Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
75 online now:
kjsimons, Tangle (2 members, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,164 Year: 4,276/6,534 Month: 490/900 Week: 14/182 Day: 2/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Creationism Science?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20753
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1 of 27 (95)
01-23-2001 9:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by fasstedddy in Message 6660 at Yahoo Clubs:

If what you are after is strict adhesion to the scientific method, at the expense of what is actually the truth...probably there is no purpose for the debate at all. Methodology is secondary to what is actually going on, this issue is huge. I contend the answers to these questions can transend this lifetime. But you won't make concessions for "dogma" and wont consider enlarging your study to include anything supernatural without respect as to whether it would lead you to truth. So it is hard to reach agreement on anything.

I think I get your point. You're saying that when considered in a broader context Creationism is correct. I concede you could well be right. Debaters on the evolution side are not debating within this broader context, but instead limit themselves to the scientific arena, a context within which Creationism is clearly wrong

You mention the supernatural, but that is the very opposite of science. Science limits itself to the natural, that which is apparent to the five senses. By definition any event which we can overtly detect is not supernatural. If God were to come tomorrow and move mountains it would be a stupefying and scientifically inexplicable event, but it wouldn't be supernatural because it would be observable by all the senses. We could monitor and measure the whole event. Explaining it would be a scientific challenge for the ages, and most would simply say, "God has spoken", but at the point he becomes overtly detectable he becomes natural and scientifically available.

In contrast, the way by which we detect the supernatural today is not by the five senses but by what we feel inside. If you ask a believer if God has ever spoken to them they might reply, "He has spoken to me, but not with words that moved the air, but with thoughts that moved my heart and soul."

So I think you and Schraf are actually discussing on two different levels. To the extent you're arguing Creationism is science you'll get strong resistance from the science side. In particular you'll get strong objections about pushing religious beliefs into public schools. But if you're only arguing that God's truth is greater than science and cannot be contained or explained by science, then you'll get no argument from me and I suspect from few others.

I'm not at this point sure I understand your particular perspectives on this, but all the Creationist literature and websites make clear the widespread belief within conservative religious circules that Creationism is a scientifically valid alternative to evolution. When arguing the broader context outside science it might be helpful to use a term other than Creationism.

--Percy

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-10-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by canonyz, posted 01-24-2001 10:24 AM Percy has taken no action
 Message 3 by lbhandli, posted 01-24-2001 12:24 PM Percy has taken no action
 Message 7 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 4:10 PM Percy has taken no action
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 04-23-2002 8:15 PM Percy has taken no action
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 06-11-2002 11:41 AM Percy has taken no action

  
canonyz
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 27 (100)
01-24-2001 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-23-2001 9:45 PM


This seems a good time to point out that, in my opinion, the Bible story of creation represents the universally accepted "science" of ancient times. As such it presents some difficulties which the modern creationist must eliminate when comparing the legend to modern knowledge. Most notable among these is the nature and function of the firmament, which holds back the primeval waters of The Deep, and carries the Sun, Moon and Stars around the earth.

I would like to see this addressed by our creationist friends, for it is one of the details often ignored by them and one which led to my current view of the biblical account.

PS It would seem that my difficulty posting has been resolved.

canon

[This message has been edited by canonyz (edited 01-24-2001).]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-23-2001 9:45 PM Percy has taken no action

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 27 (104)
01-24-2001 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-23-2001 9:45 PM


Fast Eddy, I'm quoting part of Percy's reply to make sure I'm understanding your position. Question is at the bottom.

quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:

So I think you and Schraf are actually discussing on two different levels. To the extent you're arguing Creationism is science you'll get strong resistance from the science side. In particular you'll get strong objections about pushing religious beliefs into public schools. But if you're only arguing that God's truth is greater than science and cannot be contained or explained by science, then you'll get no argument from me and I suspect from few others.

Good post and generally I agree especially on the scientific aspect. One important side issue for many Christians though is why is the physical world would be inconsistent with God's word. From what I gather you (now meaning Fast Eddy) don't hold Genesis to be literal, so perhaps this doesn't even register as a problem. However, where do you feel there must be differences between the Bible and what biological evolution proposes?

Thanks,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-23-2001 9:45 PM Percy has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20753
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 27 (109)
01-24-2001 9:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by fasstedddy in Message 6667 at Yahoo Clubs:

Scientific method is not the only way to evaluate truth. As I'm beginning to realize, if this is not really the pursuit, truth, but instead a test of scientific method...there probably is no point in debating. Yet the Club is titled Evolution versus Creationism. It's not the Scientific Method versus the Creation interpertation. Perhaps these are apples and oranges and a mutual grounds for discussing these can never be reached.

Schraf has already addressed this very well, but I would like to add a couple small points.

First, you don't seem to be speaking about Creationist interpretations. Creationism is the belief that there is valid scientific evidence supporting the Biblical account of creation. The debate between Creationism and evolution is on the scientific merits. That's why people like Henry Morris and Duane Gish wrote books like The Genesis Flood and The Fossils Say No! recounting evidence supporting Creationism and falsifying evolution.

The other small thing is that science is the pursuit of truth, but it recognizes it can only approach, never attain, that truth. Science by its very nature can not represent absolute truth because it includes the principle of tentativity. Science cannot at the same time be tentative and represent absolute truths.

The more spiritual issues you'd like to discuss are perfectly valid here, at least in my opinion, but you shouldn't continue referring to them as Creationism. Perhaps you should start a thread discussing the validity of science's rejection of the supernatural.

--Percy

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-10-2002]


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20753
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 27 (115)
01-26-2001 9:58 PM


I'm going to respond to your comments about science first, so I've rearranged your message a little:

quote:
Quote from FastEddy in Yahoo message 6697:

SCIENCE MUST be falsifiable...
SCIENCE can consider the evidence and theories from various perspectives...
SCIENCE can reexamine it's contentions and amend as the data indicates...

Your comments are consistent with the definition of science. If you think science should be defined differently then you should perhaps begin a thread raising this issue, as I once suggested.

About the Creationism part of your message:

quote:
Quote from FastEddy in Yahoo message 6697:

CREATION SCIENCE must never be subject to reinterpertation.
CREATION SCIENCE must declare the entire bible either literal or figurative from the get go...
CREATION SCIENCE must cling to historical views from hundreds and thousands of years ago in it's quest for understanding...

These views of Creation science are not ours but are those that you will find at many Creationism websites, particularly those of ICR, CRS and Dr. Hovind (Dr. Dino). If you think they're wrongheaded we can only agree with you, and if that's the case then your argument is not with us but with your fellow Creationists.

Many Creationists believe that where science disagrees with the Bible then science is wrong. Isn't this your view? If so then you're a typical Creationist in the mold we've been describing. If not then we, or I at least, apologize, but ask you to please clarify your views. You've been very general and philosophical in what I've seen so far.

--Percy

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-10-2002]


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20753
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 27 (116)
01-27-2001 11:48 AM


This is a reply to Yahoo message 6710.

I'm sorry this hasn't been a positive experience for you. If it helps, here's my analysis.

I think you've been avoiding the real issue by focusing on what you call science's lack of inclusivity of truth. The fundamental problem with your wish is that truth is a relative concept. For you the Bible is truth, while for a follower of Islam the Koran is truth. Science avoids the whole issue of "what is truth" and merely attempts (note I say attempts, not achieves) objectivity through rigorous methodologies that focus only on what is overtly apparent to our five senses.

The real reason you have an issue with science is not because you grieve its lack of truth but because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. Biology holds that species are not fixed. Cosmology holds that the universe is around 14 billions years old. Geology holds that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and that nothing like Noah's flood could ever possibly have happened.

