Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 3:44 PM
27 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, Chiroptera, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, ringo, Taq, xongsmith (9 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,152 Year: 9,188/19,786 Month: 1,610/2,119 Week: 370/576 Day: 45/128 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   Conclusion vs Presupposition
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 4084 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 16 of 94 (445016)
12-31-2007 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
12-31-2007 8:52 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
I have already answered as to where the suppositions are. You seem content on ignoring my answer because you seem the believe that majority rules equates to the truth. I am not the one in error, neither am I refuted. Your agrument is based souly on presupposed opinion and majority rules mentality. Even if I gave you facts you would not accept them because they over rule your presupposition, ergo you prove my point exactly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 8:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 9:29 PM imageinvisible has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30985
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 17 of 94 (445019)
12-31-2007 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by imageinvisible
12-31-2007 9:14 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
I have already answered as to where the suppositions are. You seem content on ignoring my answer because you seem the believe that majority rules equates to the truth. I am not the one in error, neither am I refuted. Your agrument is based souly on presupposed opinion and majority rules mentality. Even if I gave you facts you would not accept them because they over rule your presupposition, ergo you prove my point exactly.

Well lets examine it closely.

I look at the evidence and find that as a Christian I can see, understand and accept both God and the fact of Evolution. In addition I find that over 11,000 US Christian Clergy also accept God, the Bible, Evolution and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for what is seen.

From those observations I can conclude that Evolution does not require a pre-supposition that there is no God since both one Christian I know intimately (myself) as well as over 11,000 US Christian Clergy all accept the existence of God as well as Evolution.

Where are the suppositions in this example.

Also I notice you did not address what pre-suppositions exist in the three examples in Message 1.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by imageinvisible, posted 12-31-2007 9:14 PM imageinvisible has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by imageinvisible, posted 12-31-2007 10:56 PM jar has responded
 Message 39 by Beretta, posted 01-02-2008 7:03 AM jar has responded

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 4084 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 18 of 94 (445027)
12-31-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
12-31-2007 9:29 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
jar writes:

Well lets examine it closely.

I look at the evidence and find that as a Christian I can see, understand and accept both God and the fact of Evolution. In addition I find that over 11,000 US Christian Clergy also accept God, the Bible, Evolution and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for what is seen. From those observations I can conclude that Evolution does not require a pre-supposition that there is no God since both one Christian I know intimately (myself) as well as over 11,000 US Christian Clergy all accept the existence of God as well as Evolution. Where are the suppositions in this example.

Suppositions just in this statement. 1) that you are a christian. 2) that they are christians. 3) that evolution isn't based on supposition. 4) that (once again) what a certain group of people says is true based on their supposition, must be true because it matches with your supposition. 5) that christianity and evolution are not mutualy exclusive, contrary to what is written in the Bible, specificaly contrary to what Jesus Christ said. 6) that the definition if Christain, as defined by scripture, does not mean all of these a) one who is like Jesus Christ, both in word and deed b) who follows devotly all the teachings of Jesus Christ c) who relies souly on the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for the remision of their sins and for their salvation d) that in order to be that sacrifice reqiures that Jesus be completely without sin, pure and holy in the eyes of God e) and who believes that every word that issued from the mouth of Jesus Christ is the absolute truth, because He is the source of all truth, and cannot lie. 7) that Jesus Christ believed in evolution, contrary to what the scriptures say. 8) that your suppositions hold more wieght than another persons suppositions. 9) that the postulate of evolution best fits observable evidence 10) that claiming to be a christian makes someone a christian. 11) that your observations of reality are not as twisted and corrupt as your idea of christianity. 12) that you have any idea what it means to be a christian. 13) that you can twist the Word of God (who is Jesus Christ) to conform to the postulate of evolution. 14) that God is a lier and all men are true, contrary to what the scripture says. 15) that there are no suppositions in your statement.

Did you even read the quotes I listed in message 14? Because at least one of them dealt exclusively with one or another of the suppositions in message 1. Specificaly, that I can remember, the supposition of uniformitarianism.

Supposition: 1) something that is supposed: hypothesis 2) the act of supposing
According to Merriam-Webster

Suppose that the universe was created naturaly, and one can determine that all the evidence supports their supposition. Suppose that the universe was created suppernaturaly, and one can determine that all the evidence supports their supposition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 9:29 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 11:25 PM imageinvisible has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30985
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 19 of 94 (445033)
12-31-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by imageinvisible
12-31-2007 10:56 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
I still do not see any suppositions other than that the people who signed the Clergy Project Letter are not lying, and based on the facts that they did sign, that their names are public as well as their affiliations, I see no reason to suspect they are lying.

