Re: Catholic Miller rationionalizes his practical atheism


"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".

.

Relevant Pages