So then, you shouldn't be in a science forum with that stuff.This is metaphysics not science, science describes an already created universe not the creation of that universe.
The religion forum is right down the street.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So then, you shouldn't be in a science forum with that stuff.This is metaphysics not science, science describes an already created universe not the creation of that universe.
Metaphysics isn't religion. If someone asks metaphysical questions in the science forum, they can expect metaphysical answers.So then, you shouldn't be in a science forum with that stuff.
The religion forum is right down the street.
I promote science.Metaphysics isn't religion. If someone asks metaphysical questions in the science forum, they can expect metaphysical answers.
You shouldn't be in the science forum saying inanities like "Chemical bonding is biogenesis" and "chaos has nothing to do with determinism".
Not when you say "chemical bonding is biogenesis" or "chaos has nothing to do with determinism", that's promoting pseudo-science.I promote science.
I no more "promote" metaphysic than I "promote" being rational or logical, they are what they are.You promote metaphysics.
Yes, you're pseudo-scientist.See how that works?
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.[4] It is not the same as junk science.[7]
I think you're arrogant.Not when you say "chemical bonding is biogenesis" or "chaos has nothing to do with determinism", that's promoting pseudo-science.
I no more "promote" metaphysic than I "promote" being rational or logical, they are what they are.
Yes, you're pseudo-scientist.
Irrelevant babble.When the goal is to prop up a hypothesis more than determine the truth, that's not science, it's dogma, the emphasis is on preserving the foundational belief in evolution. The very act of expressing doubt results in condemnation and threats of ex-communication.
You're religious and don't even know it.
Don't post inanities like "chaos has nothing to do with determinism" or "chemical bonding is biogenesis" and not expect to be challenged or ridiculed.I think you're arrogant.
You think you know how God operates, and you don't.
You're incapable of handling obvious truths, because you're limited by a 3000 year old book.
You think human beings are special somehow, and we're not. We're made of chemical bonds just like everything else in this universe.
But don't let the truth stop you from your metaphysical ramblings.
You can have the last word.
I welcome challenges, as long as they're worthy.Don't post inanities like "chaos has nothing to do with determinism" or "chemical bonding is biogenesis" and not expect to be challenged or ridiculed.
100% correct.Nothing you've said so far has been challenging.
In my cartoon Holmes replied,
In my experience, to a man, they know very, very little about evolution.In my cartoon Holmes replied,
"In each case we'd have a hypothesis and supporting evidence for it."
He fails to see that creationists cherry-pick some facts without understanding them and throw out all other facts that rebut their message.
I wouldn't say that I "fail to see" by all means give examples of that though so I can look. I think one could level the same criticism at the evolutionists too. In the Cambrian explosion the absence of empirically expected evidence is often dismissed, minimized as an artifact and little further consideration given it. But when scrutinized the absence becomes more and more alarming, it is irreconcilable with the claims made about the past.In my cartoon Holmes replied,
"In each case we'd have a hypothesis and supporting evidence for it."
He fails to see that creationists cherry-pick some facts, often without understanding them and throw out all other facts that rebut their message.
Yes, there are outliers in all complex sciences such as medicine, particle physics experiments, and evolution. The huge bulk of data largely form a very consistent picture of the origin of species.I wouldn't say that I "fail to see" by all means give examples of that though so I can look. I think one could level the same criticism at the evolutionists too. In the Cambrian explosion the absence of empirically expected evidence is often dismissed, minimized as an artifact and little further consideration given it. But when scrutinized the absence becomes more and more alarming, it is irreconcilable with the claims made about the past.
They don't understand any of that. They don't even know it exists, most of the time.Yes, there are outliers in all complex sciences such as medicine, particle physics experiments, and evolution. The huge bulk of data largely form a very consistent picture of the origin of species.
Creationists throw away the the efficacy of radio isotope dating, the fact the the earth is billions of years old, and not just a few thousand. Creationists assume all creatures were formed in one day. The cherry-picked outliers are seen as evidence for the bible while ignoring all the rest of the physical and biological evidence.
To me it's a conundrum. These people are reasonably smart, and so are some MAGA people, but they lack the wisdom to know where and how to apply their smarts. We-smarter-than-animal humans have this weird ability to hold logic and extreme illogic in our brains at the same time.They don't understand any of that. They don't even know it exists, most of the time.
They are going blind and ignorant into an argument they lost 150 years ago.
With the expected results.
Of course, it's everyone else's fault, when they fail.
Right. Being smart doesn't mean being fluent or even informed in all topics.To me it's a conundrum. These people are reasonably smart, and so are some MAGA people, but they lack the wisdom to know where and how to apply their smarts. We-smarter-than-animal humans have this weird ability to hold logic and extreme illogic in our brains at the same time.
Yeah, a lot of scientists,Right. Being smart doesn't mean being fluent or even informed in all topics.
And these peope may be MENSA officers, but they know exactly squat about evolution.
I'm not stupid. But I would not watch a youtube video and suddenly think I have outsmarted a bunch of scientists in their specialized fields.
I have quite often asked our resident youtube educated scientist to try out their acts on actual scientists.Yeah, a lot of scientists,, on this board graduated from University of YouTube.
It's the inconsistencies where the rubber meets the road, not the consistencies, there's no fossil evidence that any of the 40+ diversified phyla that appear in the Cambrian, actually had any ancestors whatsoever, no evidence, none, it's either inexplicably missing or they never existed.Yes, there are outliers in all complex sciences such as medicine, particle physics experiments, and evolution. The huge bulk of data largely form a very consistent picture of the origin of species.
The term "creationism" encompasses a broad canvas, there are some who abhor intellectualism in all its form and who refuse to acknowledge rudimentary facts of nature (like radioactive decay) and who interpret scripture in a particular way. We should not all be tarred with the same brush.Creationists throw away the the efficacy of radio isotope dating, the fact the the earth is billions of years old, and not just a few thousand. Creationists assume all creatures were formed in one day. The cherry-picked outliers are seen as evidence for the bible while ignoring all the rest of the physical and biological evidence.
It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.-Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals