Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,092 Year: 973/14,231 Month: 973/1,514 Week: 6/234 Day: 6/36 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conclusion vs Presupposition
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 5404 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 31 of 94 (445237)
01-01-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
01-01-2008 3:16 PM


Re: OP
jar writes:
The question is, where are the alleged presuppositions?
case closed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 3:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 3:36 PM imageinvisible has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 94 (445239)
01-01-2008 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 3:26 PM


Re: OP
In other words, you you cannot point out any presuppositions.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 3:26 PM imageinvisible has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 3:46 PM jar has replied

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 5404 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 33 of 94 (445240)
01-01-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
01-01-2008 3:36 PM


Re: OP
no, I have already pointed out two. Your OP states that there would be no suppositions in your OP, I have proven that there are. ergo case closed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 3:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 3:54 PM imageinvisible has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 94 (445242)
01-01-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 3:46 PM


Re: OP
No, my OP asks what the presuppositions are and you still have not provided them. If I am mistaken then please provide the links to the messages where they were presented. It is certainly possible I missed them but if so, simply link to the messages and we can discuss them.
There are three such presuppositions, but the reasoning for them has already been addressed, see Message 5. Other than those three, what are the presuppositions?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 3:46 PM imageinvisible has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 94 (445253)
01-01-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by imageinvisible
12-31-2007 5:38 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
Simple. Evolutionism starts with the presupposition, the idea, that everything in the universe can be explained naturaly, and/or has a natural cause.
This is false, a lie promoted by many creationist sites. If creationism is true then why do creationists need to lie about evolution? One of the big sites to do this regularly is AiG
Ergo, ...
... ergo your whole argument is based on a lie and is worthless.
Message 14
{your list of AiG nonsense)
Just a few quotes that refute your claim that I am makeinga false claim when I say that evolution excludes a God; and concerning the amount of supposition that goes into the CvE ideologies.
Now you have just made a false claim using AiG. You presumed these "quote" were true -- but the question is what do you use to validate claims? What do you do to ground-truth them against facts? Have you actually looked at each one of those "articles" and then checked them against the facts?
It is easy to find the truth of what evolution is actually about from evolutionists - why do you go to creationists that lie about it?
The question concerning the cause of the universe can only have one answer. Either a) it occured naturaly, or b) it was created suppernaturaly.
And the answer is "we don't know" -- this answer makes no difference to the study of the existing life on earth, and the natural behavior of life and thus evolution occurs either way.
When you learn who is lying to you, the truth shall set you free.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by imageinvisible, posted 12-31-2007 5:38 PM imageinvisible has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 94 (445268)
01-01-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Organicmachination
01-01-2008 11:33 AM


Re: These "Presuppositions" are Universal, and thus Unimportant
You say that there are three major presuppositions that evolution believers must make to come to the conclusions that evolution brings.
No, these are the preconceptions necessary for dealing with the real world and not living in fantasy -- they are the basis of all science and rational thought.
What you fail to understand is that these presuppositions in no way hinder the value of the conclusions. These presuppositions are universal in nature, and are found in every single area of science and thinking known to man. These are conditions we believe, no, that we know to be true that allow us to make any conclusions about our world.
Actually I understand that very well -- as that is my point.
Not only does this apply to the concept of evolution, but it applies to the concept of mathematics, medicine, computer science, forensics ( which ends up usually with the right answer, putting the right person in prison), anthropology, and even religion, namely because the writers of the Bible, the Qu'Ran, and the Bhagavad Gita were still subject to these base presuppositions in their endeavors. Are you challenging the base of modern mathematics and physics? If with these presuppositions we are able to make valid claims about our universe, such as the claim that 1+1=2 ...
... except that 1+1=2 is not related to the world of objective reality, but is an abstract intellectual construction (the definition of "2") ...
... and that things fall downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, ...
... which only applies at the nominal surface of the earth (being an approximation of GM/r2, where r=radius of earth, within the tolerance given, and which itself is just another approximation based on empirical measurements) ...
... then we can show that these presuppositions are valid, and because they are, they have no adverse effect on the conclusions of any branch of science, even religion.
That does not make them valid, or necessarily true. What it means is that we can use these as axioms - assumed truthes - on which to base scientific investigation of the nature of things regardless of religious faith or philosophical leaning.
But perhaps the most important thing is this: Creationists and proponents of ID are also under the influence of these presuppositions.
Which again is part of my point. Science does not make presuppositions that other rational people make in the course of everyday life.
Their claims that the world is too complicated to have come up by "chance" (which is not at all what evolution says anyway) are subject to the same crime of having the presupposition that "there is an objective reality" and that evidence points to the truth and so on.
Argument from incredulity, denial of evidence and the presupposition of a specific god are typical of creationists. Their presuppositions are in addition to any needed for doing good science, nor are there any presuppositions necessary for doing good science that need to be discarded before adapting the presuppositions of creationism.
Welcome to the fray.
Enjoy.
ps - as you are new (haven't seen your other posts) some tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
And if you use the other reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds
clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.
Edited by RAZD, : added to ps

