|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two types of science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Let me know which ones you prefer: He gave these in his OP;
quote: Until he gets more detailed I will assume he is talking about: 1. Non-mathematicians with no experience at probabilities speaking of watches in forests and 747s in tornados. C. That collection of hundreds-of-years-old oral myths embellished at each telling scratched onto parchment by zealous mystics some 3500 years ago then embellished with each redaction. I believe it's called Genesis. But then he may surprise us and choose one from your list. You never know with these people. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
But it helps show that recent biological discoveries like DNA, the bacterial flagellum, etc. have less probability of falling together by purposeless natural processes. Then it is a good thing that no one, except creationists looking for a straw man, posits that DNA, the flagellum or any other biologic object just "fell" together by any process at all. Poof is only an explanation in religion. It does not work in evolution. There are always precursors, plenty of them, over more time than your religious fantasies wish had occurred. Edited by AZPaul3, : oops
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
The public can get its knowledge from several sources, such as; PerceptionReason Introspection Memory Testimony Here is where that list comes from, with a paragraph of detail about each one. So typical. You find a list about "knowledge", do not bother to read the rest of the site and end up with no idea what they are actually talking about. Did you see their information on "Skepticism" and how it relates to these areas of knowledge you listed? No. Not only did you not consider this you did not consider that what they were talking about is that this list of yours are ways to gather "knowledge" as in "information", not "knowledge" as in some universal TRVTHTM. These are the sources of data; data inputs for ... wait for it ... the scientific method! Can you even fathom where data from "introspection" could possibly be used in a science of some sort somewhere?
Here’s what another link has to say about knowledge;
quote: You really think this puts some kind of chink in the scientific armor? You really have no conception of what it is you are reading, do you. You are so bent on finding something, anything to use as a weapon against science you throw thin air at it. What this says is that we have to be cognizant of what information actually pertains to the problem at hand and what information does not. That is pretty much what study design, experimental protocols, control groups and peer review are all about in the scientific method. Why do creationists do these things in such a half-assed manner? No. Don't answer that. That was rhetorical. We already know why. [abe=just because I have the time] That site for the above quote talking about being cognizant of the information? It also list these as "sources of knowledge": Racial MemoryThe Collective Unconscious Extrasensory Perception Recollection from a past life Spiritualism The Occult Ouija boards Tarot cards and your favorites, I'm sure ... FaithSupernatural Revelation Fallacy of Presumption anyone? [/abe] Edited by AZPaul3, : Addition. Not the math type but as in appending additional verbiage to an existing screed. Edited by AZPaul3, : oops Edited by AZPaul3, : more oopses. Edited by AZPaul3, : had the time Edited by AZPaul3, : OK, I stop now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
"Any process at all", including random mutation and natural selection? As I said in my message, nothing in biology just "fell together" by this or any other process. Any biological system you care to mention did, however, evolved through this process of mutation/selection from other precursor systems. What was plain in my message was that your contention that these complex systems just "fell together" in a random process is BS. And yet you did not respond to that. You chose to misrepresent what I said. Or are you going to claim you did not understand the obvious? Regardless, either your reading comprehension or your personal ethics require work. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
So typical. You find a list about "knowledge", do not bother to read the rest of the site and end up with no idea what they are actually talking about. Thanks for telling me what I didn't read. Did you see their information on "Skepticism" and how it relates to these areas of knowledge you listed? No. The word "Skepticism" doesn't appear on either of my links I put in message 20. Wow. Are you being deliberately obtuse or is this natural for you? In those blocks up above there do you see the words in the first block? They read in part ...
quote: You see that reference to "the rest of the site"? That's important. If you can try to hold on to that and do try to remember. Then came ...
quote: This isn't germane to the issue but, you're welcome. The next part asks you ...
quote: That ties rather directly into the "rest of the site" reference in the first quote. It isn't the least bit subtle or obscure. You do see this, yes? Then comes the most astonishing piece of obtuse reasoning I have seen in quite some time ...
quote: Marc, We already know your links did not contain the word. That isn't the issue here. The issue is that you did not bother (or you did but chose to ignore) to look at the rest of the site where there was other information pertaining to your list. This right off the top of your response to me. With this rather shining example of your lack of ... what? Intellect? Ethics? Both? ... I'm not well disposed to respond to the rest of your drivel. But, I'll go just this one more.
