Oh, and 'evolution' (the poster, not the theory), you'll be happy to know that I have now satisfied myself as to the nature of freedivers 'theory' and won't be bothering to keep this thread alive. The Theory of Evolution shall remain safe and well in face of such blistering critique. Besides, it will only give him more of an opportunity to try and increase his google rankings.

With each born persons, evolution adds one more degree to our present state of mind.
To simplify can only make the journey easier. I hear what you are saying word for word but this is not the point.

The definitions that you are requesting is only helping you and not the rest of the planet or the people on it. If you go back to my first post about the big bang, i guess that's the answer you are looking for.
Life and the universe is simple to me, it's just the human words to define it, is the most hardest task of all. To me the universe has always been here and if you want me to put it on slide scale i will do this for you.
If you put our universe in the centre of a 30cm ruler and lets put us right in the middle of, there is the smaller and there is the greater.
Now if we put our universe in the centre, we can see the infer-dent in either direction. If we go up the scale by one, we come back to the bean-bag theory. And this is were parallel universes come into play.

Yes! 101. Some-else said, for god to exist, matter had to exist for god to be there in the first place. So who made god. Do you see that this god thing cant possible exist. Go back to the big bang and see what I have said. Too pull you up to speed, Its a manifest of the primitive mind. Fossils don't lie! Only man does.

" 'To Kuhn, confirmation, and I am typing with a Kuhn journal aticle [Isis , Vol. 52, No.2 (1961), pp. 161-193] open to me, is a "function" and an "aid in the choice between theories"... "In scientific practice the real confirmation questions involve comparison between two theories and the world, not the comparison of one theory and the world. In these three way comparisons measurement has particular advantage.' " -- [Thomas S. Kuhn [1961] see Oliver pp.8-9

"While he uses a different approach to me, it would appear he [Kuhn] would reach the same conclusion. - See Freediver p.9

- What is said conclusion? Does your conclusion compare one or many theories with "the world"?

- In the context of using the term "confirmation" Kuhn and Popper are divergent. The word is used in separate contexts I do see how thes come together.

- How do you explain the existence of God? God or Physical Creation are underlying constructs to the formation of a Theory of God or Theory of Physical Creation. God or Physical Creation would be a moderating variables in the Model of Evolution.

- Relatedly, does/did God evolve?

[Boaz and Peter Sellick might care to answer the existence of God question, which is leveraged from Dawkin's observation any god is presumably highly complex.]

Evo.,

I am trying my hardest to gain some traction on what Freediver is contributing and not making much progress. I hope he will give something to work with?

Best regards

Freediver and others:

[1] My Error corrected, should be instead of the above: "In the context of using the term 'confirmation' Kuhn and Popper are divergent. The word is used in separate contexts I do NOT see how these come together".

[2] "Imagine … an evolutionary tree representing the development of the scientific specialities from their common origin in, say, primitive natural philosophy. Imagine … a line drawn up that tree … to the tip of some limb without doubling back on itself. Any two theories found along this line are related to each other by descent. … Consider two such theories each chosen from a point not too near its origin [i.e., after the science concerned has achieved 'maturity']. I believe it would be easy to design a set of criteria - including maximum accuracy of predictions, degree of specialization, number (but not scope) of concrete problem-solutions -which would enable any observer involved with neither theory to tell which was the older, which the descendant. For me, therefore, scientific development is, like biological evolution, unidirectional and irreversible" - Kuhn quoted in *Nickles (2003, p. 84)

* Book Title: Thomas Kuhn. Contributors: Thomas Nickles - editor. Publisher: Cambridge University Press. Place of Publication: Cambridge, England. Publication Year: 2003. Page Number: 84.


- Above Kuhn uses "biological evolution" to discribe the observation of scientific progress. Clearly Kuhn believes in evolution to use it as a metaphor in his discourse.

Nickles' take is Kuhn wanted to fit science into a historical ontology. To me this would seem consistent with his belief in science evolving and paradigm shifts being selected.

[3] "For Popper scientific change is rational or at least rationally reconstructible and falls within the realm of the logic of discovery. For Kuhn scientific change from one 'paradigm' to another - is a mystical conversion that cannot be governed by rules of reason and which falls within the realm of the (social) psychology of discovery." - Lakatos, I. 1970. 'Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes'." In: Lakatos and Musgrave (1970), pp. 91–195.

Think I will "all posted-out" for 24 hours.

Freediver [Sells and Boaz],

Your response to the above would prove interesting.

O.

Oliver. jesus just thought he was a god.