Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

No they did not, to begin with the bible was not written before mankind existed so thats patently false.

If my worldview is correct, then it would be prior to the first life on earth.

The bible was written after the fact, none of the three things you mentioned were predicted in it merely 'explained'.

So tell me how authors who wrote over 2500 years ago knew that the universe was uniform?

Yes, you take the observed facts you have available and produce a theory. Then in order to see if your theory holds water you make predictions based of that theory and see if they come true.

Yes. So it is after the fact.

For example, the fossil record was very poor back then.

Back when? In Darwin's time?

A prediction was we'd find a nested hierarchy in them rather then random distribution that you might expect if evolution had not happend. We found it.

What we didn't find is a gradual transition from simple to complex.

Another was we'd find a explaination for the different number of chromosome pairs between two species we thought to be related. apes(24) and humans(23). We found it, a clear fusion of 2 chromosomes.

What does that have to do with fossils?

That is the difference, these were predictions made before we discovered the fact they were true. The facts we already had were not claimed as 'predictions' they were simply part of the data that had to explained, done so by the theory.

No, many of the earlier predictions were not discovered and had to be modified.

Likewise for christianity, We already knew the universe seemed not to change, we already knew humans were intelligent, we already knew we could live on earth. These 3 observations were then explained by appealing to an almighty father figure that made the universe that way.
But no predictions are made, in part since even if you assume its true it does not help you answer any questions other then by saying 'god did it' which still does not tell you the how, and cannot be disproven or tested.

I am saying that in my worldview they are consistent with the facts we have. I am saying that we have elements/assumptions in the realm of science unproven, untested. These are metaphysical in nature in the same way God is. You can't claim that I need empirical evidence for the metaphysical existence of God, yet allow it in your own worldview. That is hypocritical to say the least.

I'd just copy your really, so I do agree that it would not be very good. But that would be the point.
For instance I just assert: The fsm created the universe the way it is through natural means and every thing in it.
Then suddenly using fsm+science I now have a complete world view according to you. And all of sciences discoveries rest upon my FSM world view because without the fsm there is no uniformity.
And there you go, christianity no longer required to explain anything. You can stop claiming its depended on yours now.

The belief in the Christian God goes back to 3000 BC-3500 BC with the majority of the world believing He exists. There are 2.1 billion people that believe He exists. How many people believe that fsm is real and exists? That is like 33% of the people on earth. I really think you need to address the real issue rather than some arbitrary non-argument.

You are the one that just said it was an opposing world view, so I guess I'd have to ask you to answer why that is.

Opposing in the sense that the worldview does not allow for a supernatural metaphysical explanation for anything.

Whats more is, if you do accept science then you also have to accept that you have to submit your christian world view to scruteny but instead you simply assert your christian view needs no evidence. That doesnt work.

No I don't. Do you have to submit your metaphysical assumptions to scrutiny? No. Why should I.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...
Hinduism and Libertarianism are two. I'm not sure I can think of an example of one which isn't consistent.

Hinduism has three creation hymns. They are not consistent with the Christian creation narrative. None hold that the universe is uniform, that man is intelligent, no specific order of appearances of life.

Libertarianism? The political party?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Source:

That brings us to our current understanding. Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear.

Source:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This page contains basic information and FAQs about the force we call gravity. Gravity plays an important role in our universe. Scientists still have a tough time understanding what this force is. This remains one of the greatest challenges of 21st Century science.[/FONT]

Seems like you are wrong.

Err... how, exactly? Gravity is certainly a mysterious force, but so what? That doesn't mean we don't have considerable evidence that it operates today as it always has.

Yes. That is not what I meant. I meant the cause of life on earth.

And we know there was a cause for life on Earth, and we have a good idea of what that was: naturally forming lipid-membranes that acted as monomer-sinks/polymer-traps were called 'micelles', and these replicated and evolved.

What is your point?

My point is that your claim is false. You claimed that science makes untested and untestable assumptions, namely that the universe was, is, and always will be 'uniform'. This claim is false.

You did, I didn't. I said metaphysics was.

Yes, and that statement is semantically null; 'metaphysics' is a vague and ill-defined term, and you gave no specifics as to how it relates to forensic science. You claimed that uniformitarianism is a foundational assumption of science. Where, then, is it present in the forensics?

No, I am not, and I don't even know why you think that.

I cited each post where we made this exchange. You cited a link that defined your use of the word 'uniform', and then you cited another link that gave a different use of the word 'uniform'.

