The million dollar question
"Could a system we do not completely understand be constructed by means of a process we cannot completely specify?"*
Only dogma answers "Yes". Yet that is the answer evolutionism provides. Go figure.
*David Berlinski in The Deniable Darwin. A must read for everyone interested in understanding the BS that is evolutionism.
He answers with "The intellectually responsible answer to this question is that we do not know- we have no way of knowing."
Only dogma answers "Yes". Yet that is the answer evolutionism provides. Go figure.
*David Berlinski in The Deniable Darwin. A must read for everyone interested in understanding the BS that is evolutionism.
He answers with "The intellectually responsible answer to this question is that we do not know- we have no way of knowing."
posted by Joe G @ 10:07 AM
6 Comments:
At 1:09 PM,
Zachriel said…
David Berlinski: "Could a system we do not completely understand be constructed by means of a process we cannot completely specify?"*"
Certainly a system we don't understand might be constructed by a process we don't understand.
In the next sentence, Berlinski says the correct answer is, "The we have no way of knowing." But that is not the case. There are many instances that satisfy the original question. For instance, the formation of a human baby in the womb.
Could a system we do not completely understand...
Yes, the development of a baby from a fertilized egg is not completely understood.
...be constructed by means of a process we cannot completely specify?
Yes, we cannot completely specify the process by which a baby forms from a fertilized egg.
So, the answer is yes. At least one such system exists. Though that does not indicate that we can have no knowledge of how a baby develops in the womb. It is not necessary to know everything to know something.
Very poorly worded.
What Berlinski probably meant is whether we can say anything at all about a system that we have limited understanding of. And the answer is clearly yes. In fact, that is the very nature of science to determine the bounds of limited understanding by empirical prediction.
At 7:21 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel,
Nice try but you missed the point.
Say we want faster-than-light travel. That system would be something we don't understand. We couldn't specify a process for the same reason.
Do you think we could build it?
At 11:05 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Say we want faster-than-light travel. That system would be something we don't understand. We couldn't specify a process for the same reason."
The context from the article doesn't read that way, and even your own interpretation isn't explicit.
It isn't necessary to have a theory of combustion to burn wood to heat your home.
At 11:16 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Say we want faster-than-light travel. That system would be something we don't understand. We couldn't specify a process for the same reason."
Zach:
The context from the article doesn't read that way,
The context of the sentence does.
Zach:
and even your own interpretation isn't explicit.
OK Zach- try to construct a system you don't completely understand by means of a process not completely specified.
Is THAT expicit enough? Could you even order the materials required?
At 5:11 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "OK Zach- try to construct a system you don't completely understand by means of a process not completely specified."
I already responded. It isn't necessary to have a theory of combustion to burn wood to heat your home.
At 9:48 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "OK Zach- try to construct a system you don't completely understand by means of a process not completely specified."
Zach:
I already responded.
Not at all.
Zach:
It isn't necessary to have a theory of combustion to burn wood to heat your home.
How is that YOU constructing a system you don't completely understand by means of a process not completely specified?
Post a Comment
<< Home