+Rolo Beorn
What's the point of quoting Darwin?
Quoting Darwin is like quoting Newton when you're discuss gravity...it's stupid.
Did you not see the NASA reference where I said
NASA released a paper about Assumptions, Models, and the Scientific Method and after it gave a good objective explanation of what a theory is, it said:
This does not mean that the theory is wrong, it just means that the theory has limited applicability. (1)
Are you telling me that because I quoted the exact words of Darwin (which is like Newton) ... and since they are not my words... are you telling me that Darwin and Newton are stupid? Can you appeal to a proper authority and tell me with credible reasons how you logically achieved that conclusion. Because I don't accept blanket assertions as loically valid. Thanks
His idea of genetics was even wrong.
I know you are not talking about genetics if not that would be a strawman. However, you are using genetics to talk about something else - ie ... how Darwin gets scientific things wrong. However, if you are comitting a category mistake by using one wrong category-context (genetics) to debunk another category-context (evolution) just because a certain incredulous person was associated with both of them... this is a certain kind of guilt-by-association fallacy called sweeping-generalization fallacy. Therefore, just because darwin was wrong about genetics, does not necessarily and convincingly connote that he was wrong about evolution. I do not see the logical connetion. Each category-context, in my opinion, should be assessed objective case-by-case.
Those websites/articles burst with stupidity.
Blanket Assertion and Argumentum Ad Lapidem. Please demonstrate with logically sound premises and a coherent conclusion. Thanks. I cannot accept that argument convincingly at facevalue. Personally, I believe that in the "respected" case-by-case AND CategoryContext-by-CategoryContext ... the references fulfil their independent job respectively.
They are all about religitardism.
Oh wow! ALL of them? Do I really see the word all in that assertion? Wow! ALL of them indeed. You mean like the references of NASA. NASA is a religious-retard. How did you know? That's why the religitard-NASA is reaching out and reaching for the stars and mars but atheism is reaching for the pits of "nothing". Why? Atheism makes no (positive) claims and it shouldn't even make a claim about Science. Neil DeGrasse Tyson showed us how "science" is decreasing in American Conincidentally with the increase of Atheism in the same era. I'm not making a claim/ conclusion of causality... just a simple observation and fact ... coincidentally (2).
Secondly... Many of the other links are rightly associated with people of religion but calling them a religious retard just shows your unprovable blanket assertions, guilt by association fallacy and ignorance about how very not-retarded christians are.
Let Neil deGrasse Tyson educate you. Here are some of his words in (3)
(R1) Time: 0:13 - 0:58 I'm not an "-ism". I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It's not. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert you now what's gonna happen in advance.
or look at reference (4) of Neil deGrasse Tyson
(R2) Time 0:12 - 2:50 Most Religious people in America fully embrace science, so the argument that religion has some issues with science applies to a smalle fraction of those who declare that they're religious. They just happen to be a very vocal fraction so you get the impression that there are more of them than there actually is. It's actually the minority of religious people who reject science or feel threatened by it or ... restrict where science can go. The rest, you know, are just fine with science and has been that way ever since the beginning ... there's been a happy coexistence for centuries... so this notion that ... if you're a scientist you're an atheist or if you are religious you're not a scientist, that's just EMPIRICALLY FALSE.
The reason I gave you (R1) and (R2) is because you have added a (logically unjustified/ unwarranted) "-ism" (namely religitardism) as a fallacious sweeping generalisation to all my references (including that of NASA), according to Neil, that's not how to have a conversation. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert, you now what's gonna happen in advance. Secondly ... the idea that religous people are retards in the area of science is empirically false. So... you see why all you have done so far today is nothing but baseless, unwarranted, unjustifiaed assertions without a single reference link to buttress you. Please... give a counter-demonstration to my demonstrations. I feel like I'm the only one making sense today and hitting homerun with the points but you are only making unproved assertions.
Can you give an example of something science observes and can't explain?
Oh with pleasure and with ease
(PS: notice the question has nothing to do with the previous 4 evidences I gave concerning the supernatural world... but here goes)
1. Why do cows always face north or south while eating? (5)
2. How does the Placebo Effect work?
3. Why does it take more genes to make a tomoato than to make a human?
4. How liquid water very existed early in Earth’s history.
5. Why the sun’s atmosphere is so much hotter than its surface. (6)
6. Why do we yawn?
7. What are the scientific measurements of love or hate or morality?
8. What scientific experiment makes a poem beautiful or ugly?
9. Why does hot water freeze faster than ordinary water?
10. Why do negetive thought negetively affect your health?
11. Why are there more right-handed people than left-handed? (7)
12. How do the babies of migrating animals know exactly where to migrate in the same place their dead parents used to be? eg Monarch Butterfly Migration
13. What began the universe?
14. What scientific empirical data prove that my mind is not dreaming up this reality right now or proves that I am not stuck in a matrix?