Is that your only point? The rest of your message is irrelevant as to whether or not what I posted is a conclusion. I listed the actual evidence and based on that evidence arrived at a conclusion.

It is possible that the physical evidence IS false, but if that is the case then it applies equally across the board and NOTHING, including the Bible can be considered factual.

And I notice you still did not address the three examples in Message 1. I listed the basis for my conclusions in Message 1 and the facts are as I laid them out. The conventional models do explain what is seen. So far no one, and I do mean no one, has been able to present models other than the conventional models that explain what is seen.

Uniformitarianism itself is not a presupposition, but rather an unavoidable conclusion based on what is seen. As shown in the examples in Message 1 the processes we see today will explain what is seen. For example in the Green River example we see annual varves being produced today that look exactly like those seen in the Green River cores.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by imageinvisible, posted 12-31-2007 10:56 PM imageinvisible has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by imageinvisible, posted 12-31-2007 11:30 PM jar has responded

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 4084 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 20 of 94 (445035)
12-31-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
12-31-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
Redirected to Message 14, Message 16, and Message 18
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 11:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 11:34 PM imageinvisible has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30985
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 21 of 94 (445036)
12-31-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by imageinvisible
12-31-2007 11:30 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
Is there something in those messages which has not already been addressed?


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by imageinvisible, posted 12-31-2007 11:30 PM imageinvisible has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 1:40 AM jar has responded

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 4084 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 22 of 94 (445060)
01-01-2008 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
12-31-2007 11:34 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
Yup, you just refuse to adress it because you refuse to acknowledge it, or even look at it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 11:34 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 11:04 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 94 (445077)
01-01-2008 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by imageinvisible
12-31-2007 5:38 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
Simple. Evolutionism starts with the presupposition, the idea, that everything in the universe can be explained naturaly, and/or has a natural cause. Ergo, this presuposition states that there is or can be no supernatural intervention. From this starting presupposition a postulate concerning the origin of the universe was derived based on that supposition, i.e. the Big Bing, a postulate which requires billions of years to be feasable. from this same supposition a postulate concerning the origin of life was derived, i.e. the postulate of evolution, which reqiures billions of years to be feasable. These two postulates then became the foundation for studying the universe, and any postulate that follows after them must adhere to their conclusion that the universe and everything in it reqiures billions of years, because any other conclusion would negate the starting presupposition.

The founding presupposition of evolutionism asserts that there is no God, without being able to prove that there isn't a God.

Well, that was nonsense from start to finish.

Why don't you go away and learn something about evolution, instead of making stuff up?

Creationism starts with the presupposition that the universe had to be created suppernaturaly, by God.

Are you speaking for all creationists here? By what mandate?

How we view the big picture determines which answer we chose. We then chose one of these starting points (a or b) and then test the evidence to try and prove that starting point. We then use the observations from those tests to further support our belief in the starting point.

Speak for yourself.

I use the hypothetico-deductive method, which kinda explains why I'm right and you're wrong.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by imageinvisible, posted 12-31-2007 5:38 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 94 (445078)
01-01-2008 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by imageinvisible
12-31-2007 8:42 PM


For your information
This message (Message 14) is a load of links with almost no content to be addressed.

We do not do things that way. You may use links as supporting evidence, but you are expected to make your own points. Other members can - and probably should - ignore your links, for this reason. (To do otherwise would be to encourage this sort of behaviour).

Please do not discuss this matter here. If you have any objections take them to the thread discussing moderator actions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by imageinvisible, posted 12-31-2007 8:42 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30985
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 25 of 94 (445148)
01-01-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 1:40 AM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
So help me. What is it that has not been addressed?

Remember the topic is "Conclusion vs Presupposition."


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 1:40 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3875 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 26 of 94 (445151)
01-01-2008 11:33 AM


These "Presuppositions" are Universal, and thus Unimportant
You say that there are three major presuppositions that evolution believers must make to come to the conclusions that evolution brings. You say these are:

(1) that there is an objective reality
(2) that evidence tells the truth about that objective reality
(3) that we can understand objective reality by understanding the evidence

What you fail to understand is that these presuppositions in no way hinder the value of the conclusions. These presuppositions are universal in nature, and are found in every single area of science and thinking known to man. These are conditions we believe, no, that we know to be true that allow us to make any conclusions about our world. Not only does this apply to the concept of evolution, but it applies to the concept of mathematics, medicine, computer science, forensics ( which ends up usually with the right answer, putting the right person in prison), anthropology, and even religion, namely because the writers of the Bible, the Qu'Ran, and the Bhagavad Gita were still subject to these base presuppositions in their endeavors. Are you challenging the base of modern mathematics and physics? If with these presuppositions we are able to make valid claims about our universe, such as the claim that 1+1=2 and that things fall downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, then we can show that these presuppositions are valid, and because they are, they have no adverse effect on the conclusions of any branch of science, even religion.

