that is to the world. Since evolution only applies to the world and what is present on it, in a very broad aspect.
So how do you equate world to GOD or vice versa, are you raising up the world, a natural system or are you lowering GOD all by yourself to force them to hold the same position? Do you honestly think GOD likes the way you equate him to the world.
Evolutionists in no way equate the world to GOD or vice versa, in most cases GOD is GOD, and the world, well we live here.
Its no different then an individual having different connections, you've one connection to a spouse, a different one to your direct family, another one to your extended, and so on.
GOD encompasses the world so like I said earlier, why are you raising other peoples perception of the world to the position of GOD?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 1:59 AM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by inkorrekt, posted 07-22-2006 6:06 PM Discreet Label has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 157 of 744 (334330)
07-22-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Discreet Label
07-13-2006 1:11 AM


Re: So is with Evolution
I never said that. The issue here is the evidence. However, the entire argumant is turned into God Vs Science. That means there can be no logical reasoning. Alright I will accept your premise if you can define life and explain how life came into existence.
I will refer you to the Best selling book by Ann Coulter Religion of the Liberals( Godless) She has an interesting chapter on Evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Discreet Label, posted 07-13-2006 1:11 AM Discreet Label has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by nwr, posted 07-22-2006 7:51 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 158 of 744 (334388)
07-22-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by inkorrekt
07-22-2006 6:06 PM


Re: So is with Evolution
I will refer you to the Best selling book by Ann Coulter Religion of the Liberals( Godless)
That book is under discussion at Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by inkorrekt, posted 07-22-2006 6:06 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 159 of 744 (590758)
11-09-2010 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
02-04-2006 2:36 PM


Induction And Science
As per Message 541
Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?
On what basis do you make your conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 2:36 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by nwr, posted 11-09-2010 7:46 PM Straggler has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 160 of 744 (590767)
11-09-2010 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Straggler
11-09-2010 7:25 PM


Re: Induction And Science
Straggler writes:
Will gravity still be operating as currently experienced next week?
Probably. But we would have to wait a week to find out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 7:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 7:52 PM nwr has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 161 of 744 (590770)
11-09-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by nwr
11-09-2010 7:46 PM


Re: Induction And Science
On what do you base your "probably" conclusion?
Why more likely than not?
Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by nwr, posted 11-09-2010 7:46 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by nwr, posted 11-09-2010 8:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 162 of 744 (590776)
11-09-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Straggler
11-09-2010 7:52 PM


Re: Induction And Science
Straggler writes:
On what do you base your "probably" conclusion?
If gravity suddenly fails, we shall probably all be dead. Since we can't do anything about it, there's no point in worrying.
I'm not doubting that we use statistical evidence in a variety of ways. I'm saying that Newtonian physics is not simply a matter of induction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 7:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 8:29 PM nwr has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 163 of 744 (590783)
11-09-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by nwr
11-09-2010 8:06 PM


Re: Induction And Science
I am not asking you whether you are worried or not. That has fuck-all to do with anything.
I am asking you whether or not gravity will continue to act as we now know it.
Will the pen that I drop next week still drop at the same rate, obeying the same laws that it did when I dropped my pen just now?
Previously you said "probably". On what do you base this conclusion? Why is it more likely than not? Be specific.
Nwr writes:
I'm saying that Newtonian physics is not simply a matter of induction.
But this isn't just about deriving a particular set of conclusions. This is about the fundamentals of science. The entirety of science and it's ability to predict is based on the consistency of natural laws.
So are the scientific predictions I make based on the consistency of natural laws valid? Or are they based on inductive logic and thus invalid as far as your OP (and general stance in the previous thread from which we re-ignited this one) are concerned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by nwr, posted 11-09-2010 8:06 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by nwr, posted 11-09-2010 8:45 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 164 of 744 (590786)
11-09-2010 8:36 PM


Newton Discovered or Invented F=ma
Replying to Message 544
Nwr writes:
A standard is a construct, an invention. Newton was a brilliant inventor.
Nwr writes:
It is F = ma that is the fundamental standard here.
Straggler writes:
So Newton didn't discover relationships between empirically observed phenomenon he invented them?
Oh, bullshit.
That's not what I said and it's not implied by what I said.
Yes it is.
F=ma is a relationship between empirically observed phenomenon. You say F=ma is a standard and you say that a standard is an invention.

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by nwr, posted 11-09-2010 8:47 PM Straggler has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 165 of 744 (590791)
11-09-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Straggler
11-09-2010 8:29 PM


Re: Induction And Science
Straggler writes:
I am not asking you whether you are worried or not. That has fuck-all to do with anything.
And I could say the same about the stupid questions that you are asking, and are repeating even though I answered them the first time.
Straggler writes:
The entirety of science and it's ability to predict is based on the consistency of natural laws.
As far as I can tell, there are no natural laws.
There are natural phenomena. Gravity is a natural phenomenon. But the laws of gravity are not part of nature. They are human constructs that we use as part of our system for representing/describing what happens in nature.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 8:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 8:52 PM nwr has replied
 Message 180 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2010 3:30 AM nwr has replied
 Message 199 by Blue Jay, posted 11-10-2010 3:18 PM nwr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024