When you say "inclusive of the truth" what you really mean is "inclusive of the Bible". All this talk about excluding truth is really just a smokescreen for projecting your religious beliefs into secular circles. The only reason this debate exists at all is because a primarily American religious sect believes the Bible is an accurate scientific account that should be taught in public schools. If not for these attempts to monkey with our educational system (), along with the concurrent sensationalism, no one would care what your religious sect believes and this debate wouldn't be happening.

The nature of science is a valid topic of discussion in this debate. Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, has advanced a premise similar to yours and has debated scientists on this topic. You have been invited several times to open up this question for discussion, but you instead merely repeat that science is insufficiently inclusive. I can tell you're frustrated at the sameness of the responses, but we can't respond to the specifics of your argument until you present them. At some point you have to go beyond your premise and mention some details.

I again invite you to do so. Tell us what science could do that would give it the necessary inclusiveness you feel it needs while retaining its investigatory power to understand our world and universe.

One more thing. Probably the more important reason you're feeling frustrated is that you've got no help. I have a feeling that Thmsberry went silent for the same reason. While he was active he was the only Creationist here, fighting alone in a sea of evolutionists. You became active just as he went dormant, and now you've been fighting the same lonely battle. Isn't there some way that more than one Creationist can be active here at the same time? Don't you have any on-line Creationist friends that you can send a note to saying, "Hey, come help me out on the such-and-so board."?

--Percy

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 01-27-2001).]


  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 27 (6916)
03-15-2002 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-23-2001 9:45 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B] I think I get your point. You're saying that when considered in a broader context Creationism is correct. I concede you could well be right. Debaters on the evolution side are not debating within this broader context, but instead limit themselves to the scientific arena, a context within which Creationism is clearly wrong

You mention the supernatural, but that is the very opposite of science. Science limits itself to the natural, that which is apparent to the five senses. By definition any event which we can overtly detect is not supernatural. If God were to come tomorrow and move mountains it would be a stupefying and scientifically inexplicable event, but it wouldn't be supernatural because it would be observable by all the senses.

**********************************************************

Some observations on your post. First, debaters on the evo side do not limit themselves to the scientific arena. They like to claim that they do but exactly the opposite is true. True science is often abandoned to maintain the evolutionist argument. Those who deny this either are not paying attention, or are willing trying to mislead someone. Also, I have long contended that all evolutionists, at least all that I have been exposed to, are indeed creationists. They may or may not be willing to be classified as IDers, but as far as being creationists, there is no doubt. For most, abiogenesis is the creator, and with the acceptance of a creator you are automatically qualified as a creationists. And as to supernatural, you seem to have some neo-understanding of the term. Supernatural events can indeed be observed with the senses. Their observance does not negate the fact that they are supernatural. A comet streaking across the sky is not a supernatural event. It is viewed with the eyes, and noted as an observable event. It may be regarded as spectacular, but not supernautral.

However, a comet streaking across the sky, and then by the power of Almighty God, is made to stop in its place, remain motionless for a time, then descend to the earth, resting on the surface of the oceans for a period of time, then again ascending into the outer heavens and then finally made to go backwards along the same course from which it came, this is completely supernatural, even though it also is observable. To somehow claim that this observance is not supernatural but rather is now a "natural" occurance simply because it has been observed, it to have a skewed and erroneous understanding of the term "supernatural" in the extreme sense. Were this phenomenom a repeatable occurance with no outside interference from the Almighty, then yes, I would agree it is within the realm of natural.(It would also require a rewrite of the laws of physics). The very act of intervention by the Almighty, denying and negating the natural laws of time, space, motion, gravity, physics, etc. demands its' classification as a supernatural, though observable, event. When the natural laws are superceded by a supernatural being, that my friend, "IS" completely supernatural, observed or not.

[Edited to remove too long line. --Percy]

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-23-2001 9:45 PM Percy has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 04-23-2002 9:26 PM Jet has replied
 Message 10 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-24-2002 9:13 AM Jet has replied
 Message 26 by Jeff, posted 06-13-2002 5:32 PM Jet has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4267 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 taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 9 of 27 (8839)
04-23-2002 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jet
03-15-2002 4:10 PM


quote:

Some observations on your post. First, debaters on the evo side do not limit themselves to the scientific arena. They like to claim that they do but exactly the opposite is true. True science is often abandoned to maintain the evolutionist argument.