But perhaps the most important thing is this: Creationists and proponents of ID are also under the influence of these presuppositions. Their claims that the world is too complicated to have come up by "chance" (which is not at all what evolution says anyway) are subject to the same crime of having the presupposition that "there is an objective reality" and that evidence points to the truth and so on.


Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2008 5:06 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

    
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 4084 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 27 of 94 (445229)
01-01-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
12-25-2007 2:59 PM


Supposition v conclusion
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one :stay tuned for more updates.

jar writes:

They can only settle on the bottom. That is what is so clear about this example. We have over 4,000,000 instances of a finer material being laid down followed by a slightly coarser layer then another finer layer, another coarser layer. To get that fine a silt to settle out the water must be near still, followed by the more active flow to provide the slightly coarser layer, followed another quiescent period.

supposition 1. The research, which appears in this week’s edition of Science, counters the old view of geologists that mud only settles when water is placid, instead showing that “muds will accumulate even when currents move swiftly.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/12/22/news-to-note-12222007 see point number 3. referance PhysOrg: “As Waters Clear, Scientists Seek to End a Muddy Debate”

I won't even worry concerning the rest since this proves that your very first stament is a supposition, though many of your others are suppositions as well.

Edited by imageinvisible, : oops


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 12-25-2007 2:59 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 2:49 PM imageinvisible has responded
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2008 5:49 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30985
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 28 of 94 (445230)
01-01-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 2:47 PM


Re: Supposition v conclusion
supposition 1. The research, which appears in this week’s edition of Science, counters the old view of geologists that mud only settles when water is placid, instead showing that “muds will accumulate even when currents move swiftly.”

The deposits are not mud, but silt. Very very fine silt.

AbE:

In addition you would still need to explain the repetitions, the over 4 million(actually over 20 million) repeating cycles. See Message 1

from msg 1 writes:

So lets look at your 4 million catastrophic events. If it happened over the 6000 year period you have mentioned that is over 666 events a year, about two a day, every day right up through yesterday. Likely someone might have noticed.

In that case it also eliminates a flood during those 6000 years.

If it happened during the flood year it is about 11,000 repeating cycles a day or something over 450 such events every hour, more than seven every minute.

Now remember this is such fine silt that it will stay suspended unless the water is standing still for a considerable period of time.

So once again, what is your model for the 4 million plus alternating layers of finer and coarser, lighter and darker material?

Edited by jar, : add info on repetitions.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 2:47 PM imageinvisible has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 3:00 PM jar has responded

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 4084 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 29 of 94 (445233)
01-01-2008 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
01-01-2008 2:49 PM


Re: Supposition v conclusion
Acctualy if you read the article the scientists involved used clays.

"Schieber’s team chose fine clays for the experiment—calcium montmorillonite and kaolinite, clays that would not settle easily in rapidly moving water, according to the prevailing view. "

I know you didn't read the artical I can't copy and paste it in this forum, so I guess where at an impass. I have proven, from various points, that your statements in the OP are based on suppositions, but you refuse to acknowledge them as such. Who then is in error? Me because I cannot convince you that there are soppusitions in your statments or you because you refuse to acknowledge them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 2:49 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 3:16 PM imageinvisible has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30985
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 30 of 94 (445234)
01-01-2008 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 3:00 PM


Re: Supposition v conclusion
That still does not address the repetitions. You still need a model to explain over 4 million (actually over 20 million) repeating layers. As I pointed out in Message 1 and yet again in the very message you are responding to:

So lets look at your 4 million catastrophic events. If it happened over the 6000 year period you have mentioned that is over 666 events a year, about two a day, every day right up through yesterday. Likely someone might have noticed.

In that case it also eliminates a flood during those 6000 years.

If it happened during the flood year it is about 11,000 repeating cycles a day or something over 450 such events every hour, more than seven every minute.

Now remember this is such fine silt that it will stay suspended unless the water is standing still for a considerable period of time.

So once again, what is your model for the 4 million plus alternating layers of finer and coarser, lighter and darker material?

You need a model that explains those repetitive events.

The conventional model explains how to make annual layers, varves.

You need a model that can duplicate what we see produced as an annual varve. Then you need a model that will repeat what is seen at least 4 million times within whatever time frame you select.

Once you do that we will get you to explain how your model ALSO explains that we see the correlation with the 11 year sunspot cycle and the 21 thousand year orbital cycle.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 3:00 PM imageinvisible has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 3:26 PM jar has responded

  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019