15. How did life start on earth?
16. Why is our universe so fine-tuned?
17. Why is our universe written in the language of mathematics?
18. Why is it possible, under hypnotism, for your brain to register experiences that do not happen to you in the external real world? For example, the hypnotic pain of being on fire or being stabbed with a knife
Oh and if that does not satisfy you then answer the question I posited to you earlier
19. Why does SAAAD occur when there is no-physical or no-material contact between quantum entangled objects?
20. Why is our mathematics coherent with String Theory and its 11 dimension AND super-string theory and it 11 dimensions?
21. Why are over 90% of our eminent and credible historians believing in the fact that Jesus existed? and that HE resurrected?
That's just a few. I wonder when your eyes will open to see that there are phenonmenas in science that science cannot explain.
If God is the cause for the universe and if he intelligent designed evolution then you should apply the scientific method on God.
You're right ... I was saying the same thing about Mr Ford - the inventor of the ford engine. If Mr Ford is the cause of the Ford Engine and if he intelligently designed the ford engine then you should apply the automotive mathematical laws and formula of internal combustion to Mr Ford. Makes pretty much more sense to me.
Also, Shakespear wrote the book of romeo and juliet ... we should also apply the rules of paper and ink to Mr Shakespear. Makes pretty much sense to me.
No... just no. This is a case of bad logic. Mr Ford is not an engine and Shakespear is not a fictional story. Also, God is much more than Science and the scientific method does not necessarily apply to HIM. This is what is called a Category Error/ Mistake because you make an ontological error in which attributes belonging to the category:Science are presented as if they belong to a different catergory:God.
God bless you
REFERENCE
(1) http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/scimodule/Cosmogony/CosmogonyPDF/AppendixB.pdf
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amht5jdSY10
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k
(5) http://listverse.com/2015/04/10/10-fascinating-mysteries-of-life-that-science-cant-explain/
(6) http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/15-things-that-scientists-just-cant-explain#.aj0yy0qvp
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiYCgVKioI4
What's the point of quoting Darwin?
Quoting Darwin is like quoting Newton when you're discuss gravity...it's stupid.
Did you not see the NASA reference where I said
NASA released a paper about Assumptions, Models, and the Scientific Method and after it gave a good objective explanation of what a theory is, it said:
This does not mean that the theory is wrong, it just means that the theory has limited applicability. (1)
Are you telling me that because I quoted the exact words of Darwin (which is like Newton) ... and since they are not my words... are you telling me that Darwin and Newton are stupid? Can you appeal to a proper authority and tell me with credible reasons how you logically achieved that conclusion. Because I don't accept blanket assertions as loically valid. Thanks
His idea of genetics was even wrong.
I know you are not talking about genetics if not that would be a strawman. However, you are using genetics to talk about something else - ie ... how Darwin gets scientific things wrong. However, if you are comitting a category mistake by using one wrong category-context (genetics) to debunk another category-context (evolution) just because a certain incredulous person was associated with both of them... this is a certain kind of guilt-by-association fallacy called sweeping-generalization fallacy. Therefore, just because darwin was wrong about genetics, does not necessarily and convincingly connote that he was wrong about evolution. I do not see the logical connetion. Each category-context, in my opinion, should be assessed objective case-by-case.
Those websites/articles burst with stupidity.
Blanket Assertion and Argumentum Ad Lapidem. Please demonstrate with logically sound premises and a coherent conclusion. Thanks. I cannot accept that argument convincingly at facevalue. Personally, I believe that in the "respected" case-by-case AND CategoryContext-by-CategoryContext ... the references fulfil their independent job respectively.
They are all about religitardism.
Oh wow! ALL of them? Do I really see the word all in that assertion? Wow! ALL of them indeed. You mean like the references of NASA. NASA is a religious-retard. How did you know? That's why the religitard-NASA is reaching out and reaching for the stars and mars but atheism is reaching for the pits of "nothing". Why? Atheism makes no (positive) claims and it shouldn't even make a claim about Science. Neil DeGrasse Tyson showed us how "science" is decreasing in American Conincidentally with the increase of Atheism in the same era. I'm not making a claim/ conclusion of causality... just a simple observation and fact ... coincidentally (2).
Secondly... Many of the other links are rightly associated with people of religion but calling them a religious retard just shows your unprovable blanket assertions, guilt by association fallacy and ignorance about how very not-retarded christians are.