... you think all other forms of knowledge are just little sub-catagories of knowledge that lead up to the mighty scientific method, the great and powerful end all of knowledge. Yes, of course! I would have thought that also was quite obvious. Until something more powerful and productive than the scientific method comes along this is indeed the most mighty, the most great and the most powerful method of knowing ever devised. All others, Marc, all other methods of knowing are miniscule or non-existent in comparison. Your insistence that your poofoo voodoo majik super-skydaddy connections to the ultimate answers to the ultimate questions of life the universe and everything are real, while not once, ever, having been able to show anything productive that has ever come from such a knowledge source, is the surest sign of someone who has lost touch with reality and has nothing left but to piss and moan about something they are powerless to change. Science, all of it, however many different kinds you care to divide it by, is the 800 pound gorilla of all "knowing" in this world. Anything you care to put up on your "other sources" list are ants by comparison. This may sound like nothing but hyperbole to you but this is the reality. I take it back, you do have a chance to change this. Show us otherwise. Show us something real, something productive for society, something useful for humanity, something that all would agree is a wonderful nugget of knowledge brought to us by one of your poofoo voodoo majik super-skydaddy sources. Go ahead, Marc. Show us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
No, I just BUSTED a lying atheist. Dr. A and others took care of this little bit of revisionist history. I'm so blind with rage right now I just cannot see the keyboard to fashion an appropriate response which might be along the lines of, "Oh Yeah? Well, so's your mother!", or some such equally witty retort. I guess I'll just have to leave this one where it is. Onward, though. You are trying to ward off the challenge put before you in the rest of my message. I realize you have gotten yourself into a number of differing issues with all the inanities you have put out there so I will give you periodic reminders so that as it gets to the point where no answer will ever be forthcoming I can sit back, cackle, and declare glorious victory because you have no answer since there actuality is none. So let me remind you of the challenge. The subject is "other sources of knowledge".
quote: Given your reading comprehension problems let me rephrase this for you. Can you show us any knowledge of value ever given to human society by one of your other sources of knowledge? Something other than the emotional comfort you people get from killing others as justified by your religion that is. Something substantial that we would recognize as being a good thing for the species would be nice. So, go ahead and show us, Marc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
This is good. We can all respond to marc by sending our messages to NoNukes. It's good to share inundations.
My point to you, NoNukes ... er ... marc, is that the names listed are famous for a reason. They got it right for the most part (thank you, Mod). The legions of others who got it wrong and were being corrected by these famous guys are buried deep in the history books, if listed at all, and are quite forgettable. I hope you are now not feeling inundated. As for Nukes on the other hand ... If you get blind with rage let me know. Apparently I've been there recently and I have an app for that. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
And here I thought I was being facetious. Should have known.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
But I care when they start claiming James Madison was an atheist. Do you believe ... ? quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Since there is nothing to be known of the man except through his writings I think it fair to say that Madison was not an especially religious man and had great contempt for the christian churches and their leadership. I don't know, and neither do you, if Madison was actually an atheist in the sense that we mean that term here or not. He may well have been since his writings lean that direction. But one thing we do know - he sure weren't no christian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
But I care when they start claiming ... that the constitution guarantees universal healthcare. Do you believe ... ? The Constitution does not mention healthcare in any manner. What is does say, however, is that the congress of the people will provide for the common welfare of the United States. The congress can establish a universal healthcare system if it damn well wants to and can tax the people to support it. See Article I, section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ... and provide for the general Welfare of the United States.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
marc9000 writes: ("give me liberty or give me death") what do you think inspired someone to be that passionate about liberty? Domineering religious corruption and control. So its religious control that gives people a desire for freedom? History is full of examples where religious corruption and mind control inspired many to be passionate, even violent, in regaining their personal liberty, freedom and right to their own conscience from the priests. Especially from the fundamentalist Biblicans. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The Onion, the Bible, hell the The National Enquirer, they're all the same to him. If they comply with his fantasies he believes them. It hardly seems worth engaging him on any point. Where's the fun in that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
A few cherry picked quotes aren't the only method of knowing the beliefs of U.S. founders. 5 very pointed quotes direct from the man himself is hardly "cherry picking". So who gives a flyin' flip about the Senior Pastor Reverand Witherspoon? He is not James Madison, the actual subject of the posts. Your deflection is but a smoke screen why? Because you know Madison was NOT a christian in any sense, by his own words, regardless of where he went to school or under whom he studied. Pull your head out of it man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Have you ever heard of the 10th amendment? I have not only heard of it but have read it. More importantly, I have read some of the surprisingly few cases where SCOTUS, over generations, interpreted the clause in relation to the Commerce clause and other amendments. You may find this hard to believe but we the people set up the Supreme Court to arbitrate these things and we gave them the last word on such subjects. I do not recall there being any Walter Williams on the bench. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024