Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics.

Posted by dado4 (A) on October 18, 2003 at 09:17:01

In Reply to: Natural science is not pure mathematics. posted by Pat D on October 17, 2003 at 15:57:23:

Bowlen's statement is most certainly a statement of philosophical materialism. It is simply a declaration that he will accept any naturalistic explanation of life as a theory of evolution. This is indeed very distinct from Newton & Einstein who postulated very specific explanations of cause for very specific effects. Certainly Newton and Einstein's ideas are materialistic, they are physical theories after all. The big distinction is that, unlike Darwin's idea's, they are provable falsifiable. That is to say the veracity of their construct is testable by repeatable experimentation. Darwinists can make no such claim for their theory. This is the difference between science and speculation.

I am very aware of history (and particularly the history of evolutionary theory). My point in response to your first reply is that history is not rooted in science. A historic fact is cannot be subject to repeatable testing. All we have to go on is the report of individuals who were close to the event. In many cases we have but a single report, often fully interpreted long after the fact (as in the case of translating ancient languages/pictographs). In more recent times we often have multiple reports of an event, but many times these account conflict. You see history cannot be subject to the same requirements of proof as a scientific theory. Darwin's idea, however, is stated by every one of its apologists to a man as scientific theory (if not fact). If it is such, then how do we test it? What makes it scientific? The fact that the theory is naturalistic in and of itself does not make it scientific. In short, if evolution is a scientific theory, prove it.

My basis for limiting genetic variation is observation. Change beyond well defined boundaries in any extant biological grouping has yet to be observed. That is the whole point. The question should be what basis do Darwinist's have for extrapolating genetic variation beyond its observed limits? This is the core of the matter. Darwin's theory is only speculation.

As for my definition of faith, lest you think I am engaging in semantic warfare- here is what my dictionary says:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

the remaining definitions refer to faith as loyalty and fidelity.

And as to the meaning of pistis, it is used in exactly synonymous ways: acceptance of information, belief, fidelity, loyalty, etc. I miss your point here.

Challenge my understanding of any creation myth, but let's be specific. I am familiar with the biblical account, the Norse stories, the Greek and Roman myths, the ancient southwest indians, the Aztec, ancient Japanese accounts, the Hindu stories and a few others. And by the way, I will not argue from allegory so no need to worry about wild interpretation.

Thanks,
Rob

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---