Part 30 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity>>>MOD ALERT<<<

cause you're not a paleontologist or an evolutionary biologist

logic states that arguments require proof. According to you, there's no need to use logic. And if there's no need to use logic, then there's no need for me to substantiate any of my statements with proof.

It's not that I don't like the term rationalization, in and of itself. It's the the term rationalization is loaded, meaning that it requires justification when you use it. Just like the term "stupid" is a loaded term (because it connotes that someone doesn't know what they're doing). But I can't just reply simply with "that argument is stupid." I have to give some justification for my use of the loaded term---"your argument is stupid because...." Similarly, you can't just say - "you're rationalizing." You have to give the reason why you believe that someone is rationalizing. Otherwise, it's just name-calling.

 

You remind me of a flat-earther. There is positive proof that the earth is round and yet a few individuals (comparatively speaking) still refuse to accept the fact. The science isn't to their liking so they ignore it.

Mitt/WarRen are much the same. A book - the Tanakh - which scriptures were in existence several centuries before Christianity and which is the very foundation on which Christianity is falsely built, are used to prophecy Christ, when the truth is that they do not.

 

May I dedicate this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA93YkOq7sk in honour of this thread. It's a ...... nightmare.

 

What private transcripts of mine have you gained access to that would allow you to post something that is supposed to be positive knowledge about my real being? Do you know my true identity? Do you know anything about my educational background? Which one of the Moderators violated my privacy and provided you with private information about me that would have allowed you to stalk me in the private sector of the US to afford you with access to my educational records?

Where does "logic" state anything? Please provide the source of your information wherein it is stipulated that 'logic' has human attributes such as the ability to make decisions or to write/speak anything.

Your entire statement above is another example of you rationalizing (making excuses for your behavior). Why? Because you are seeking to use the comments above in an attempt to justify your behavior.
"ra·tion·al·ize
(r&#259;sh&#8242;&#601;-n&#601;-l&#299;z&#8242v. ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing, ra·tion·al·iz·es
v.tr.1. To explain rationally: "Philosophy ... is essentially the endeavor of the human mind to rationalize the universe" (Francis E. Abbot).
2. a. To explain or justify (one's behavior) with incorrect reasons or excuses, often without conscious awareness: rationalized his poor academic performance by claiming the teacher was incompetent.
b. To dismiss or minimize the significance of (something) by means of an explanation or excuse: "He could not rationalize the loss of some thirty thousand American lives in an unsuccessful war" (Robert Dallek)."

 

Which amounts to irrelevance.

Also irrelevant.

Also irrelevant as it does not address the subject of 'evolution'. Want to try again?

 

Which amounts to irrelevance.

Also irrelevant.

Any Better?

 

Fair Warning

I saw a lot of this in the other thread

Stop messing with the quote function. Just quote the person, and leave the syntax alone. It screws up the quotes for everyone who quotes you, and also means that the person in question won't get a notification.

 

I didn't mess with the quote function. I merely copied the post and then pasted it. That's how it came out. Incorporeal asked me to try again, so I did. Please respect your elders

 

There are several differing views regarding the Crusades.

To get a better understanding of the Crusades click on the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

 

Biological classification of organisms (Taxonomy) does not rely on a common ancestor until you get the lower levels where the organisms of the came club need to be able to mate with each other.

Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family Genus Species

To have membership in the same Domain for example one just needs to have eukaryotic cells. This is where the genetic material is enclosed in a membrane (nucleus) within the cell.

In bacteria the nucleic material is free floating in the cells.

To get into the club/phylum Chordata requires more similarities

Entrance into the club does not require similar ancestry .. just similar characteristics.

To get into the club Class-Mammalia requires even more similarities.

by the time we get to Genus (Homonids) or Homo Members of this club could and did interbreed with each other.

The only surviving line of this Genus are the Homo Sapiens.

So indeed our ancestors (part of our close family as your great grandfather or grand mother way way back could be from one of these other species of Hominid). You can have a genetic test which will tell you how much Neanderthal genetic material you have which can give you some idea how far back you would have to go to find different species of hominid in your family line.

 

To get a better understanding of the Mamluks and what they were all about click on the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk

 

A better avenue would be to just click the 'quote' button.

 

Not "pre-human", but fully human living before the dinosaurs.
There are some scholars who think that extraterrestrials visited and lived here. How do you explain the long heads?
Do the research.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

Now that we have the internet, there is no conclusion that you cannot find support for somewhere. There are people who still believe that the sun revolves around the earth. https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Geocentrism.HTM

Suffice it to say, the weight of evidence is against the existence of human beings at the same time as dinosaurs.

I would be careful of conclusions that aren't "mainstream" in the scientific community, because there's usually a reason why they're not mainstream - they're usually bunk.

 

Is this the scientific community section of the forum? I thought it was the philosophy and religion section.

 

if you feel that this thread should be moved to the scientific section of the forum, you are free to voice your concerns to the moderators.

 

I do believe it was you advising others to not make particular subject matter a discussion within the scientific community. This is not the scientific community, therefore, your concerns were and are out of place.

 

Philosophy includes the study of Logic, Logical Fallacy, Deducting reasoning, what constitutes a valid argument and so on.

You do not believe in any of these things so why are you here ?

 

So, now you are reducing Logic to a form of philosophy. You might want to read this article entitled "what is logic". very revealing. Enjoy the read. Why are you here?

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php

 

I really couldn't be bothered to waste time. I would not have recieved a 'relevant' answer. I simply 'tried again' as I was asked.

 

Philosophy is divided into many sub-fields. These include epistemology, logic, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics

 

I am not the one that denies logic, deductive reasoning and other tenets of Philosophy. You are.

Why are you posting links to things that you deny are valid ?

Loony tunes.

 

I never advised others not to discuss science. I have advised others not to discuss things that deviate from mainstream science for which they have little expertise.

 

If you are doing this willfully, then the next go around will result in Rule 5 being applied.

 

And still many more that you did not list. Point being logic is simply the study of the principles of correct reasoning of a given subject. Therefore, the philosophy of logic is not defining what 'logic' itself is. Therefore, logic in and of itself is not a philosophy. Religion, in and of itself is not a philosophy. So, what is the "correct" reasoning of Theology? Example: The reasoning used in Electronics is not the equivalent of the reasoning used in the profession of Football. Nor is the logic used in science the same as the logic used in Theology.
"the·o·log·i·cal also the·o·log·ic (-l&#335;j&#8242;&#301;k)adj. Of or relating to theology or to specialized religious study."

"log·i·cal
adj.1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic: logical disputation.

2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner: a very logical person."

"phi·los·o·phy
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies 1. The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.

2. A system of thought based on or involving such study: the philosophy of Hume.
3. The study of the theoretical underpinnings of a particular field or discipline: the philosophy of history.
4. An underlying theory or set of ideas relating to a particular field of activity or to life as a whole: an original philosophy of advertising; an unusual philosophy of life."