jerryR34 Posted October 24, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Equivocation (Fallacy). RCC doesn't = Christianity. Where in Scripture does it say that the Earth is the Center?Did you know, that as a result of the "Error" filled CMB (COBE/WMAP/Planck) that now they think that the Earth is @ the Center of the entire Universe. It's called "The Axis of Evil". What do you think about that?What do i think of that? I think you miss the point. ======================================================================= What, that you're using an "fallacious" reference to make a point about Pre-Conceived Bias. I think I got it. I think this speaks to the issue a little more accurately... ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. {Emphasis Mine} Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14. What's your point? I've already asserted that there is a difference between learning and preconceived notions. Sure there is influence, but true science overcomes that with new evidence. See the difference Enoch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Equivocation (Fallacy). RCC doesn't = Christianity. Where in Scripture does it say that the Earth is the Center?Did you know, that as a result of the "Error" filled CMB (COBE/WMAP/Planck) that now they think that the Earth is @ the Center of the entire Universe. It's called "The Axis of Evil". What do you think about that?What do i think of that? I think you miss the point. ======================================================================= What, that you're using an "fallacious" reference to make a point about Pre-Conceived Bias. I think I got it. I think this speaks to the issue a little more accurately... ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. {Emphasis Mine} Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14. What's your point? I've already asserted that there is a difference between learning and preconceived notions. Sure there is influence, but true science overcomes that with new evidence. See the difference Enoch? =========================================================================================================== What is "TRUE" science......? And as Professor Gould said....."each" Scientist brings baggage. Also a Reification (Fallacy)------"science" doesn't overcome anything....it's not alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted October 24, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Equivocation (Fallacy). RCC doesn't = Christianity. Where in Scripture does it say that the Earth is the Center?Did you know, that as a result of the "Error" filled CMB (COBE/WMAP/Planck) that now they think that the Earth is @ the Center of the entire Universe. It's called "The Axis of Evil". What do you think about that?What do i think of that? I think you miss the point. ======================================================================= What, that you're using an "fallacious" reference to make a point about Pre-Conceived Bias. I think I got it. I think this speaks to the issue a little more accurately... ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. {Emphasis Mine} Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14. What's your point? I've already asserted that there is a difference between learning and preconceived notions. Sure there is influence, but true science overcomes that with new evidence. See the difference Enoch? =========================================================================================================== What is "TRUE" science......? And as Professor Gould said....."each" Scientist brings baggage. Also a Reification (Fallacy)------"science" doesn't overcome anything....it's not alive. True science is the scientific method and peer review. You can get wrapped around the axel on reification all you want (even capitalize it), but that is only a distraction from the point. When applied appropriately, the scientific method (you are being pedantic if you bring up reification here) overcomes the scientists "baggage". To get back on point, Hawking does not take God into account in any equation he postulates. It is not necessary for his purposes, again, for his purposes, God is irrelevant. In my opinion, that seems to bother creationists more that anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyAngeL Posted October 24, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 155 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,464 Content Per Day: 1.02 Reputation: 8,810 Days Won: 57 Joined: 03/30/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/12/1952 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I don't think God is irrelevant to many scientists, even in assessment of evidence. They are investigating the universe to discover mechanisms and explanations that are not supernatural, but that does not mean they are not cognizant of His reality and do not harbor a sense of awe. You need look no further than the case of Francis Collins. Preconceived notions are very deleterious to good science. If God is everywhere, then think of it as a math equation where you reduce things to their least common denominator. Like 2x * 5x = 10x. No matter what "x" is, it does not impact the equation...like supernatural does not impact the natural world. Not your world perhaps. In mine God is everything. Amen Fez, mine to. Without Him I could do nothing, I would just be at a total loss. Thank you Jesus for your Grace! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 24, 2014 True science is the scientific method and peer review. You can get wrapped around the axel on reification all you want (even capitalize it), but that is only a distraction from the point. When applied appropriately, the scientific method (you are being pedantic if you bring up reification here) overcomes the scientists "baggage". To get back on point, Hawking does not take God into account in any equation he postulates. It is not necessary for his purposes, again, for his purposes, God is irrelevant. In my opinion, that seems to bother creationists more that anything. ================================================================================================================== "True science is the scientific method and peer review." Why do you need "Peer Review" if they are using the Scientific Method? Please post any Postulate Proffered by any of these: Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology. So show us ANY postulate....just ONE postulated by any of these that is in Accordance with The Scientific Method.....? When applied appropriately, the scientific method..... overcomes the scientists "baggage" Yes, you'd like to think so and that is Inherent in the Characteristics of the Method; However, Professor Gould does summarily and directly disagree with you... ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14. To get back on point, Hawking does not take God into account in any equation he postulates. "Hawking"? I thought we were talking about "science"? Please put any of his postulates in the Scientific Method and Validate...........? It is not necessary for his purposes, again, for his purposes, God is irrelevant What is his purpose? In my opinion, that seems to bother creationists more that anything. Other than tearing apart his postulates with 5th Grade "Real" Science; Personally, I feel very sorry for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted October 24, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) True science is the scientific method and peer review. You can get wrapped around the axel on reification all you want (even capitalize it), but that is only a distraction from the point. When applied appropriately, the scientific method (you are being pedantic if you bring up reification here) overcomes the scientists "baggage". To get back on point, Hawking does not take God into account in any equation he postulates. It is not necessary for his purposes, again, for his purposes, God is irrelevant. In my opinion, that seems to bother creationists more that anything. ================================================================================================================== "True science is the scientific method and peer review." Why do you need "Peer Review" if they are using the Scientific Method? Please post any Postulate Proffered by any of these: Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology. So show us ANY postulate....just ONE postulated by any of these that is in Accordance with The Scientific Method.....? Civilization has made tremendous strides in quality of life (health) and lifespan since the implementation of the scientific method in concert with peer review. We need peer review so science can correct itself (i.e. peking man). I offer Germ Theory as one postulate that has come about via scientific method. I could also offer plate tectonics, language, writing, etc..., but you only asked for one. and a DNA example The basic elements of the scientific method are illustrated by the following example from the discovery of the structure of DNA: Question: Previous investigation of DNA had determined its chemical composition (the four nucleotides), the structure of each individual nucleotide, and other properties. It had been identified as the carrier of genetic information by the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment in 1944,[27] but the mechanism of how genetic information was stored in DNA was unclear. Hypothesis: Francis Crick and James D. Watson hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure.[28] Prediction: If DNA had a helical structure, its X-ray diffraction pattern would be X-shaped.[29][30] This prediction was determined using the mathematics of the helix transform, which had been derived by Cochran, Crick and Vand[31] (and independently by Stokes). This prediction was a mathematical construct, completely independent from the biological problem at hand. Experiment: Rosalind Franklin crystallized pure DNA and performed X-ray diffraction to produce photo 51. The results showed an X-shape. Analysis: When Watson saw the detailed diffraction pattern, he immediately recognized it as a helix.[32][33] He and Crick then produced their model, using this information along with the previously known information about DNA's composition and about molecular interactions such as hydrogen bonds.[34] The discovery became the starting point for many further studies involving the genetic material, such as the field of molecular genetics, and it was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962. Each step of the example is examined in more detail later in the article. wikii Edited October 24, 2014 by jerryR34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 24, 2014 True science is the scientific method and peer review. You can get wrapped around the axel on reification all you want (even capitalize it), but that is only a distraction from the point. When applied appropriately, the scientific method (you are being pedantic if you bring up reification here) overcomes the scientists "baggage". To get back on point, Hawking does not take God into account in any equation he postulates. It is not necessary for his purposes, again, for his purposes, God is irrelevant. In my opinion, that seems to bother creationists more that anything. "True science is the scientific method and peer review." Why do you need "Peer Review" if they are using the Scientific Method? Please post any Postulate Proffered by any of these: Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology. So show us ANY postulate....just ONE postulated by any of these that is in Accordance with The Scientific Method.....? Civilization