Hey ChemEngineer, Could you put me on your ignore list too? Please, please please? That way, I can respond to some of your silly posts without you knowing and having to deal with your infantile replies.
Please point out just ONE thing that Shiva-TD posted that is fantasy? And by the way....at the rate your going you will soon have the entire Membership on Ignore!! LOL!! AA - - - Updated - - - The ignore list he has here lists many of the most respected posting members on this forum. Kind of tells one something doesn't it? LOL!! AA - - - Updated - - - Oh....and I take EXTREME PRIDE in that I am LISTED FIRST!! LOL!! AA
You know.....in all the time I have been posting here I have never once placed another member on ignore. There were many times I was justified to do so but I didn't. AA
I obviously lack the self control required to avoid reprimand by Moderation when telling truths. Regardless of my manipulation of language to drive home the opinion in a way that they lack the intellect to even understand. Thus I have learned they are not worth the effort....This individual has been on my avoidance list for quite some time. Now I just need to remember not to click "View Post".
Well, that's Philo 101. When I took it decades ago, it touched lightly on several religion(s). I'm referring to public debates between Philosophers - practically, it's only about the Abrahamic God when it comes to religion/God (or even creation). There may be debates about Hindu gods....I'm not aware though of any, nor did I ever hear about one. You can't say that. The NAS statement regarding Theistic Evolution contradicts your statement. Philosophy is intellectual. It is Philosophy and Logic that deals with something that can't be observed, or is not encompassed by scientific methodology. However.....just because science cannot deal with the supernatural, doesn't mean that supernatural definitely does not exists. There are areas that science cannot observe and explain, that's all. However, knowledge and understanding, does not fully depend on science alone. Science has its limitation - that's what it really means. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html James Tour speaks as a scientist when he says he cannot understand the extrapolation from micro to macro evolution. He's saying that scientific findings does not support the outrageous claims being made by evolutionists! He can say that publicly - and even gone to the extent of challenging evolutionists - because he knows what he's talking about! You're in denial when it comes to James Tour. Or, you don't understand the full implication of what he says. It's because you don't understand the Bible - that's why you think that about the Abrahamic God. The God of the Bible encourages us to use our mind in order to discern the lies from the truth. That's why he gave us critical thinking as a tool.
If the Supernatural Existed then it would not be called Supernatural and Science would observe it and document it. You cannot logically state as a fact that something exists when it cannot be documented and observed. AA
"The point being" I can quote-mine Much better than you can and Bust your silly tactics. Also UNLike you, I understand Einstein's actual position. Some Physicists are in such wonderment, they sometimes say it's 'god' in a general way, but NOT the god ANY opponent here believes in/has. They do NOT believe in a/Any personal god like Jesus or Allah. The do NOT believe in the Bible, and certainly not the Bass Ackwards impossible creation myth in Genepis. Funny, [even] you DID "get the point," and despite being here several times, you were too PORKED to respond until this nonresponse. You shoulda just let your Loss lie/lapse, now it's up for all to see again. Thx for quoting/advertising My post/jpg! +
I suspect that is because where you live is dominated by the Abrahamic religions. If you spent some time in say India, your experience may be different.
Far be it from the y-man to deny anyone the right to indulge in such simian exuberance. That aside, anyone intelligent who has read the exchange, and needs help understanding why his quote doesn't accomplish anything like what he thinks it does, has only to ask.
From the course syllabus for Philosophy 101. https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/philosophy/syllabus.htm Education is about teaching the student what they don't know and not that which they already know. The fact is that the vast majority of American children are brainwashed with "Christianity" virtually from infancy is beyond dispute and if Americans know anything there's little if anything that surpasses their knowledge of Christianity and the Christian religious philosophy. Philosophy 101 is designed to explore that which the student doesn't know which is the history of philosophy, it's concepts, and the alternative philosophies to Christianity because the American student already knows virtually everything there is to know about Christianity. Many have been brainwashed with "Christian philosophy" since before they could even walk. So perhaps you were unfortunate to have the worst philosophy professor in the American education system because if your class didn't study to any extent famous philosophers like Socrates, Friedrich Nietzsche, George Holyoake & Charles Bradlaugh (the founders of "human secularism" philosophy) as well as the religious philosophy of the world's religions today then your professor was a complete failure when it came to fulfilling the course requirements for Philosophy 101. If that was the case then I'm sorry for you but there's nothing I can really do about it. Only you can take a personal interest to learn on your own if your college professor failed to provide you with the fundamental knowledge of philosophy that the Philosophy 101 course was designed to provide. It was at least honest to admit that the opinion is based upon "public debate" and not "academic discussion" because there's a huge difference between the two. Statistically seven out of ten Americans are Christians and the last thing they want is a philosophical debate. They don't want the historical facts about Christianity and Christian societies that are laced with tyranny, genocide, murder, racism and slavery brought forward in a public debate. They argue "I'm not like that" but they can't deny the history of