Re: OT - Re: Tim Daneluk

Enoch Root wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Enoch Root wrote:


fredfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



Tim Daneliuk wrote:




You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at
the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this
materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting
points -
this includes Science.



Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?



That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang
Theory, and offer sources, cites.

I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
irrelevant^Wofftopic.


You need to understand the context of the quote. Someone described ID as
irrational "mumbo jumbo". I responded with the above quote as an example
where non-provable assumptions served as the basis for *science*. It had
nothing whatsoever to do with "undermining evolution" or "supporting
ID". It had to do with trying to swat away this contention (implicit in
much of that thread) that science is somehow epistemicly "purer" and/or
that ID is an idiotic position. In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
is Science.


You keep confusing science with philosophy, that's your problem. You

I am entirely clear on the distinction and have no conqsequent problem:

1) The philosophy of science requires "faith" in certain unprovable
starting points about the nature and efficacy of the methods of science.

2) The practice of science is built upon the philosophy of science.

3) By Transitive Closure, the practice of science is thus built
(ultimately, subtlely) on a kind of "faith". That fact that this
belief is non-religious does not make it any less "faith".

know the word epistemology, but you don't understand it. (there's a
(very) little joke there, if you look)

You're right, it's very little.


don't trip while you backpeddle away from your statements.

I won't, I affirm them more strongly.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... Therefore the big bang is not scientific because it is not observable or testable. ... are requirements of science according to the definition of science ... Creationists are fond of pointing to scientists whose ideas were not immediately accepted, but turned out to be right, but that's not the point. ... conclude that the universe began in the Big Bang. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... not science, no math and no meaningful communication. ... Yup it is an anology to your beloved Big Bang. ... Creationists are fond of pointing to scientists whose ideas were not ... conclude that the universe began in the Big Bang. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... not science, no math and no meaningful communication. ... universe is a miracle that was poofed into existence. ... Yup it is an anology to your beloved Big Bang. ... Creationists are fond of pointing to scientists whose ideas were not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... Why not go away and learn what science can and can't do. ... There are numerous observations and measurements which support big bang ... Perhaps the scientists involved understand the nature of science rather ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science is a Philosophy
    ... I guess Sean would argue that war is a "specific view and philosophy", ... simply taught as a compendium of "facts" that must be learned. ... But given the utility of learning science (something that I ... this belief is based on faith. ...
    (talk.origins)