has made tremendous strides in quality of life (health) and lifespan since the implementation of the scientific method in concert with peer review. We need peer review so science can correct itself (i.e. peking man). I offer Germ Theory as one postulate that has come about via scientific method. I could also offer plate tectonics, language, writing, etc..., but you only asked for one. and a DNA example The basic elements of the scientific method are illustrated by the following example from the discovery of the structure of DNA: Question: Previous investigation of DNA had determined its chemical composition (the four nucleotides), the structure of each individual nucleotide, and other properties. It had been identified as the carrier of genetic information by the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment in 1944,[27] but the mechanism of how genetic information was stored in DNA was unclear. Hypothesis: Francis Crick and James D. Watson hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure.[28] Prediction: If DNA had a helical structure, its X-ray diffraction pattern would be X-shaped.[29][30] This prediction was determined using the mathematics of the helix transform, which had been derived by Cochran, Crick and Vand[31] (and independently by Stokes). This prediction was a mathematical construct, completely independent from the biological problem at hand. Experiment: Rosalind Franklin crystallized pure DNA and performed X-ray diffraction to produce photo 51. The results showed an X-shape. Analysis: When Watson saw the detailed diffraction pattern, he immediately recognized it as a helix.[32][33] He and Crick then produced their model, using this information along with the previously known information about DNA's composition and about molecular interactions such as hydrogen bonds.[34] The discovery became the starting point for many further studies involving the genetic material, such as the field of molecular genetics, and it was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962. Each step of the example is examined in more detail later in the article. wikii ================================================================================================================= I offer Germ Theory as one postulate that has come about via scientific method. Germ theory states: that many diseases are caused by the presence and actions of specific micro-organisms within the body. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/techniques/germtheory.aspx Which one of these disciplines Proffered Germ Theory: Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology. ?? Please CITE Source. and a DNA example The Hypothesis: that DNA had a helical structure. Which one of these disciplines Proffered DNA had a Helical Structure: Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology. CITE Source....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted October 24, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted October 24, 2014 " Which one of these disciplines Proffered DNA had a Helical Structure: Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology. CITE Source....?" take your pick...: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=germ+theory+and+evolutionary+biology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 24, 2014 " Which one of these disciplines Proffered DNA had a Helical Structure: Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology. CITE Source....?" take your pick...: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=germ+theory+and+evolutionary+biology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart Yea, uh huh. I pick Geology then. Answer the question please "Specifically" and CITE the "Specific" reference....? and btw, The specific question you picked here is ...."Which one of these disciplines Proffered DNA had a Helical Structure." Your Google List is "Germ Theory". Did you know that.... Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. (evolutionist).... "Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009 "Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science" Uh oh, right out of the gate.... Juxtaposes evolutionary Biology with the Empirical Sciences Physics and Chemistry. Alarm Bells should be going off. Professor Mayr: "the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place" Hmm, How can you Observe a Phenomenon if the event has already taken place without a Time Machine? That also means that it is Impossible to formulate a "Valid" Hypothesis. Professor Mayr: "Laws and EXPERIMENTS are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes." Uhh ohh. Isn't the MOST CRITICAL STEP of The Scientific Method....EXPERIMENT? To ahh, VALIDATE the Hypothesis, maybe? Say Goodbye to: Step 1 (Observe a Phenomenon), Step 3 Hypothesis (lol), Step 4 (Experiment). In Summary, The Very Tenets of the Methodology you tout are Inherently subjugated by the subject (evolution) you laud. Also, are you IMPLYING that evolution Theory "Predicted" Germs?? .....you have a problem: “Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only". {Emphasis Mine} Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted October 25, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted October 25, 2014 There is a difference between preconceived notions and knowledge building on itself. A simple example is Galileo. There was a preconceived notion in Chris Equivocation (Fallacy). RCC doesn't = Christianity. Where in Scripture does it say that the Earth is the Center? Did you know, that as a result of the "Error" filled CMB (COBE/WMAP/Planck) that now they think that the Earth is @ the Center of the entire Universe. It's called "The Axis of Evil". What do you think about that? I consider myself Christian and am part of the "RCC" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts