Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9094 total)
7 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, dwise1, Phat, Stile, vimesey (6 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,524 Year: 12,636/6,534 Month: 2,129/1,988 Week: 250/460 Day: 12/91 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cosmos with Neil DeGrass Tyson
Larni
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 142 of 206 (725350)
04-26-2014 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
04-26-2014 3:21 AM


Re: NCSE comments
Neither the ToE nor OE geology is science,
If this is the case what is your explanation for them being considered sciences in accademic circles?
All the best.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 04-26-2014 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 04-26-2014 8:28 AM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 126 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 146 of 206 (725389)
04-26-2014 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
04-26-2014 8:28 AM


Re: NCSE comments
Delusional
But it is only delusional in biology and geology? Why is it biology and and geology where people are delusional?
I'm not trying to play a game of 'gotcha', here: I just want to understand your position for concluding biologists and geologists are delusional but other scientist are not.
All the best.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 04-26-2014 8:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 04-26-2014 7:30 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2014 8:09 PM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022