Those were your statement. Your quotes.:o

No, that comment was by Chalnoth in post #87. I am not Chalnoth.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The success of empiricism really only relies upon one fact: the world is sensible. If the world isn't sensible, then nothing can give us knowledge about how the world works. If the world is sensible, then only empiricism can give us knowledge about how the world works.

I suppose my argument is "Forget empiricism. Ouch!!! Ok, lets have empiricism." The same goes for nihilism. "Nihilism: nothing matters. Ouch!!! Ok, my mistake, things matter."

 

[juvenissun]

Would you say that the way you need faith to be an "extremely extremely scientific conclusion" is a sad commentary on faith?

Correction: I don't "need" it to be so. It is a consequence, not a condition.

It is a conclusion derived from the argument of Chalnoth. If you think it is not right, then the argument of Chalnoth is not right.

(I bet you don't remember what was said. And I will not be bothered to link the old conversations. )

 

[Oncedeceived]

Err... how, exactly? Gravity is certainly a mysterious force, but so what? That doesn't mean we don't have considerable evidence that it operates today as it always has.

Are you being serious? I am beginning to believe that you know what I am talking about but that you are just trying to act like you don't. The whole point is that it is a mysterious force. Science uses this "force" works with this "force" but this force's nature is still metaphysical in nature. There is no empirical evidence to claim as to what the force is. Thus, an assumption that is used in scientific methodology.

And we know there was a cause for life on Earth, and we have a good idea of what that was: naturally forming lipid-membranes that acted as monomer-sinks/polymer-traps were called 'micelles', and these replicated and evolved.

This is a metaphysical statement about how life on earth evolved. This is only an assertion. This is a good example of seeing what life needs to be "alive" and working to fit that into the evolutionary model. Within science it can't be a supernatural force from which life arose, it is outside of the natural world. It doesn't mean that it isn't true, it just means that you won't accept it. Even if life could be created in the lab, it would still need intelligent "designers" to create it. So even if the chemical makeup of life could be "recreated" it would not prove that life began that way, and most certainly in an unassisted way.

My point is that your claim is false. You claimed that science makes untested and untestable assumptions, namely that the universe was, is, and always will be 'uniform'. This claim is false.

I have made numerous citations where this is concluded as fact. It is a fact, you can't deny that without contradicting yourself. My claim is not false and I have proven that without a doubt. The fact that you refuse to see it is a prime example of how blinded one can become when their own worldview rejects even the most obvious elements of reality.

Yes, and that statement is semantically null; 'metaphysics' is a vague and ill-defined term, and you gave no specifics as to how it relates to forensic science. You claimed that uniformitarianism is a foundational assumption of science. Where, then, is it present in the forensics?

Uniformitarianism is the name given to the assumption of the universe being uniform. It has nothing to do with forensic science. My point was that forensic science depends on metaphysical tools to work.

Definition to be used in this dicussion:
Metaphysical:

: of or relating to metaphysics
2
a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the sense

I cited each post where we made this exchange. You cited a link that defined your use of the word 'uniform', and then you cited another link that gave a different use of the word 'uniform'.

When I went back and the source is now just going to Christian forums main page so I can't look at it to see what the problem is.


No, that comment was by Chalnoth in post #87. I am not Chalnoth.[/quote]

I'm sorry. I apologize.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

If my worldview is correct, then it would be prior to the first life on earth.

Your worldview was allowing people to make predictions with it.. before life began? Come on now really? Its okay to concede your worldview did not 'predict' intelligence/uniformity/life but 'explained' them.

So tell me how authors who wrote over 2500 years ago knew that the universe was uniform?

Knew it? They did not.
Believed it? Certainly. All you have to do is life a week, listen to your grandpa about how back in his day life was the same and you have enough there to believe the sun will rise tomorow and the next day.

Yes. So it is after the fact.

No listen,
you explain things after the fact.
You predict things before the fact.
your world view explains everything the hebrews thought to be true 2500 years ago. It does not predict anything, by definition. (Except the actual prophecies)

No, many of the earlier predictions were not discovered and had to be modified.

Using evolution as example I was explaining the difference between explaining and predicting. Failed predictions produce new facts, these are added to the existing facts and must be explained again. It does mean the old view was wrong. So the new one has to be better then the old one and explain all the old facts the previous one did plus the new ones. But this is getting off topic.

