What if I have a feeling there will always be some IC systems? As this list
has pointed out often, feelings don't cut it in science.
>You can't tell if something is designed or not, so you have to >assume it's
>not. If it *is* designed then it's utterly idiosyncratic >to the designer
>and unavailable to be understood. The assumption of >design stops science
>in its tracks.
I disagree with that first sentence. Should it not be "you can't tell if
something is designed or not, so you have to say you can't tell"? Simply
because you can't tell something, doesn't mean you have to assume its
negation. If you took that stance (throwing in a bit of Cartesian ideas
here) you can't tell you are actually awake and that life isn't a dream, so
you must assume you aren't awake. If my brain was working tonite I'd list
other situations, but my general point is that science cannot make
assertions either way about purely philosophical stances.
>>But those who believe the Bible may examine their interpretations >>of
>>verses, chapters, etc. and so religions based on the Bible >>change. The
>>numbers obtained from science don't change, the >>explanations behind the
>>gathered data change.
>The bible is the source of religious information and therefore
> >static--there will be no more. The numbers obtained from science >*do*
>change, new information comes in all the time.
Not my point at all. The numbers don't change when new information comes in,
there are simply more of them.
>I just realized you were right about the bible. Since the bible is >written
>by dozens of people over hundreds of years it is very self->contradictory
>and chaotic, with few consistant themes. After nearly >3000 years, modern
>people don't really know what was the point of a >lot of the oldest
>biblical tales. Everybody ends up with an opinion >about what it all means
>and some years some opinions are more >fashionable than others.
I'll ignore the logical fallacy in the second sentence for what you meant to
say. You'll have to support that assertion for me. I'd like to know where
the Bible is "self-contradictory and chaotic" since I've been reading it for
years and think it has wonderfully consistent themes. And how does the
'after nearly 3000 years' affect this issue? People have been investigating
mathematics for just as long and look at the ambiguity it's RESULTED in!
Math has no solid basis now, in fact it is based on a set of undefined
terminology, determined by what you choose it to be. For just one example of
this, look at the different geometries. Enough information has been around
since at least 3000 years ago, but people made assumptions that weren't
correct (such as Euclid's 5th postulate) which led them off track.
And you should know better than to claim that fashion determines religion.
In fact, many religious stances are totally opposite of current fashions. To
use Christianity as an example, fidelity in marriage is very strongly
addressed in the Bible, but yet look at the divorce rate in the US:
supposedly a Christian nation. What's fashionable about religion is saying
you're a member, whether you actually are a true member or not.
>>From what I've seen, there are not so many evolutionary claims >>that are
>>undisputed either.
>things like the physics of isochron dating and fossil evidence are >only
>disputed by creationists. Not all dispute is equal :-)
Things like the existence of God are only disputed by atheists and
agnostics. Not all dispute is equal indeed. :)
>:-) there are hundreds of new graduate students every single year >who want
>to make a big splash with their Phd theses. If something's >wrong with
>evolution or *any* portion of science, someone is going >to make their
>reputation and get tenure for exposing it.
So....? I don't entirely understand what this was included for.
This is turning interesting, (not that it wasn't before!) :-)
Jason
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com