Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Pretty funny. I shall have to assimilate this series into my collection. Abraham reminds me of Moss from IT crowd.Here is THIS!
Pretty funny. I shall have to assimilate this series into my collection. Abraham reminds me of Moss from IT crowd.Here is THIS!
...thanks for pointing out that science is a method. Art, Science, Religion, and Philosophy. We can't change the fact that those are the 4 pillars of knowing. Not one of them could be excluded to the benefit of the other 3.Science is a method, not a person. Scientists are free to believe in god, but they do not use the scientific method to get there. Science, being a process, can not hold a belief one way or the other, it can only suggest conclusions and make predictions based on evidence and reason, of which there is none for god.
I like that this article, which you have used as a source, includes this paragraph:
"One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."
...consider both terms - asymmetry happened after creation. For anything to happen there must be a broken symmetry. Equivocation? I've yet to make any assumptions about you. Want to read back on your posts with an eye for assumptions?After death, any heat energy is dissipated. Any caloric energy is consumed by the bacteria and other decomposers.
It would be helpful if you defined energy and stuck with that one definition because this equivocation stuff just isn't deserving of a thoughtful response. Did you mean "conservation" instead of "preservation"?
How is "art" considered knowledge? Religion was only considered knowledge before science was perfected.
I believe the equivocation is when you conflate scientifically defined energy with the more colloquial term 'life energy', as science has never established that we are a special energy in and of ourselves. So when science says energy can not be created or destroyed, they are not referring to an imagined life energy. We may or may not have a life energy which may or may not play by the same rules as material energy, but quoting the rule of conservation does not do anything to establish such energy, and instead plays on ambiguity....consider both terms - asymmetry happened after creation. For anything to happen there must be a broken symmetry. Equivocation? I've yet to make any assumptions about you. Want to read back on your posts with an eye for assumptions?
...wasting the precious energy in this closed system by responding to your last question would be a poor decision on my part. Sanity is valuable to me
...thanks, Heis. I gained a lot from the first paragraph, though I was being light-hearted with the assumption bitI believe the equivocation is when you conflate scientifically defined energy with the more colloquial term 'life energy', as science has never established that we are a special energy in and of ourselves. So when science says energy can not be created or destroyed, they are not referring to an imagined life energy. We may or may not have a life energy which may or may not play by the same rules as material energy, but quoting the rule of conservation does not do anything to establish such energy, and instead plays on ambiguity.
I would have to think more about art being an aspect of knowledge. I can't disagree that we needed to crawl with religion before we could walk with science or journey with technology, but we do not normally preserve training wheels once we've outgrown them. In any case that would seem to be a utilitarian argument. We could make up a new religion right now that is infinitely better than any we have, yet no one would follow it because we would know it isn't true. We do not need to subscribe to things which require the surrender of our logic and sensibility to be able to take advantage of careful thought and study. So I disagree that we could not remove religion from our future to the benefit of science and philosophy, though I do acknowledge that art would suffer.
Did you know that .99999~ = 1?Oh please don't open the can of worms that is "cause and effect".
...PreachyKeen? Don't think so.Oh, here come the theistic jabs. Is it safe to assume that you go that route because you don't know the answer? It wasn't a trick question btw...
Where did this "asymmetry" stuff come from? I don't know what you're talking about. Could you please explain a bit?
Yep.... I have a headache now....
IOW, you don't have any answers as to why you believe bullshit ID and reject evolution except that your religion dictates it."Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
Maybe people's responses to you wouldn't seem so condescending if you weren't spouting lies. If YOUR science class taught you that, then they were wrong. More likely, you have limited recollection of what you were taught and the years have clouded the subject even more, especially considering your current beliefs. Of course we descended from an ancestor that could legitimately be called an ape, but it was not a extant species of ape as you are implying. This is hardly a 'new' interpretation as it even predates Darwin with the creationist Carl Linnaeus classifying the great apes as our closest relatives. Darwin didn't touch much on human evolution in Origin, but the 1863 book by Thomas Henry Huxley Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, does outline evidence for the common ancestry of humans and apes.No offense, but what you're saying here is part bullshit. When I was growing up, SCIENCE class was teaching that man came from apes, using pictures to prove the point. All of this "New" interpretation about Evolution has developed in recent years because they found what I was being taught in school was, FUCKING BULLSHIT! I still feel and believe that the Evolution of Man is bullshit.
I seriously doubt 'the government' gives a shit what you believe.Sorry, but I have to laugh when people say, "50 million years ago!" LOLOLOLOL! Shit, we can't even figure out what happened 100 years ago, and the fucking Government that wants me to believe in Evolution can't even pay their damn bills!
Your acceptance of evolution will not impact me or any other poster here one iota. However, you seem content to remain ignorant and believe incorrect characterizations of the theory and the reality of evolution. I only interceded in order to help clear up some of your confusion, but if you are unwilling to have a dialogue and prefer to spout the ID/creationist party-line drivel, then so be it. I will continue to correct your mischaracterizations and lies and you are free to continue to plug your fingers in your ears and avoid actually learning some science.Just like I said in my other post, you are trying to take me on a wild goose chase that will never end, full of maybes, what if's, and might have beens.