Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, let's see --- how about we treat it like scientists do when they do the same thing:
Pick one, so we can learn to be as honest as scientists are.
- Vote on it, like they did to correct Tombaugh's Folly (Pluto)?
- Blame it on the government, like they did Vioxx and Thalidomide?
- Defend it as science-in-progress, like they did Aristotle's Folly?
- Blame it on the weather, like they did the Challenger disaster?
- Just say, 'oops', like they do when a Satan Bug escapes a laboratory?
- Blame it on faulty written procedures, like they did Chernobyl or TMI?
- Blame it on 'pilot error' when a pilot relies on his instruments to fly a plane into the Andes Mts.?
The nature of reality is of interest to me.
The only assumption we make is that there is nothing to assume without having evidence. Anyone assuming otherwise is as baseless as we are in our presupposition.Rather, you're interested in your own predisposed philosophical assumptions about reality.
Oh no - for those, you must blame the 'evo', even if the issue in question occurred before evolution was known of...So, any time anyone does anything wrong, it is the scientists' fault??
Engineering error?-- blame "scientists."
Human error? -- blame "scientists."
Bureaucratic error? -- blame "scientists."
Pharmaceutical error? -- blame "scientists."
Medical error? -- blame "scientists."
But, let's not blame any "True Christian" here for:
Slavery
Racism
The Inquisition
Witch Hunting
The Crusades
Colonialism, etc.
The only assumption we make is that there is nothing to assume without having evidence. Anyone assuming otherwise is as baseless as we are in our presupposition.
Rather, you're interested in your own predisposed philosophical assumptions about reality.
When did a "satan bug" ever escape a laboratory?
Who blamed Challenger on the weather? i thought it was a faulty O ring?
But you know what? Scientists making mistakes MAY have been 100% of fault for the Challenger disaster. For the sake of argument lets agree and say it was all down to scientific incompetence that Challenger blew up. So thats a bad day for science. But even on its best day, how many orbital payloads has religious based Creationism delivered?
Creationists seem to have difficulty with the concept of science NOT being a homogenous, directed hierarchical organisation like a church. Just like they have difficulty grasping the fact that what a scientist said in 1932 may not be regarded as the most accurate information available anymore, since their information never improves in accuracy.Its hard for me to tell what the point of this is supposed to be, but I THINK it is to ad hom science for not taking responsibility for what it does.
Which i guess by contrast Christianity does take responsibility? For every thing that any preacher anywhere does or says?
Im not sure what a geologist is supposed to do exactly if engineers at morton thiocald make a mistake in the O rings. Or a plant geneticist in India. What should she do about the Challenger? I guess maybe every time any scientist anywhere makes a mistake all everywhere should do penance? Perthaps AV can say what form this taking responsibility is to take.
Creationists seem to have difficulty with the concept of science NOT being a homogenous, directed hierarchical organisation like a church. Just like they have difficulty grasping the fact that what a scientist said in 1932 may not be regarded as the most accurate information available anymore, since their information never improves in accuracy.
Oh right, like you know that. Or this :
"Hey we all have assumptions which we can't prove, I wasn't suggesting that i'm any different from you. "QUOTE
You are way different. You assume that Christianity is reality based.
If you want to talk about how YOU have predisposed assumptions then just talk about yourself leave me out of your psychoanalyses.
You may think that your worldview is based purely 100% upon empirical, scientifically verifiable evidence, your worldview may be that reality is defined purely by emirical, scientifically verifiable evidence. But then that would be a philosophical position based in some part on unprovable philosophical assumptions. We aren't all that different.
You may think that your worldview is based purely 100% upon empirical, scientifically verifiable evidence, your worldview may be that reality is defined purely by emirical, scientifically verifiable evidence. But then that would be a philosophical position based in some part on unprovable philosophical assumptions. We aren't all that different.
Couldn't agree more. That's the only point I was trying to make.It true that every single worldview has to start with some sort of philosophy. Even science, to be meaningful, requires basic philosophical assumptions about the nature of the universe (i.e. it exists and is objective).
You may think that your worldview is based purely 100% upon empirical, scientifically verifiable evidence, your worldview may be that reality is defined purely by emirical, scientifically verifiable evidence. But then that would be a philosophical position based in some part on unprovable philosophical assumptions. We aren't all that different.
It depends on which portions of DNA you are comparing.
It says even more when a person continues making the exact same argument for going on 6 years despite the fact that multiple, well qualified individuals have taken the time to explain how your claims are in error.
It is religious fanatics and ignoramuses that try to stir up controversies where none exist.
The weakness is a lack of complete knowledge. The strengths are the anatomical, genomic, and biogeographic evidence.
Well, at least we do not just outright ignore posts that respond directly and completely to our claims and then protest that nobody will respond.
I've seen your 'debates' here and elsewhere. You never produce anything in them that you haven't been producing for the last several years - a few misinterpreted quotes, a few instances of a rather simplisitc "understanding" of evidence, multiple attempts at intellectual martyrdom,oodles of personal disbelief, wash rinse repeat, and in the end, regardless of what information your opponant presents (which has already been opresented to you dozens if not hundreds of times), you engage in these whiny rants about how mean everyone is and how you won.
What is the point other than to help you stroke your ego, protected as it is by a shield of invincible ignorance?
Mean? Maybe - ad hom? Not at all. The truth is not ad hominem. Example - It is a fact that despite the fact that it has been explained to you by at least two practicing geneticists and a molecular phylogeneticist (and who knows how many biologists) that indels are one-time events and it is ludicrous to insist that all of the nucleoitdes involved in an indel be added to the overall mutation rate that you still insist that they should be and use this foolish proposition as the basis for your "it is a lie to claim that humans and chimps are 98/99% identical" mantra.
That is invincible ignorance, and you've been displaying on that and other issues for over 5 years.
What - like the bible is literally true?
Philosophical arguments are for people with no evidence on their side.
Amazingly, it was not my intent to make any argument whatsoever. It was just an observation.Is that why you just made a philosophical argument? (cos it ain't a scientific one)
Amazingly, it was not my intent to make any argument whatsoever. It was just an observation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?