JM: If you are referring to these discussion boards and the popular literature, I agree. Evolutionists do not limit themselves to science, but at least they can move back and forth between philosophy AND science. Creationists, on the other hand, are stuck with philosophy and religion.

quote:

Those who deny this either are not paying attention, or are willing trying to mislead someone. Also, I have long contended that all evolutionists, at least all that I have been exposed to, are indeed creationists. They may or may not be willing to be classified as IDers, but as far as being creationists, there is no doubt. For most, abiogenesis is the creator, and with the acceptance of a creator you are automatically qualified as a creationists.

JM: Actually, I'd love to see the data on this claim. As an evolutionist (I hate the term, but let's play with your rules), I cannot scientifically say how life got started. I think it's an interesting problem and issue, but irrelevant as to the discussion of what happened once life arrived. As to your claim that abiogenesis may be the 'creator', I quite agree. I think we mean very different things when we use the word 'creator'. My idea of abiogenesis is that it was unguided except for the physical and chemical laws that make the Universe what it is. I anticipate your next question, "Who or what made the laws?". Again, there are no definite scientific answers, but if there are conjectures, and if the conjectures are to be scientific, then they must exclude the supernatural.

quote:

And as to supernatural, you seem to have some neo-understanding of the term. Supernatural events can indeed be observed with the senses. Their observance does not negate the fact that they are supernatural. A comet streaking across the sky is not a supernatural event. It is viewed with the eyes, and noted as an observable event. It may be regarded as spectacular, but not supernautral.

However, a comet streaking across the sky, and then by the power of Almighty God, is made to stop in its place, remain motionless for a time, then descend to the earth, resting on the surface of the oceans for a period of time, then again ascending into the outer heavens and then finally made to go backwards along the same course from which it came, this is completely supernatural, even though it also is observable.


JM: It would indeed probably be observable, but the assumption of an almighty God is religious and not scientific. A scientist could only try to explain such an observation using naturalistic means. You see this as a fault. You say, why can't science consider the supernatural? The answer is simply because that is not how science is done. If we call on the supernatural at every tough puzzle, we end up like Behe who advocates quitting science when the answers are tough!

quote:

To somehow claim that this observance is not supernatural but rather is now a "natural" occurance simply because it has been observed, it to have a skewed and erroneous understanding of the term "supernatural" in the extreme sense.

JM: Not true. THe scientist may, as a philosopher, consider the event supernatural. As a scientist, he/she must try to explain it using natural means. If that is not possible, it becomes an anomaly that, no doubt, will lead to a religious sect of the 'stoppable comet'. You fault science for not considering the supernatural, but I ask when should science quit and attribute the unexplainable to the supernatural? Quitting means scientific inquiry stops! As a scientist, I find the notion of 'unexplainable' completely ridiculous. I may not be able to explain something using natural means, but I will try my best.

[QUOTE]
Were this phenomenom a repeatable occurance with no outside interference from the Almighty, then yes, I would agree it is within the realm of natural.(It would also require a rewrite of the laws of physics). The very act of intervention by the Almighty, denying and negating the natural laws of time, space, motion, gravity, physics, etc. demands its' classification as a supernatural, though observable, event. When the natural laws are superceded by a supernatural being, that my friend, "IS" completely supernatural, observed or not.[/B][/QUOTE]

JM: No, a scientist would only view it as 'currently unexplainable'.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 4:10 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Jet, posted 06-10-2002 8:01 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 10 of 27 (8857)
04-24-2002 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jet
03-15-2002 4:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
First, debaters on the evo side do not limit themselves to the scientific arena. They like to claim that they do but exactly the opposite is true. True science is often abandoned to maintain the evolutionist argument. Those who deny this either are not paying attention, or are willing trying to mislead someone.