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Organicmachination, posted 01-01-2008 11:33 AM Organicmachination has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Beretta, posted 01-02-2008 6:54 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 94 (445277)
01-01-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 2:47 PM


Re: Supposition v conclusion
The actual source is:
Just a moment...
quote:
Science 14 December 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1734 - 1735
DOI: 10.1126/science.1151980
Perspectives
GEOLOGY:
On the Accumulation of Mud
Joe H. S. Macquaker and Kevin M. Bohacs
Mudstones can be deposited under more energetic conditions than widely assumed, requiring a reappraisal of many geologic records.
J. Macquaker is in the School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. K. M. Bohacs is with the ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Houston, TX 77027, USA.
E-mail: Joe.Macquaker(AT)Manchester.ac.uk; Kevin.M.Bohacs(AT)exxonmobil.com
and Just a moment...
quote:
Science 14 December 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1760 - 1763
DOI: 10.1126/science.1147001
Reports
Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples
Juergen Schieber,1* John Southard,2 Kevin Thaisen1
Mudstones make up the majority of the geological record. However, it is difficult to reconstruct the complex processes of mud deposition in the laboratory, such as the clumping of particles into floccules. Using flume experiments, we have investigated the bedload transport and deposition of clay floccules and find that this occurs at flow velocities that transport and deposit sand. Deposition-prone floccules form over a wide range of experimental conditions, which suggests an underlying universal process. Floccule ripples develop into low-angle foresets and mud beds that appear laminated after postdepositional compaction, but the layers retain signs of floccule ripple bedding that would be detectable in the rock record. Because mudstones were long thought to record low-energy conditions of offshore and deeper water environments, our results call for reevaluation of published interpretations of ancient mudstone successions and derived paleoceanographic conditions.
1 Department of Geological Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
2 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
E-mail: jschiebe(at)indiana.edu
(color added for emPHAsis)
Flocculation is where small particles combine to make larger particles (that can settle out if they are dense enough).
So now all you have to do is show that the floccule ripples are present in the green river varves, especially the varves that have been characterized as free of ripples.
I won't even worry concerning the rest since this proves that your very first stament is a supposition, though many of your others are suppositions as well.
Not really -- your article doesn't mean that the green river varves are not due to slow sedimentation.
Why doesn't AiG reference the actual Science mag article, preferring to reference a mag that does not cite the Science article? What are they hiding? Perhaps that such flocule ripple bedding can be easily detected?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : format
Edited by RAZD, : emails changed to reduce spamming them

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 2:47 PM imageinvisible has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 38 of 94 (445411)
01-02-2008 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
01-01-2008 5:06 PM


Beginning presuppostions
Creation starting point:
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...All things came into being through him and without Him not one thing came into being." (John 1)
Evolution starting point:
"In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of physics.
And the particles somehow became living stuff;
And the stuff imagined God;
But then discovered evolution."
You can't prove there is no God, we can't prove that God exists.
You know God had nothing to do with it, we know that God has everything to do with it.
Everything depends on which starting point is true.
Natural selection causes variability in living things but cannot explain where the complex genetic code came from in the first place.
Information has to come from somewhere.
Either the genetic code was made by God or, against the known laws of physics and chemistry, the genetic code arranged itself by chance.
One is true, the other is false.
"The discovery of evolution finally made possible the death of God, with Charles Darwin supplying the indispensible murder weapon.This was the theory of natural selection which made God unnecessary as creator of the living world." (Phillip E Johnson -The Right Questions)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2008 5:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2008 1:49 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 5:57 PM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 39 of 94 (445413)
01-02-2008 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
12-31-2007 9:29 PM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
I look at the evidence and find that as a Christian I can see, understand and accept both God and the fact of Evolution. In addition I find that over 11,000 US Christian Clergy also accept God, the Bible, Evolution and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for what is seen.
If evolution did the creating, what part did God play?
If evolution did the creating then the Bible is false from the beginning so how do you decide which parts to believe and what to discard?
In the beginning was the Word or in the beginning were the particles -there's a big difference.Naturalistic philosophy leaves no room for God.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 9:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 01-02-2008 11:30 AM Beretta has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 94 (445433)
01-02-2008 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Beretta
01-02-2008 7:03 AM