I am saying that in my worldview they are consistent with the facts we have.

Yes they are.
Because your worldview was meant to explain everything we saw around us.
You see the same in many different religions.

I am saying that we have elements/assumptions in the realm of science unproven, untested. These are metaphysical in nature in the same way God is. You can't claim that I need empirical evidence for the metaphysical existence of God, yet allow it in your own worldview. That is hypocritical to say the least.

I just want to clarify,
What exactly do you think my world view is that I do not provide empirical evidence for? You seem to be saying that I do not provide imperical evidence for the idea of imperical evidence?
Thats whats been confusing me about this objection.

did you simply mean naturalism?

The belief in the Christian God goes back to 3000 BC-3500 BC with the majority of the world believing He exists. There are 2.1 billion people that believe He exists. How many people believe that fsm is real and exists? That is like 33% of the people on earth. I really think you need to address the real issue rather than some arbitrary non-argument.

Falacies employed here:
Appeal to Tradition.
Appeal to Popularity
If the only thing seperating your christianworldview from the fsmworldview is 2 logical fallacies you should probably reconsider your position.

This is adressing the real issue, im pointing out that using your standards the fsm is just as valid as jehova as a worldview.
The issue here being you are using poor standards that I have been trying to point out to you.

Opposing in the sense that the worldview does not allow for a supernatural metaphysical explanation for anything.

So I can take this to confirm that you are not talking about Empiricism?
As I said I thought you were for a while, what worldview are you refering to exactly? Please make me understand.

No I don't. Do you have to submit your metaphysical assumptions to scrutiny? No. Why should I.

see above.
Pending the answer, I'll respond to this properly.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Correction: I don't "need" it to be so. It is a consequence, not a condition.

It is a conclusion derived from the argument of Chalnoth. If you think it is not right, then the argument of Chalnoth is not right.

But clanoth didn't derive it -- you did. Why should I accept your conclusion?

(I bet you don't remember what was said. And I will not be bothered to link the old conversations. )

I'm sure there are lots of things you can't be bothered to do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Are you being serious? I am beginning to believe that you know what I am talking about but that you are just trying to act like you don't. The whole point is that it is a mysterious force. Science uses this "force" works with this "force" but this force's nature is still metaphysical in nature. There is no empirical evidence to claim as to what the force is. Thus, an assumption that is used in scientific methodology.

Non sequitur. First, there are indeed gaps in scientific knowledge, but so what? We look at these gaps and say "Look! Gaps! Let's go figure out what goes there". You haven't yet explained exactly what the assumption is that scientists are making. Second, there is empirical evidence that supports a proposed explanation for the mechanical origin of gravity - that explanation is called General Relativity. There are certainly gaps and mysteries, but we nonetheless have substantial evidence that supports the claims we make about gravity.

For instance, we claim that matter warps spacetime around it in various ways (described more fully by relativistic field equations). This is a claim that can be tested, and it has passed with flying colours. There is the question of exactly why matter warps spacetime, but so what?

Another example: Darwin's theory of common descent posited the existence of a universal common ancestor. The existence of this ancestor is supported by virtue of the evidence that supports Darwin's theory (and, nowadays, its successor). Even if we had no direct evidence of its existence (though, naturally, we do), the evidence for the theory of common descent constitutes indirect evidence this common ancestor.

So, gaps in scientific knowledge do not constitute a foundational assumption in the scientific method. I honestly can't for the life of me think what assumption you think it is that we're making. The world is mysterious. There are mysteries that we have yet to unearth. So what?

This is a metaphysical statement about how life on earth evolved. This is only an assertion. This is a good example of seeing what life needs to be "alive" and working to fit that into the evolutionary model.

Err, no. This explanation for the origin of life is borne on empirical research on how organic and inorganic chemicals behaved in the pre-biotic Earth. It turns out that lipid membranes are the first to form, followed shortly by monomers. These membranes form enclosed capsules which are semi-permeable to monomers. Once inside, these collections of monomers join to form random assemblies of polymers. As polymers, they're too big to exit. Thus, you get balls of trapped polymers, each randomly formed, and each with a continual supply of fresh monomers. All it takes is for one randomly sequenced polymer to replicate, and life has kicked off.

This is the 'bottom up' approach: looking at what was, and seeing what it would do. You're talking about the 'top down' approach: looking at what is, and seeing how we can reduce it. While the latter method has its merits, the theory of abiogenesis is borne on the former method.

