Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- From: UC <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 May 2007 14:34:46 -0700
On May 24, 5:24 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 24, 5:16 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 24, 5:05 pm, Mark Nutter <manutte...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 24, 1:06 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 24, 6:49 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Go to the Grand Canyon and look at the walls of the canyon. There are
layers of rock with fossils in them. The fossils are the same in the
same layers in various places, but different ones appear in different
layers above and below one another. Over time, different life forms
succeeded others. That's evolution. It's a fact.
No, you have dead bones in various layers. How did they get there is
the question. How do you know different life forms descended from
others, where was this established and by whom? Do realise that we
might never know if the answer is resrticted to be within the confines
of the materialist premise.
Scientifically, it's not restricted to any materialistic premise. It
is restricted only to the premise of verifiability. That is, to be
scientific, a thing must be verifiable.
Not true. It goes "...a thing must be verifiable IN PRINCIPLE." Many
things are unverifiable because we cannot go there or stand the
conditions.
But to the degree that it cannot be verified -- directly or indirectly
-- it also does not become part of what we consider a scientific
conclusion. It may be a hypothesis or even a conjecture, but without
*some* kind of dependable verification, it remains unsupported.
This is an essential feature of science, because things that are flat-
out wrong are also unverifiable. If science were to begin allowing
conclusions even when they were unverifiable, there would be no way to
distinguish between the hypotheses that were unverifiable because they
are unverifiable, and those that are unverifiable because they are
wrong. It somewhat diminishes the value of science to render it
completely unable to tell when a hypothesis is wrong. ;-)
m
Verify whether people can stand on the surface of the sun and sing
Stairway to Heaven.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- From: Will in New Haven
- Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- From: Mark Nutter
- Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- References:
- There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- From: backspace
- Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- From: UC
- Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- From: backspace
- Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- From: Mark Nutter
- Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- From: UC
- Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- From: Mark Nutter
- There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- Prev by Date: Re: In The News: ***, ***, and Gay families adopt "Intelligent
- Next by Date: Re: So what do Catholics believe about Exogenesis?
- Previous by thread: Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- Next by thread: Re: There is no ToE on Wikipedia
- Index(es):