Jump to content


Photo

Believe 'no Scientific Truth' -- Then Why Teach?

teach authority leadership

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
24 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 March 2012 - 06:11 AM



Is fruit of physical property?



Yes fruit is physical however you are not experimenting ON mathematics, (since we do empirical experiments ON things to test them)... You are merely using mathematics or demonstrating how mathematics is used. Such is not an empirical test of mathematics as to do your counting you need to presuppose mathematics, (as well as addition, and the abstract numbers you use).



That would be incorrect… I am ‘experimenting ON mathematics’ by using physical devices (fruit) as representations OF the mathematics I am using, to prove (i.e. evidence) that not only is mathematics indicative of providing absolute truth, but when extended into the materialistic world, science (the scientific method) is capable of providing absolute truth as well!

The bottom line is this: One apple, one orange and one banana equals three pieces of fruit. And this is absolutely true no matter where you are! This is an absolute truth, PERIOD. It is an absolute mathematic truth, AND it’s an absolute physical truth, therefore it’s an absolute scientific truth because I can use the empirical scientific method (induction) to PROVE it over, and over, and over (ad infinitum).

Your point was moot, NOT because I simply stated it as such, BUT because I proved my point USING the empirical scientific method. And you are continuing to attempt your argument on the back of the philosophy known as the ‘falsification principle’ alone (sans ANY physical evidence). Your statement “what one claims to be ‘true’ may not be absolutely true... Since it could be falsified in the future” thusly becomes ‘MOOT’ because you can NEVER render as ‘falsified’ (in reality) my experiment. And, if you further attempt to claim that you can, then I challenge you to render MY experiment as falsifiable by performing the same experiment and providing it as having failed! You cannot merely CLAIM something extended into the physical to have the "ability" to be falisfied based upon hypothetical reasoning, then claim that your phylosophical stance is validated!

Gilbo, I love you brother; but you are attempting to make relativistic claims that you cannot possibly provide substantiation for. You can indeed provide scholastic opinion (from relativistic academia), but you have no physical scientific evidence to back your assertions. I further understand that this is what the relativistic scientific community has beaten into your skull via their indoctrination, but it is sans ANY critical thinking skills.

It is indeed the relativists attempt to demolish any absolutes, AND any truth. And, I am compelled to warn you that the propaganda will not stand here. Therefore, in order for you to continue making the claim, YOU are responsible to provide OTHER than philosophical claims. Otherwise you will have to claim it as nothing more than a philosophical stance.

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,990 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 March 2012 - 08:39 AM

A philosophical stance is the only stance one can take when dealing with abstract elements...

I'll bow out as all I wanted to say was said and I'll be repeating myself, which isn't cool :)

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 March 2012 - 11:40 AM

A philosophical stance is the only stance one can take when dealing with abstract elements...


One apple, One Orange, and One Banana are ANYTHING BUT abstract elements. And such a statement causes one to ponder...

#24 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 12 March 2012 - 06:43 PM

A good presentation to consider: http://www.youngeart...el/video_1.html

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:10 AM

Thanks for the link Fred, the video is very interesting and insightful. What I find as humorous about the opposing argument, is that you cannot even validate a mathematical equation until it has been PHYSIACLLY proven via the empirical scientific method… Just like anything else, it is only surmised with various degrees of certitude (faith). The world first discovered the Earth was spherical, utilizing mathematics. But it was not validated (empirically proven) until the last century (although we were ‘reasonably’ sure prior to that).

Now, we know for an “absolute truth” that the world is spherical. It is validated as un-falsifiable! This, on its own, renders as false the “falsifiability principle” (i.e. doctrine).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users