And, you'll notice, there are no metaphysical assumptions floating around. Just hard facts and the conclusions derived therefrom.

Within science it can't be a supernatural force from which life arose, it is outside of the natural world. It doesn't mean that it isn't true, it just means that you won't accept it.

Science doesn't discriminate between the natural and the supernatural. It takes whatever it can. If God created life, then science is open to that hypothesis. The problem, however, is that all these proposed supernatural explanations - from dowsing and reiki to ghost hunting and exorcisms - are utterly void of any merit. It's not that science won't listen to them, it's that it has listened to them and has deemed them void of any empirical evidence.

The same is true for God. If you want to provide scientific evidence for the existence of God, then be my guest. Evidence is evidence, it's just cold, hard facts.

Even if life could be created in the lab, it would still need intelligent "designers" to create it. So even if the chemical makeup of life could be "recreated" it would not prove that life began that way, and most certainly in an unassisted way.

I've seen this argument before, and it's always amused me. If scientists replicated the conditions of early Earth, stood back for a few millennia, and came back to find bacteria swimming about - you're saying that would prove intelligent design? Or that, at least, it wouldn't prove that life can form all by itself?

All the scientists have done is recreate the conditions that would have existence 3.5 billion years ago. That is the only injection of 'design': the recreation of those same conditions that occurred without design. And, if life forms in the experiment's conditions, then it would have formed in the original conditions, yes?

In other words, if it works in this hypothetical experiment, then it would also work in the original conditions of early Earth. And since those conditions of early Earth are wholly natural, the experiment would therefore successfully demonstrate that, if those conditions naturally arose in prebiotic Earth (as the evidence demonstrates they did), then life could indeed form all by itself.

How you went from "Scientists recreate the early conditions of Earth and see that life arises spontaneously" to "Scientists designed the experiment, therefore it can never prove anything but ID!", is beyond me.

I have made numerous citations where this is concluded as fact. It is a fact, you can't deny that without contradicting yourself. My claim is not false and I have proven that without a doubt. The fact that you refuse to see it is a prime example of how blinded one can become when their own worldview rejects even the most obvious elements of reality.

I could make exactly the same series of pompous statements to you. However, unlike you, I'm not going to take your disagreement with me as a sign of some underlying flaw in your worldview. I read your citations, and showed how they don't agree with what you claim. I showed that, in fact, they show that modern scientists reject these alleged assumptions.

Uniformitarianism is the name given to the assumption of the universe being uniform. It has nothing to do with forensic science. My point was that forensic science depends on metaphysical tools to work.

Such as? For the fourth time, I'm asking for specifics, details, and examples.

Definition to be used in this dicussion:
Metaphysical:

: of or relating to metaphysics
2
a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the sense

Perceptible in what sense? Directly? Are x-rays 'metaphysical' because they are 'beyond what is perceptible to the sense'?

When I went back and the source is now just going to Christian forums main page so I can't look at it to see what the problem is.

Yes, I copied the link's location, extracted the URL you were attempting to link to, and reposted it in my followup. Here it is again: Cosmology

That is the definition of 'uniform' you originally espoused and endorsed. Now you're talking about uniformitarianism, which is something else entirely.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Non sequitur.

Do you know what that means?
Non Sequitur:

something that just does not follow.
​

Absolutely not accurate for what I said.

First, there are indeed gaps in scientific knowledge, but so what? We look at these gaps and say "Look! Gaps! Let's go figure out what goes there". You haven't yet explained exactly what the assumption is that scientists are making. Second, there is empirical evidence that supports a proposed explanation for the mechanical origin of gravity - that explanation is called General Relativity. There are certainly gaps and mysteries, but we nonetheless have substantial evidence that supports the claims we make about gravity.

That is not the issue. SCIENCE WORKS Yes, we can find evidence that supports gravity as a force, we can make theories involving gravitational properties. That is not the point. The point is that we do not "know" have "empirical evidence" for gravity. We don't know what the force is. We know what it does, how it is effective, how it is affected so forth and so on. The assumption is gravity itself. We assume things regarding it, all the while not have any evidence for it.

For instance, we claim that matter warps spacetime around it in various ways (described more fully by relativistic field equations). This is a claim that can be tested, and it has passed with flying colours. There is the question of exactly why matter warps spacetime, but so what?