their religion based upon the religious philosophy. Of course human secularism is unquestionably the second most influential philosophy in America today and even many Christians have abandoned "strict Christian religious philosophy" in many instances to adopt human secularism as their actual personal philosophy in life. They desperately hang on to their religious belief in god but their philosophy is really human secularism and not Christianity. Obviously you're misinterpreting what the NAS has to say because there isn't a scientific theory of "Theistic Evolution" nor can there be because theism is a reference to god, a super-natural entity, and science doesn't deal in the supernatural. Science is exclusively limited by definition to the natural world. There's no evidence of the super-natural so of course science doesn't deal with anything where there's no evidence of it's existence. At the same time religion is emotional because it defies logic and reasoning. People have historically believed in religion because they're afraid of the unknown and afraid of death and fear is an emotion. No argument from me on this point but believing in the Tooth Fairy doesn't do a lot to expand our knowledge. The fact that James Tour can't understand has already been noted. That's not a failure of science when it comes to the understanding the scientific necessity for microevolution to drive macroevolution. That's a failure of James Tour and not science. We need to remember that many scientific theories take decades or more before they're validated and many still need to be validated. We've just measured gravitational waves that distort time and space that Einstein predicted in a theory almost 100 years ago. James Tour could have also stated he didn't understand gravitational waves because Einstein's theory had not been validated but that would have simply reflected his incapacity to understand the science and nothing more. A rather ignorant claim because you have no knowledge of the literally thousands of hours of personal Bible study that I have during my lifetime. I even took the initiative as a young man to interview numerous Christian religious leaders to determine the foundations for the differences in different denominations of Christianity. I researched Christianity extensively, as well as other religions, before I rejected all religions as being the inventions of man. Ironically it's logical reasoning where we discern the lie from the truth and critical thinking that converts the religious believer into the atheist. It's ignorance and fear that propagates religious beliefs and not critical thinking.
What are you on about??? Don't you know about the public debates I meant? Like these ones? [video=youtube;K2NEiW69G-0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2NEiW69G-0[/video] [video=youtube;lnk4UCvY89U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnk4UCvY89U[/video] [video=youtube;K55Sy6UAxUc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K55Sy6UAxUc[/video]
Easily said than done. Your reasonings, as an example, doesn't show that. They're hardly rational because they're not backed by logic. That's what I've been showing, and explaining to you! You don't want to accept James Tour, period. You refuse to see the logic behind my detailed explanations, and yet, you offer no logical basis to your stance. Repeating the rhetorics of new atheists, is not a logical response. You're more like responding with your emotions. Review your past responses to this thread.
Accurately stated when it comes to written religions but much harder to do based upon oral religious beliefs. Not impossible in some case but certainly much harder when nothing is written down.
What do you call it if a 'religious' type belief becomes dominant, & is taught & believed to be 'settled science' when it is, in fact, merely opinion, with no scientific basis?
I hadn't previously read the first quotation provided above but it certainly validates the statement in my subsequent post. The last thing the "Christian philosophers" want is a philosophical discussion based upon facts and logical reasoning in America. They'd rather put you on ignore.
What do you call it when someone (YOU) doesn't even acknowledge Evidence for Evolution, when ALL evidence points to it and Nothing else? When every New science that's come into existence for 150 years (and there has been an explosion like no other time in history), is either Consistent with, or helps affirm Evolution, and yet some/YOU just dismiss that overwhelming evidence out of hand in every string? I call it Delusion born of Indoctrination. In fact, the evidence for Evo is so overwhelming, it has been said 'he'/god/dog must be trying to fool us/test our faith by planting all that Evidence. There is no other way To explain it even if you're a godist. What we do Know is Not that any god created man/life/species (and unlike evo there isn't even any evidence), BUT that man created godS, Tens of Thousands of them. (gods of the gaps). And all on which we have a verdict have been proven false. And of course, Which/WITCH god you believe in is 95% Geo-cultural accident of Birth, Not any discernable truth. ergo, at least 75% of believers are Necessarily wrong even if one stepped in it, as most have Contradictory Creation MYTHS. Scientific theories/evidence/facts, OTOH, are universally discernible. +
Eh? What are you on about? Read what you quoted again. Read what NAS statement too, regarding its limitations. It's a wonder that you can't understand simple statements....and yet you give lectures on scientific matters!
Where are these so-called evidences? Evolution - microevolution, is real. Macro evolution however, is just based on supposition. It's all outrageous extrapolation. There's no evidence of it. Not even Dawkins can defend it.
Have you ever heard that evolution is appearances of new ( and more complex) species out of old ones? Have you thought why when it became clear that no appearance of new species has ever been observed and will never be observed somebody came up with the name microevolution for processes related to genetics which laws do not allow appearances of new species?
Unreal. I find your lack of knowledge disturbing. AA - - - Updated - - - Solar Thermonuclear Fusion is an example of Macro Evolution. The Macro Level BEGINS at the Atomic Level. AA
