Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Uniformity in Nature from Chaos

ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:29:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Undergirding empiricism is the notion that nature is uniform, that what we observe today will be the same thing we observe tomorrow in keeping with the regular operation of the universe.

Evolutionists insist that all of reality is the product of time and chance acting on matter, which is to say chaos.

From where does an idea built on chaos allow for science?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:58:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:29:40 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Undergirding empiricism is the notion that nature is uniform, that what we observe today will be the same thing we observe tomorrow in keeping with the regular operation of the universe.

This has nothing to do with empiricism. Empiricism states that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. So empiricism would simple say that the way we would know if uniformity is true or not is through sense-experience observations across time.

Evolutionists insist that all of reality is the product of time and chance acting on matter, which is to say chaos.

Actually, evolution deals only with life and not "all of reality".

From where does an idea built on chaos allow for science?

It appears the problem is with your own understanding of terms, not with science and chaos.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 7:29:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:29:40 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Undergirding empiricism is the notion that nature is uniform, that what we observe today will be the same thing we observe tomorrow in keeping with the regular operation of the universe.

From where does an idea built on chaos allow for science?
Evolutionists insist that all of reality is the product of time and chance acting on matter, which is to say chaos.


Chaos is a state in which variables are simply not known. The more information one has, the less "chaos" is present.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 8:35:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I have to remember to take a breadth and realize that I am dealing with victims of the government school system who were taught that arrogance is a fine substitute for knowledge.

One of them saith: This has nothing to do with empiricism. Empiricism states that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. So empiricism would simple say that the way we would know if uniformity is true or not is through sense-experience observations across time.

No, empiricism does not say that "all knowledge is derived from sense-experience". And if knowledge can change from one second to the next, it is not knowledge. Please do not respond if you have no idea what you are talking about.

>> Evolutionists insist that all of reality is the product of time and chance acting on matter, which is to say chaos.

> Actually, evolution deals only with life and not "all of reality".

I said nothing about evolution, but evolutionists. Please read more carefully.

>It appears the problem is with your own understanding of terms, not with science and chaos.

Only to a narcissistic deluded fool.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 2:54:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 8:35:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
No, empiricism does not say that "all knowledge is derived from sense-experience". And if knowledge can change from one second to the next, it is not knowledge. Please do not respond if you have no idea what you are talking about.
At 1/21/2016 8:35:38 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
I love watching these deluded people make up their own dictionary.

empiricism - 2. the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience
http://dictionary.reference.com...

empiricism - 3. the theory that all knowledge originates in experience
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Do you know what a dictionary is and how to use one? If so, it seems like your statement is incredibly ignorant. If not, I suggest learning about dictionaries before trying to tackle more advanced ideas.

>> Evolutionists insist that all of reality is the product of time and chance acting on matter, which is to say chaos.
> Actually, evolution deals only with life and not "all of reality".
I said nothing about evolution, but evolutionists. Please read more carefully.

So by saying "evolutionist" you were not invoking "evolution"? Is English your first language?
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 3:12:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:29:40 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Undergirding empiricism is the notion that nature is uniform, that what we observe today will be the same thing we observe tomorrow in keeping with the regular operation of the universe.

Evolutionists insist that all of reality is the product of time and chance acting on matter,

I think you are confusing 'random' with 'chaotic'. Would you agree that random events, such as the decay of radioactive nuclei or the movement of a gas particle, are predictable when considering a large sample of such events. Whereas chaotic events are unpredictable because small changes in initial conditions lead to unpredictable changes in outcome, for example the weather. I would say that the changes to DNA are examples of random events, which have a predictable effect when looking at large numbers of mutations, but we cannot predict each single mutation. Rolling a dice is a useful analogy here. A single roll is unpredictable but we can predict the average score for 100 rolls .
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 3:20:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Man, these tools are arrogant.

Allow us to turn to a dictionary of philosophy: The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy -

The permanent strand in philosophy that attempts to tie knowledge to experience.

Next!
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 3:26:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
> think you are confusing 'random' with 'chaotic'. Would you agree that random events, such as the decay of radioactive nuclei or the movement of a gas particle, are predictable when considering a large sample of such events. Whereas chaotic events are unpredictable because small changes in initial conditions lead to unpredictable changes in outcome, for example the weather. I would say that the changes to DNA are examples of random events, which have a predictable effect when looking at large numbers of mutations, but we cannot predict each single mutation. Rolling a dice is a useful analogy here. A single roll is unpredictable but we can predict the average score for 100 rolls .

I am not. And random in science means non-predicable. Indeed, roll number 5 has no impact on roll number 100 in your analogy. it is random.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 4:29:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 3:20:09 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Man, these tools are arrogant.

Allow us to turn to a dictionary of philosophy: The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy -

The permanent strand in philosophy that attempts to tie knowledge to experience.

Next!

Lets expand to include the next few sentences for clarity:

"The permanent strand in philosophy that attempts to tie knowledge to experience. Experience is thought of either as the sensory contents of consciousness, or as whatever is expressed in some designated class of statements that can be observed to be true by the use of the senses. Empiricism denies that there is any knowledge outside this class"

In other words: All knowledge is from sense experience. Again, I have to ask, is English your first language? Might help with the discussion to know that.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 4:36:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Now that we know this tool can read a dictionary, can he deal with the OP? I doubt it, but I will give him a chance.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 4:39:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 4:36:41 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Now that we know this tool can read a dictionary, can he deal with the OP? I doubt it, but I will give him a chance.

There is nothing to respond to because your original post takes words you obviously do not understand, like empiricism, evolution(ist) and chaos, and attempts to make an argument based on your misunderstanding of their meanings.

If you use to correct meaning for those words, your original post makes no sense as the supposed contradiction does not exist.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 4:46:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:29:40 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Undergirding empiricism is the notion that nature is uniform, that what we observe today will be the same thing we observe tomorrow in keeping with the regular operation of the universe.

Evolutionists insist that all of reality is the product of time and chance acting on matter, which is to say chaos.

From where does an idea built on chaos allow for science?

To help you out, here is a corrected version of your original post:

Undergirding empiricism is the notion that all knowledge if through sense-experience, that sense-experience is the way we obtain knowledge today and will be the way we obtain knowledge tomorrow

Evolutionists insist that the diversity of life is the product of time, natural selection, and chance acting on life , which is to say a process by which complexity and diversity can occur naturally.

From where does an idea built on empirical science allow for science?
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 4:47:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 3:26:47 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
> think you are confusing 'random' with 'chaotic'. Would you agree that random events, such as the decay of radioactive nuclei or the movement of a gas particle, are predictable when considering a large sample of such events. Whereas chaotic events are unpredictable because small changes in initial conditions lead to unpredictable changes in outcome, for example the weather. I would say that the changes to DNA are examples of random events, which have a predictable effect when looking at large numbers of mutations, but we cannot predict each single mutation. Rolling a dice is a useful analogy here. A single roll is unpredictable but we can predict the average score for 100 rolls .

I am not.

So I assume you are using the term random and chaotic in the everyday non-technical sense. The imprecise nature of normal language makes any conclusion you make based on this woolly reasoning very questionable. Certainly not sufficiently rigorous to refute a well established theory.

And random in science means non-predicable. Indeed, roll number 5 has no impact on roll number 100 in your analogy. it is random.

Yes random events are not predictable individually. I did not pretend otherwise. However my point is that a random process such radioactive decay has a predictable property such as half life.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 4:04:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 4:50:26 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Radiative decay is not random. Now, can you deal with the OP, please?

You'll find it is indeed random, stochastic, unpredictable - unless you have evidence to the contrary that nobody else has yet seen?