So what? So what? Its not in evidence but we make the claim on the assumption. Don't you see? It may be perfectly true that matter warps spacetime around it, thru it, parallel to it. It doesn't matter. What matters is that you understand that we do not have evidence for gravity....it is an unseen force. No see gravity. We see what it affects but we do not see it. It is not in evidence.

Another example: Darwin's theory of common descent posited the existence of a universal common ancestor. The existence of this ancestor is supported by virtue of the evidence that supports Darwin's theory (and, nowadays, its successor).

How do you claim that the evidence for a common ancestor is supported by virtue of the evidence that supports Darwin's theory (successor).

Even if we had no direct evidence of its existence (though, naturally, we do),

Really, and what is that?

the evidence for the theory of common descent constitutes indirect evidence this common ancestor.

No empirical evidence. Nada. There is no common ancestor in existence.

So, gaps in scientific knowledge do not constitute a foundational assumption in the scientific method. I honestly can't for the life of me think what assumption you think it is that we're making. The world is mysterious. There are mysteries that we have yet to unearth. So what?

It depends on what gaps you are talking about. So if there are mysteries that you know of then why are you having such a problem grasping the idea that science works on assumptions. Necessary assumptions to work? What fear does this raise in you that you will not accept that as true? I've shown in links to science pages that this is a common view in science that the basic foundational premises of science come from the assumptions we have discussed. You continually deny these and I just am unable to see this as anything but outright denial of the truth.

Err, no. This explanation for the origin of life is borne on empirical research on how organic and inorganic chemicals behaved in the pre-biotic Earth.

Is the prebiotic earth in evidence? No. Do we have evidence about the way the chemicals would have behaved in that environment. No. So you are claiming that which is not in evidence. No empirical evidence is in existence of the first 100 - 200 million years in earth's history. No evidence. Nada.

It turns out that lipid membranes are the first to form, followed shortly by monomers. These membranes form enclosed capsules which are semi-permeable to monomers. Once inside, these collections of monomers join to form random assemblies of polymers. As polymers, they're too big to exit. Thus, you get balls of trapped polymers, each randomly formed, and each with a continual supply of fresh monomers. All it takes is for one randomly sequenced polymer to replicate, and life has kicked off.

Nice story. If it were true where is the life that kicks off? You make it sound so simple but you have no idea just what problems are even involved in this scenario. Replication does not life make.

This is the 'bottom up' approach: looking at what was, and seeing what it would do. You're talking about the 'top down' approach: looking at what is, and seeing how we can reduce it. While the latter method has its merits, the theory of abiogenesis is borne on the former method.

After the fact.

And, you'll notice, there are no metaphysical assumptions floating around. Just hard facts and the conclusions derived therefrom.

The whole thing is assumption, are you kidding?

Science doesn't discriminate between the natural and the supernatural. It takes whatever it can. If God created life, then science is open to that hypothesis.

No, it is not. It began that way. But naturalism has overtaken the realm of science. Where science should be the search for knowledge and truth, no matter where that leads, it has become a dogma.

The problem, however, is that all these proposed supernatural explanations - from dowsing and reiki to ghost hunting and exorcisms - are utterly void of any merit. It's not that science won't listen to them, it's that it has listened to them and has deemed them void of any empirical evidence.

Yes, the infamous "empirical evidence" which is used as a steadfast tenet that isn't even exercised completely in the arena in which it stands.

The same is true for God. If you want to provide scientific evidence for the existence of God, then be my guest. Evidence is evidence, it's just cold, hard facts.

This entire conversation has been to show that science has within its own system has assumption, non-empirical statements and conclusions which can not be proven. Yet, when it comes to God; a double standard is constructed. I don't wish to change science, or even make God an issue within the structure. I want you to realize that due to the nature of God, similar to the force of gravity is an unseen force. The fact that science can happen at all, God can be seen in the affects He has created. Simple.

I've seen this argument before, and it's always amused me. If scientists replicated the conditions of early Earth, stood back for a few millennia, and came back to find bacteria swimming about - you're saying that would prove intelligent design? Or that, at least, it wouldn't prove that life can form all by itself?

They don't know what the conditions of early earth are, let alone replicate them. That was one of the problems with Miller and Urey. Regardless, you can be amused, but this is exactly what you do as well. I'm not saying that I don't have presuppositions/assumptions and the like in regard to God. I accept that as the way of the world and reality. You however, do the same thing but deny it.