Let Neil deGrasse Tyson educate you. Here are some of his words in (3)
(R1) Time: 0:13 - 0:58 I'm not an "-ism". I just - I think for myself. The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you, and when you want to have a conversation they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation. I'm sorry. It's not. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert you now what's gonna happen in advance.
or look at reference (4) of Neil deGrasse Tyson
(R2) Time 0:12 - 2:50 Most Religious people in America fully embrace science, so the argument that religion has some issues with science applies to a smalle fraction of those who declare that they're religious. They just happen to be a very vocal fraction so you get the impression that there are more of them than there actually is. It's actually the minority of religious people who reject science or feel threatened by it or ... restrict where science can go. The rest, you know, are just fine with science and has been that way ever since the beginning ... there's been a happy coexistence for centuries... so this notion that ... if you're a scientist you're an atheist or if you are religious you're not a scientist, that's just EMPIRICALLY FALSE.
The reason I gave you (R1) and (R2) is because you have added a (logically unjustified/ unwarranted) "-ism" (namely religitardism) as a fallacious sweeping generalisation to all my references (including that of NASA), according to Neil, that's not how to have a conversation. I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert, you now what's gonna happen in advance. Secondly ... the idea that religous people are retards in the area of science is empirically false. So... you see why all you have done so far today is nothing but baseless, unwarranted, unjustifiaed assertions without a single reference link to buttress you. Please... give a counter-demonstration to my demonstrations. I feel like I'm the only one making sense today and hitting homerun with the points but you are only making unproved assertions.
Can you give an example of something science observes and can't explain?
Oh with pleasure and with ease
(PS: notice the question has nothing to do with the previous 4 evidences I gave concerning the supernatural world... but here goes)
1. Why do cows always face north or south while eating? (5)
2. How does the Placebo Effect work?
3. Why does it take more genes to make a tomoato than to make a human?
4. How liquid water very existed early in Earth’s history.
5. Why the sun’s atmosphere is so much hotter than its surface. (6)
6. Why do we yawn?
7. What are the scientific measurements of love or hate or morality?
8. What scientific experiment makes a poem beautiful or ugly?
9. Why does hot water freeze faster than ordinary water?
10. Why do negetive thought negetively affect your health?
11. Why are there more right-handed people than left-handed? (7)
12. How do the babies of migrating animals know exactly where to migrate in the same place their dead parents used to be? eg Monarch Butterfly Migration
13. What began the universe?
14. What scientific empirical data prove that my mind is not dreaming up this reality right now or proves that I am not stuck in a matrix?
15. How did life start on earth?
16. Why is our universe so fine-tuned?
17. Why is our universe written in the language of mathematics?
18. Why is it possible, under hypnotism, for your brain to register experiences that do not happen to you in the external real world? For example, the hypnotic pain of being on fire or being stabbed with a knife
Oh and if that does not satisfy you then answer the question I posited to you earlier
19. Why does SAAAD occur when there is no-physical or no-material contact between quantum entangled objects?
20. Why is our mathematics coherent with String Theory and its 11 dimension AND super-string theory and it 11 dimensions?
21. Why are over 90% of our eminent and credible historians believing in the fact that Jesus existed? and that HE resurrected?
That's just a few. I wonder when your eyes will open to see that there are phenonmenas in science that science cannot explain.
If God is the cause for the universe and if he intelligent designed evolution then you should apply the scientific method on God.
You're right ... I was saying the same thing about Mr Ford - the inventor of the ford engine. If Mr Ford is the cause of the Ford Engine and if he intelligently designed the ford engine then you should apply the automotive mathematical laws and formula of internal combustion to Mr Ford. Makes pretty much more sense to me.
Also, Shakespear wrote the book of romeo and juliet ... we should also apply the rules of paper and ink to Mr Shakespear. Makes pretty much sense to me.
No... just no. This is a case of bad logic. Mr Ford is not an engine and Shakespear is not a fictional story. Also, God is much more than Science and the scientific method does not necessarily apply to HIM. This is what is called a Category Error/ Mistake because you make an ontological error in which attributes belonging to the category:Science are presented as if they belong to a different catergory:God.
God bless you
REFERENCE
(1) http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/scimodule/Cosmogony/CosmogonyPDF/AppendixB.pdf
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amht5jdSY10
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k
(5) http://listverse.com/2015/04/10/10-fascinating-mysteries-of-life-that-science-cant-explain/
(6) http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/15-things-that-scientists-just-cant-explain#.aj0yy0qvp
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiYCgVKioI4
No comments:
Post a Comment