Intelligence Inquiry

[HitchSlap]

Deceased individuals do not reside in their parents gonads. Thus the distinction between life and death.

Lol, no one resides in their parents gonads, ya goof.

If it helps, where we’re Hawking’s parents before they were born?

 

[The Righterzpen]

A brief history of time and black holes and baby universes.

Wasn't Hawking the one who said "time" created the big bang?

LOL - and how exactly does time do that? (Granted assuming his statement had something to do with the origin of the universe.) Well, before there was a universe, could time exist? If it did exist; Hawking can't prove that. So if you define a universe that came out of nothing; that would mean time didn't exist either - so how could time create the universe? One argument cancels out the other.

 

[HitchSlap]

Wasn't Hawking the one who said "time" created the big bang?

LOL - and how exactly does time do that? (Granted assuming his statement had something to do with the origin of the universe.) Well, before there was a universe, could time exist? If it did exist; Hawking can't prove that. So if you define a universe that came out of nothing; that would mean time didn't exist either - so how could time create the universe? One argument cancels out the other.

Let me know when you think you’ve got it figured out.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Then your demonstrated ignorance of ToE is all an act, then?

Ha, Poe. I knew it!

I have not demonstrated ignorance of the TOE. I've demonstrated the huge holes in its assumptions; which you throw accusations at on account of your inability to counter the arguments.

And by the way, no secular university taught me how to reason; (although I did encounter those in secular universities who did know how to reason).

 

[The Righterzpen]

Lol, no one resides in their parents gonads, ya goof.

If it helps, where we’re Hawking’s parents before they were born?

Don't confuse the fact of lack of existence prior to creation with the assumption that state reasserts itself after death.

And yes, one's potential to life certainly does reside in the genome of their ancestors.

Let me know when you think you’ve got it figured out.

Again, doesn't matter if you're right; only matters if I'm right. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.... Mark my words here - one day - in one way or another - you will know!

 

[AV1611VET]

He’s deceased... so he’s the same place he was before he was conceived. Sounds like someone needs a bio 101 refresher.

Will he be back then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't confuse the fact of lack of existence prior to creation with the assumption that state reasserts itself after death.

Evidently academia and transmigration of the soul aren't strangers.

 

[HitchSlap]

Will he be back then?

“Hasta la vista baby”

 

[HitchSlap]

Don't confuse the fact of lack of existence prior to creation with the assumption that state reasserts itself after death.

And yes, one's potential to life certainly does reside in the genome of their ancestors.



Again, doesn't matter if you're right; only matters if I'm right. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.... Mark my words here - one day - in one way or another - you will know!

No worries. I’m not confused.

 

[HitchSlap]

I have not demonstrated ignorance of the TOE. I've demonstrated the huge holes in its assumptions; which you throw accusations at on account of your inability to counter the arguments.

And by the way, no secular university taught me how to reason; (although I did encounter those in secular universities who did know how to reason).

All you’ve demonstrated is Dunning-Kruger.

 

[VirOptimus]

Biology 101 - that would be a great starting point for you. I actually took a lot of biology courses in college.

I dont belive you. Your posts show you are wholly ignorant in even basic science, terminology and biology.

 

[The Transcendentian]

. . .
Why wouldn’t it be better for education to present accurately, and in detail, what the theory of evolution can and can’t show with a comparison to Intelligent Design, instead of just presenting their dogma? Wouldn’t an opposing theory be good for education?

Intelligent design science is one of my passions. I wish there would be a law passed requiring Public Schools to teach children ALL the different origin stories of the Earth and Life and the Universe. Whether said stories are religious, scientific, or something else. Including Evolution and it's variations, including Creationism and it's variations, and there are probably others besides those two.

I hate it when people say the The Theory of Evolution is science and Creationism/ID is not.

All scientists that we know of today are human. All humans are biased, and partial. No matter how qualified or respected they are or how many Doctorate degrees they have, or how many other humans agree with them, they're biased in some way.
Evolutionists are biased.
Creationists are biased.
You are biased.
I'm biased.

The grand theory of Evolution as a whole, as a general, vague term, is propaganda.
The theory of Creationism/ Intelligent Design is also propaganda. I like being biased in favor of Creationism.
A lot of people like being biased in favor of Evolution.

I believe Science itself cannot and will not prove of disprove either one of these theories.
True Science is questioning everything you know, or think you know.

There is no such thing as "scientific fact". All things in the field of science are theories.
Some theories are more well established than others, but if 99.99% of all humans believe a theory, that does not make said theory is true.

There is a religion (or two, or more) surrounding the theory of evolution.
I'm almost certain that the majority of scientists who believe the theory of evolution follow one of those religions.


*whew*
Rant over.
Thoughts?
Insults?

 

[HitchSlap]

Intelligent design science is one of my passions. I wish there would be a law passed requiring Public Schools to teach children ALL the different origin stories of the Earth and Life and the Universe. Whether said stories are religious, scientific, or something else. Including Evolution and it's variations, including Creationism and it's variations, and there are probably others besides those two.

I hate it when people say the The Theory of Evolution is science and Creationism/ID is not.

All scientists that we know of today are human. All humans are biased, and partial. No matter how qualified or respected they are or how many Doctorate degrees they have, or how many other humans agree with them, they're biased in some way.
Evolutionists are biased.
Creationists are biased.
You are biased.
I'm biased.

The grand theory of Evolution as a whole, as a general, vague term, is propaganda.
The theory of Creationism/ Intelligent Design is also propaganda. I like being biased in favor of Creationism.
A lot of people like being biased in favor of Evolution.

I believe Science itself cannot and will not prove of disprove either one of these theories.
True Science is questioning everything you know, or think you know.

There is no such thing as "scientific fact". All things in the field of science are theories.
Some theories are more well established than others, but if 99.99% of all humans believe a theory, that does not make said theory is true.

There is a religion (or two, or more) surrounding the theory of evolution.
I'm almost certain that the majority of scientists who believe the theory of evolution follow one of those religions.


*whew*
Rant over.
Thoughts?
Insults?

1. Origin myths are taught in comparative religion courses.

2. ToE is supported by mountains of multiple independent lines of evidence, and is simply the best explanation for bio diversity and distribution of life on earth.

ID is the opposite of science, as it begins with an answer and ignores all evidence to the contrary. It’s nothing more than ‘creo in a cheap tux.’ Sorry.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I dont belive you. Your posts show you are wholly ignorant in even basic science, terminology and biology.

You wanna see my grade transcripts?

 

[The Righterzpen]

All you’ve demonstrated is Dunning-Kruger.

As have you; surprise you know what that is!

 

[The Transcendentian]

1. Origin myths are taught in comparative religion courses.

2. ToE is supported by mountains of multiple independent lines of evidence, and is simply the best explanation for bio diversity and distribution of life on earth.

ID is the opposite of science, as it begins with an answer and ignores all evidence to the contrary. It’s nothing more than ‘creo in a cheap tux.’ Sorry.

3. The foundation of your belief system begins with an answer and ignores all evidence to the contrary.
The foundation of my belief system does the same.

2. I like to think that ToE is not completely incompatible with Creationism, even if the origin-of-all-things part is.

1. You will refuse to admit (even the possibility how ever small) that atheism is a religion.

 

[VirOptimus]

You wanna see my grade transcripts?

No, your posts are there for all to see.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

1. You will refuse to admit (even the possibility how ever small) that atheism is a religion.

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

 

[The Transcendentian]

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

Um, I think it is...

 

[VirOptimus]

Um, I think it is...

That... is weird. And nonsense.