All the scientists have done is recreate the conditions that would have existence 3.5 billion years ago. That is the only injection of 'design': the recreation of those same conditions that occurred without design. And, if life forms in the experiment's conditions, then it would have formed in the original conditions, yes?

No, in fact, they have no idea what conditions were present. They know what needs to be present for life to exist and so they use that to "replicate" the conditions. That is not the same thing.

In other words, if it works in this hypothetical experiment, then it would also work in the original conditions of early Earth. And since those conditions of early Earth are wholly natural, the experiment would therefore successfully demonstrate that, if those conditions naturally arose in prebiotic Earth (as the evidence demonstrates they did), then life could indeed form all by itself.

No. As I said above. They make their chemical "soup" using chemicals in such a way, knowing what life needs to make it work. It doesn't mean that that is what was available, in what levels or anything of the earliest conditions of earth. Intelligence is behind the whole experiment.

How you went from "Scientists recreate the early conditions of Earth and see that life arises spontaneously" to "Scientists designed the experiment, therefore it can never prove anything but ID!", is beyond me.

Where are you getting this?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Continued from first post:

I could make exactly the same series of pompous statements to you. However, unlike you, I'm not going to take your disagreement with me as a sign of some underlying flaw in your worldview. I read your citations, and showed how they don't agree with what you claim. I showed that, in fact, they show that modern scientists reject these alleged assumptions.

You showed me that Gould said uniformitarianism was not needed. Yet you completely disregarded his quote:
Methodological assumptions The two methodological assumptions are universally acclaimed by scientists, and embraced by all geologists. Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. "You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."[17]

From the same source.

You also didn't read this obviously:

• 'Uniformity of law across time and space: Natural laws are constant across space and time.[18]

The axiom of uniformity of law is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past. As James Hutton wrote: “If the stone, for example, which fell today, were to rise again tomorrow, there would be an end of natural philosophy [i.e. science], our principles would fail, and we would no longer investigate the rules of nature from our observations.”[19] In essence, the constancy of natural laws must be assumed in our study of the past, because if we do not, then we cannot meaningfully study the past. Making inferences about the past is wrapped up in the difference between studying the observable present and the unobservable past. In the observable present, induction can be regarded as self-corrective. That is to say, erroneous beliefs about the observable world can be proven wrong and corrected by other observations. This is Popper's principle of falsifiability. However, past processes are not observable by their very nature. Therefore, in order to come to conclusions about the past, we must assume the invariance of nature's laws.[18] "The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique to geology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Bacon showed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science. Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations. (Since the assumption is itself vindicated by induction, it can in no way “prove” the validity of induction - an endeavor virtually abandoned after Hume demonstrated its futility two centuries ago)."[20] "Uniformity is an unprovable postulate justified, or indeed required, on two grounds. First, nothing in our incomplete but extensive knowledge of history disagrees with it. Second, only with this postulate is a rational interpretation of history possible, and we are justified in seeking—as scientists we must seek—such a rational interpretation."[21]

Such as? For the fourth time, I'm asking for specifics, details, and examples.

Source:

The Theoretical and Empirical Basis of Individualization
The question arises as to the basis for believing that all things are unique and that
individualization is possible. Many forensic scientists are content to assert that no two of various
types of objects can be alike, and leave it at that. Thoughtful efforts to justify these claims usually
begin with notions from probability theory. But those scholars soon realize that probability theory
simply cannot get there from here, and next they look in vain for another route.
For example, after using a manifestly probabilistic thought experiment to defend the
proposition that no two fingerprints can be alike, Cummins and Midlo conclude: "It is unfortunate
that this approach carries the implication that a complete correspondence of two patterns might
occur, when as a matter of fact... such duplication is beyond the range of possibility." Failing to
make the case with their best rationale, they retreat to anecdotes, assumptions ("nature never
repeats"), and appeals to intuition ("common sense rejects as fantastic the idea" of two being
alike). A small but perhaps growing number of forensic identification scientists accept the
unavoidable: such identifications are in reality estimates of probability.
Unfortunately, the probabilities employed by traditional forensic identification science are
subjective and intuitive. Only the newest of these, DNA typing, takes the burdens of the
probabilistic nature of forensic identification science seriously. Only DNA typing collects data
calculates the objective probability of a coincidental match. All other forensic identification fields
content themselves with intuitive estimates of subjective probability.

Perceptible in what sense? Directly? Are x-rays 'metaphysical' because they are 'beyond what is perceptible to the sense'?

