Re: Catholic Miller rationionalizes his practical atheism



Glenn wrote:
> "josephus" <dogbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:69jGe.6683$Uk3.3104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>
>>Glenn wrote:
>>
>>>"josephus" <dogbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:kNHFe.5030$0C.4848@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>>Glenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Deadrat" <ephemera1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>news:jXDFe.79$gQ5.63@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Glenn" <glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:glennsheldon-AzDFe.103$Qk.32912@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Deadrat" <ephemera1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:hPzFe.22$gQ5.14@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Glenn" <glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:glennsheldon-RmxFe.34$mw3.5759@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Deadrat" <none@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:NECCe.225$IG2.164@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Glenn" <glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:glennsheldon-vPpCe.345$Bl2.220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>>message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>news:11dk1ngml1c9108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>My defense is this: the known mechanisms of evolution (the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>causes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>been experimentally shown to produce change in the frequency
>>>>>
>>>>>of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>inheritable
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>traits in populations over time) are mutation, natural
>>>>>>
>>>>>>selection,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>drift.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't think you seriously mean to suggest that any of these
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>things
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>normally involve conscious choice or planning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I mean to suggest that you can't seriously suggest that they
>>>>>>
>>>>>>don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Let's see some work, then. What testable mechanism do you propose
>>>>>>>>>>whereby we can determine conscious choice or planning in the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mechanisms
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>that we observe?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why the "then"? I did not suggest that something exists, I
>
> suggested
>
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Steven could not suggest that something does not exist. The
>>>>>
>>>>>existence
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>nonexistence of something does not rely on our ability to determine
>>>>>>
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>existence or nonexistence of that something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'd say this was true, but the existence of something that science
>
> can
>
>>>>>>>study
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>does rely on our ability to measure it realiably, even if
>
> indirectly.
>
>>>>>>>Uh, no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uh, that it clears it up then.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What, your irrelevant response??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>But sorry, if you can't measure it, it ain't science. It may be
>>>
>>>something
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>else;
>>>>>>it may be something better, but it ain't science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The existence of something that "science can study" does not rely on
>
> our
>
>>>>>current abilities, nor does "science". Your statement is meaningless in
>>>>>context, since you have no objective understanding of our "ability to
>>>>>measure realiably". Reliability is subject to interpretation and
>>>
>>>criticism,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and new data. That's science, and it is possible to hypothesize about
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>>>which we can not measure directly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are right about speculation, but it must have some relationship to
>>>>measurable science. We know about the inside of black holes because we
>>>>know the nuclear theory that explains the splitting of functions at
>>>>specific pressure and temperature. All the way down to a sea of quarks.
>>>
>>>
>>>All the way down to "white holes" speculations, worm holes,
>
> multi-universes,
>
>>>and further. We do not "know", we *theorize*, especially with that which
>
> is
>
>>>not directly observable.
>>>
>>>
>>>>There are things that we cannot measure directly, but it can be
>>>
>>>calculated.
>>>
>>>Predicted is the word you were probably grasping for. Predictions can
>>>support or falsify, but never prove, theory. Predictions and theory can
>
> lead
>
>>>to new discoveries, as well.
>>
>>I never said this was speculation. And I did not talk about
>>singularities and whiteholes. I find your comment unreasonable. You
>>imply that Nuclear Theory is just speculation like the atomic bomb.
>
>
> Ah. Since we have the atomic bomb, black holes exist as theorized, and that
> is more than speculation. I am certainly "unreasonable".
>
I can see by the smirk, AT LEAST WE AGREE.
josephus

.

Relevant Pages