Re: ID Revisited
- From: stephenj <sjarok@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:33:49 -0500
James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, stephenj <sjarok@xxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.
ok, i'm not a physicist so i don't know exactly what can be predicted and what can't. But planetary and stellar movements *like that* can be
predicted to some extent, much better than EB can make predictions
about the future.
If you don't know exactly what can be predicted by mechanical physics,
how can anyone presume that you know anything about what can be
predicted by EB?
i don't ask anyone to presume anything. but so far you haven't even denied the core of what i've contended - that EB falls short of many physics theories in predictive power. you've just (a) poked at my specific physics examples without taking down the general point, and (b) reiterated why EB lacks the same kind of predictive power.
You've already demonstrated profound lack of knowledge
about what it can predict in the first place by discounting the
significance of them.
actually, from the git-go i acknowledged the ability of EB to 'predict' the past. I just said that this isn't as strong as being able to predict both the past and the future, which many physics theories can.
Sorry, but if EB could predict the future, it would be stronger and IMO have greater acceptance.
Only with the predictive power of EB could you, for example, look at a
modern whale, and realizing that it is a land animal modified for life
in the sea predict the existence of an ancestor with vestigal legs. The
discovery of these fossils was a major event in proving the predictive
power of the theory -- and you discount it because it didn't predict
"the future."
sheesh - i didn't discount it, i explained (quite correctly) why that's not as good as being able to predict both the past and future.
-- "what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act? He will conclude that he can do more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
- President Bill Clinton, explaining why Hussein must be forced to admit UN weapons inspectors, 1998 .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: Trevor Zion Bauknight
- Re: ID Revisited
- References:
- ID Revisited
- From: dave.melvin@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: mianderson
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: Bill Lang
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: mianderson
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: Bill Lang
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: mianderson
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: stephenj
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: Trevor Zion Bauknight
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: stephenj
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: Trevor Zion Bauknight
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: stephenj
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: James Schrumpf
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: stephenj
- Re: ID Revisited
- From: James Schrumpf
- ID Revisited
- Prev by Date: Division I-AA memochat
- Next by Date: Re: The anagram decides it
- Previous by thread: Re: ID Revisited
- Next by thread: Re: ID Revisited
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|