Yes.

Yes, I copied the link's location, extracted the URL you were attempting to link to, and reposted it in my followup. Here it is again: Cosmology

That is the definition of 'uniform' you originally espoused and endorsed. Now you're talking about uniformitarianism, which is something else entirely.

Exactly. From this:

On size scales of billions of light years, the universe is assumed to be uniform. This makes the universe models simpler and ``more reasonable''---if we lived in an unusual part of the universe, then it would be almost impossible to understand the universe as a whole from observing our surroundings. The discovery of the long superclusters may seem to endanger this assumption.

The other link that you grabbed uniforitarianism from was the quote I was giving from Gould which was talking about assumptions. I never changed anything. One was referring to the uniformity in the universe, the other was cited for the assumptions science uses.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Perceptible in what sense? Directly? Are x-rays 'metaphysical' because they are 'beyond what is perceptible to the sense'?
​

Yes.

I just want to make absolutely sure. THIS is what you mean when you say metaphysical?
​

 

[Oncedeceived]

I just want to make absolutely sure. THIS is what you mean when you say metaphysical?
​

Everything that can not be shown by empirical evidence. Outside of our sense perception. Those things we assume, even think are metaphysical in nature.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Everything that can not be shown by empirical evidence. Outside of our sense perception. Those things we assume, even think are metaphysical in nature.

but X-rays can be shown by empirical evidence, you mean shown directly to the naked eye here?

As in, infra-red light = Metaphysical cause we cant see it ?
inference counts for nothing?

Are you saying that any person ever convicted of a crime on anything but eyewithness testemony was convicted of a metaphysical crime?

Heck, radio waves are meta-physical?

I really think this is not the right definition. Or atleast, if your stretching it that far it loses meaning.

 

[juvenissun]

But clanoth didn't derive it -- you did. Why should I accept your conclusion?



I'm sure there are lots of things you can't be bothered to do.

He gave a principle (or a definition), I gave him an example according to his principle. You said the example is wrong. And I agreed.

What does that say about the principle?

If you care to reason, I will always be with you.

 

[sandwiches]

Everything that can not be shown by empirical evidence. Outside of our sense perception. Those things we assume, even think are metaphysical in nature.

Wait... So, now we can't detect x-rays???

This sounds like the good ol' "You can't see air but you can feel it" nonsense argument dressed up with words like 'metaphysical' to appear more sophisticated than it really is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wait... So, now we can't detect x-rays???

This sounds like the good ol' "You can't see air but you can feel it" nonsense argument dressed up with words like 'metaphysical' to appear more sophisticated than it really is.

I am trying to be excruciatingly simple in my examples. Quantum physics would be a nice area.

 

[Nostromo]

Hinduism has three creation hymns. They are not consistent with the Christian creation narrative. None hold that the universe is uniform, that man is intelligent, no specific order of appearances of life.

Libertarianism? The political party?

No, that's the Liberals, although I dare say a lot of them will have a Libertarian outlook.

Can you tell me how science, intelligence, order, laws of nature and laws of logic are supposedly support Christianity and why those arguments cannot be used in support of Hinduism?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, that's the Liberals, although I dare say a lot of them will have a Libertarian outlook.

So this will have to be explained to me.

Can you tell me how science, intelligence, order, laws of nature and laws of logic are supposedly support Christianity and why those arguments cannot be used in support of Hinduism?

Hinduism is actually not a religion, it has religious connotations and here in the west is considered a religion. In fact, the Hinduism is not even a word in the culture. While the religious aspects do include gods and such, it says nothing about God claiming that we were created in His image. Of course, no one god exists in Hinduism. The reason Hinduism is not supported by science, intelligence, order, laws of nature or laws of logic is that it doesn't claim any of these things, and has nothing in its tenets that would be supported as such.

 

[Chalnoth]

While the religious aspects do include gods and such, it says nothing about God claiming that we were created in His image. Of course, no one god exists in Hinduism. The reason Hinduism is not supported by science, intelligence, order, laws of nature or laws of logic is that it doesn't claim any of these things, and has nothing in its tenets that would be supported as such.

Hahaha, what? Neither science nor intelligence nor the laws of nature or logic support a god, let alone one that created us in his image. Science is quite strongly against the idea, in fact. The idea that we were created at all, let alone in the image of a creator, is patently ludicrous given what we know about evolution.