OK, while I do know of a few people who debate on the evolution side leaving scientific principles (Dawkins insistence that science disporves God for one) when they are discussing evolution most remain within the scientific areans. Unless of course you have a different definition of "true science" than most scientists.

quote:

For most, abiogenesis is the creator, and with the acceptance of a creator you are automatically qualified as a creationists.

Sorry, I have to disagree here as well. The term "creator" generally implies some form of intent, abiogenesis is simply th eimpled aggregate protperties of a system, ie CAS or some other mathematical expression.
[QUOTE]Supernatural events can indeed be observed with the senses. Their observance does not negate the fact that they are supernatural. A comet streaking across the sky is not a supernatural event. It is viewed with the eyes, and noted as an observable event. It may be regarded as spectacular, but not supernautral.

However, a comet streaking across the sky, and then by the power of Almighty God, is made to stop in its place, remain motionless for a time, then descend to the earth, resting on the surface of the oceans for a period of time, then again ascending into the outer heavens and then finally made to go backwards along the same course from which it came, this is completely supernatural, even though it also is observable. To somehow claim that this observance is not supernatural but rather is now a "natural" occurance simply because it has been observed, it to have a skewed and erroneous understanding of the term "supernatural" in the extreme sense. Were this phenomenom a repeatable occurance with no outside interference from the Almighty, then yes, I would agree it is within the realm of natural.(It would also require a rewrite of the laws of physics). The very act of intervention by the Almighty, denying and negating the natural laws of time, space, motion, gravity, physics, etc. demands its' classification as a supernatural, though observable, event. When the natural laws are superceded by a supernatural being, that my friend, "IS" completely supernatural, observed or not.[/B][/QUOTE]

I think that either you, or someone else further up the thread, has some confusion about supernatural and science. Science does not deal with the supernatural not because it can not be observed (as you just pointed out the supernatural, if it exists, can be observed); science does not deal with the supernatural because the supernatural violates natural "laws", ie it operates outside of the area within which science operates. This is the area that science operates in, observation or inference based on observation of the natural world and the application of the inferred natural laws to explain these observations.

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jet, posted 03-15-2002 4:10 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 04-26-2002 5:38 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has taken no action
 Message 15 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:05 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4267 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 taken no action

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 27 (11246)
06-10-2002 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Joe Meert
04-23-2002 9:26 PM


An interesting reply that you posted. Obviously, the bulk of what you posted is merely your personal opinion, even as my post was. We simply have a difference of opinion.

Shalom

Jet

------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet

"The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable.

It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 04-23-2002 9:26 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Joe Meert, posted 06-10-2002 10:29 AM Jet has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4914 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 13 of 27 (11260)
06-10-2002 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jet
06-10-2002 8:01 AM


then how about this question:

when should science quit and attribute the unexplainable to the supernatural?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jet, posted 06-10-2002 8:01 AM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:23 PM Joe Meert has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4267 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 taken no action

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 27 (11341)
06-11-2002 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
04-24-2002 9:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
I think that either you, or someone else further up the thread, has some confusion about supernatural and science. Science does not deal with the supernatural not because it can not be observed (as you just pointed out the supernatural, if it exists, can be observed); science does not deal with the supernatural because the supernatural violates natural "laws", ie it operates outside of the area within which science operates. This is the area that science operates in, observation or inference based on observation of the natural world and the application of the inferred natural laws to explain these observations.


***I would have to agree with much of what you say in your post. I would also have to say that not all EVOs will agree with you that something supernatural can be observed. I believe Percy even stated that if an event is observed, it is not, by definition, supernatural. Considering the example that I gave, I would have to disagree with him.

As for your assessment of what can be qualified as being a creator, we will simply have to agree to disagree on that issue. Perhaps "maker" is a term that you would feel more comfortable with, as a maker definitely need not imply some form of intent, my ice-maker is proof of that.***

Shalom

Jet

------------------
Please limit signatures to at most a couple hundred characters. --Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-24-2002 9:13 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 06-12-2002 5:46 PM Jet has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022