Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

On Dec 17, 2:13 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes, it does. That's why they're called tool marks, and not "random
scratchings that give us no clues".

Nature can make non-random markings as well. You have to have at
least some idea as to the limits of what nature can do before you'd
have any idea that the markings you think to be "tool marks" could not
be closely mimiced by some non-deliberate force of nature.

No. We don't put limits on what nature can do. We say that such marks
have not been observed to occur naturally.

And what the heck does that mean if that says nothing about what you
think nature is likely to be able to do? If this information says
nothing at all to you about what all of nature is likely to be able to
do and not do, then how can you make a conclusion that your tool marks
are most likely artifactual? You'd really have no idea given your
argument as stated.

I am not surprised that a
mind capable of accepting creationism, which explicitly places limits on
what God can do, has difficulty with this distinction.

You mean like limiting God to a point where he couldn't use an
evolutionary mechanism to create life? Is that the kind of
'limitation' you are talking about? If so, this is a common but inane
position. If an intelligent designer didn't use limitations of some
kind, even if self-imposed, there would be no way for us to understand
anything given the minds that we have. We understand the universe
because it is logical to us - because it functions within the language
of mathematics.

As Einstein put it, what is most amazing about the universe is that it
actually make sense to us. It doesn't have to you know.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... be closely mimiced by some non-deliberate force of nature. ... We don't put limits on what nature can do. ... You mean given the minds we were given, ... universe he would have given us minds that were capable of understanding it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: MORE BEERSKI!
    ... Just a thought - water weighs 8 pounds a gallon. ... thorough Federal response would have been unconstitutional... ... it's off limits, get out. ... The two I'll use are man vs. man, and man vs. nature. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Generalising physical theories
    ... > of numbers is an infinitely bigger infinity and not ... That is a very, very big statement, to say that that limits the number ... description of nature can exist. ... coupling constants as well. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Answer to my question about Quakers
    ... concept of 'The Holy Spirit' to be very tangible and valid. ... I so appreciate the infinitely large nature of deity as I conceive of it, ... that I can only approach it from the idea of 'limits' (not that it has ... Engagement of human curiosity as to the divine nature is ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... be closely mimiced by some non-deliberate force of nature. ... We don't put limits on what nature can do. ... You mean given the minds we were given, ... God could have created the universe entirely differently, but if he wanted us to understand the universe he would have given us minds that were capable of understanding it. ...
    (talk.origins)