Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
54 online now:
dwise1, GDR, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (7 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,065 Year: 4,813/23,288 Month: 1,718/1,286 Week: 32/353 Day: 32/45 Hour: 4/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
Larni
Member
Posts: 3991
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 237 of 336 (637623)
10-17-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hawkins
10-17-2011 12:39 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
Redefiinig the word science is pointless.

If I do a bit of research and use the scientific method (rather than your version of the scientific method) I'm doing, wait for it; science!

You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.

Never heard of selective breeding, eh?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hawkins, posted 10-17-2011 12:39 AM Hawkins has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3991
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 238 of 336 (637625)
10-17-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Chuck77
10-17-2011 5:03 AM


Re: Evolved Warts
But the characterisation of the scientific method by Hawkins is wrong.

It would be like saying that when I interview two people about their beliefs about envy I would start by telling them my beliefs about envy.

This would not be (obviously) scientific and I would expect methodological critisism: but I would not do that.

It's the same with Hawkins.

He is miss characterising the scientific method. How can you have a debate if one debater does not come prepared with accurate points?

You are getting sloppy here, tired latley?

You're miss-characterising your opponent, again.

God, man: change the record.

Edited by Larni, : Formatting

Edited by Larni, : Spellink


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Chuck77, posted 10-17-2011 5:03 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3991
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 327 of 336 (638001)
10-19-2011 4:23 AM


It would seem that while the creos' honestly believe they are correct their ability to articulate and avoid mischaraterising both facts and posters hampers them somewhat.

Or, the impacting aligning pov of the anti crowd conforms with a negative impact re: initial conditions initiated in the openning aligning to an initial perception of reality as it confirms to the seed factor i.e. the first record of science.

Abe: yeah, I know the seed factor bit makes the rest of the sentence harder to undserstand but I love the phrase.

Edited by Larni, : seed factor addmission.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : spellink


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020