Re: Still waiting for someone to show up
Sorry but that is simply irrelevant to this thread. The topic in case you missed it is "Conclusion vs Presupposition" and the question is "In the three examples given in Message 1, exactly what presuppositions are used or required?
Do you plan on addressing the topic?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Beretta, posted 01-02-2008 7:03 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 537 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 94 (445448)
01-02-2008 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Beretta
01-02-2008 6:54 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Evolution starting point:
"In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of physics.
And the particles somehow became living stuff;
And the stuff imagined God;
But then discovered evolution."
Wrong.
Could I suggest once again that you READ A FRICKIN' BIOLOGY TEXBOOK.
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Beretta, posted 01-02-2008 6:54 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Beretta, posted 01-03-2008 1:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 891 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 94 (445511)
01-02-2008 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Beretta
01-02-2008 6:54 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Creation starting point:
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...All things came into being through him and without Him not one thing came into being." (John 1)
That's one version, anyway. Chose another religion, get a different starting point, different base belief.
Evolution starting point:
"In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of physics.
And the particles somehow became living stuff;
And the stuff imagined God;
But then discovered evolution."
I've edited it to correct the wrong statements. None of what you said is necessary for evolution, you are confusing creationist-straw-man with evolution, a bad thing to do because
(1) it's a logical fallacy
(2) creationists lie about evolution
(3) they deceive gullible people with their lies
(Phillip E Johnson -The Right Questions)
That's one of the liars. A professional liar - he's a lawyer.
If you want to learn what evolution really is and what it involves go back to the Dogs will be dogs will be ??? thread, and pick up where we left off -- with the similarity between dog and eohippus skeleton and look at the similarities of bones and their sizes and proportions, and at the shapes and posture of the legs and feet.
You can't prove there is no God, we can't prove that God exists.
Correct, so the only logically valid answer is "we don't know" ... but where curious people say "lets see what we can find in the evidence of reality" and "what do we know that we can use as a starting point"
Everything depends on which starting point is true.
So if you start with a point as near truth as you can find, you are ahead eh? Why don't we start with the evidence of life we can see today and work backwards?
Information has to come from somewhere.
Either the genetic code was made by God or, against the known laws of physics and chemistry, the genetic code arranged itself by chance.
One is true, the other is false.
Actually both could be false. How do you find out?
Natural selection causes variability in living things but cannot explain where the complex genetic code came from in the first place.
No, mutation causes the variability, natural selection favors those that survive and reproduce over those that don't.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Beretta, posted 01-02-2008 6:54 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by tesla, posted 01-02-2008 6:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1079 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 43 of 94 (445518)
01-02-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
01-02-2008 5:57 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Creation starting point:
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...All things came into being through him and without Him not one thing came into being." (John 1)
creation starting point is a valid question in this topic is it not?
by what manner does evolution propose that life was introduced?
i may be wrong but Ive heard that life crawled out of the ocean, but this does not answer the question of the first microbe that existed, or even a mitochondria that existed...
i have never heard or seen any replication of a non biologic item becoming biological...
where did the first biological component come from that evolution began from?
i hope this question is within topic...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 5:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by DrJones*, posted 01-02-2008 6:24 PM tesla has replied
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 6:40 PM tesla has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2232
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 44 of 94 (445520)
01-02-2008 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by tesla
01-02-2008 6:17 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
by what manner does evolution propose that life was introduced?
Evolution is not concerned with how life came about, only what happened afterwards.

Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by tesla, posted 01-02-2008 6:17 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by tesla, posted 01-02-2008 6:33 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1079 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 45 of 94 (445522)
01-02-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by DrJones*
01-02-2008 6:24 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
then evolution in no way proves God is not.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by DrJones*, posted 01-02-2008 6:24 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 6:41 PM tesla 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 © 2023