To the tw religious ppl

amRam said:
Because humans are pack animals and we need social circles and communities to survive properly in the world.

"The Church" may be a corrupt organization at the top but down at the community level it's almost always a positive thing for its members.

At the end of the day it's a congregation of like-minded individuals who share the same beliefs. Not sure why that needs to be shit on.
Click to expand...

That's a good way to look at it.

The Church is different things to different people (religions), generally a body of people. Some people that have no faith look at it as a brick building down the street.

People that have faith say for Christians or Jews is the figurative body of Christ. Jesus being the head, the Jews being are the chosen people according to the Bible and the saved Gentiles (Christians) were grafted on later. God apparently put the Jews on hold for not following the rules, you know, work the land for 6 years and then let it rest a year. That year was designated a year of rest, forgive debts, yada yada.

Jews didn't do it, so in Godly fashion, God said you know what, I'm putting you in time out for 7x70 years, 490 right?. While your being shitheads (disobedient kids) I am going to take another people out of the Gentiles and call them by my name. I'll get back to you at the end and we will settle up. Your still my peeps, but if you do the crime, you have to do the time.

That's the way I understand it at least.
 
The Pumpkin King said:
I now realize what you were ranting about. I didn't realize because I kinda started tuning out. Your communication is becoming less and less interesting.

You claim science to be the complete totality of the ascertainment of truth.
Click to expand...
I didn't. Read again.

It's the totality of methods and tools that we have so far found reliable for ascertaining truth.

Agree?
 
The Pumpkin King said:
Really? Cus last time I checked facts were called facts, and theories were called theories.

What Is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | Live Science.

"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts."

Definition of "theory":
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

And if you were curious, the definition of a "supposition":
an uncertain belief.

When was the last time you heard someone say "I believe in the theory of a round Earth"? This has moved into the category of being a scientific fact.
Click to expand...
Good thing the very definition you quoted says "a supposition OR a system of ideas". Scientific theories being the latter.

There's also a theory of gravity. And the germ theory of disease.

As a matter of fact, you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Amadeus said:
Good thing the very definition you quoted says "a supposition OR a system of ideas". Scientific theories being the latter.
Click to expand...

There is a large difference between an "idea" and a "fact."

If you were to have the idea that your own home was a giant three-legged hippopotamus, that idea would likely not be factual.

Amadeus said:
There's also a theory of gravity. And the germ theory of disease.

As a matter of fact, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that a theory is a proven fact?

I will wager that you will not commit to this claim in your next reply.
 
The Pumpkin King said:
Are you arguing that a theory is a proven fact?
Click to expand...
No.

There are observed facts. Then there are the abstract systems of ideas that we use to explain those facts, and predict what the future facts in similar situations will be. The latter is what science calls a "theory".

It is an observed fact that when you drop something while standing on the Earth, it falls down. We call the cause of that phenomenon gravity. Then there is the theory of gravity, which describes the mechanics of that phenomenon, and we can use that theory to accurately predict what will happen when you drop things in the future.

It is an observed fact that germs exist and that diseases exist. Then there is the germ theory of disease that describes how all that works, which we can use to accurately predict things.



And in the same way, evolution (which I dare you to define without looking up, because I'm 100% sure you'll get it wrong) is an observed fact. Then there is the theory of evolution, which explains how evolution works, and which we can and have used to make accurate predictions.
 
Amadeus said:
No.
Click to expand...

Then we do not disagree, so why you typing so much?

Amadeus said:
There are observed facts. Then there are the abstract systems of ideas that we use to explain those facts, and predict what the future facts in similar situations will be. The latter is what science calls a "theory".

It is an observed fact that when you drop something while standing on the Earth, it falls down. We call the cause of that phenomenon gravity. Then there is the theory of gravity, which describes the mechanics of that phenomenon, and we can use that theory to accurately predict what will happen when you drop things in the future.

It is an observed fact that germs exist and that diseases exist. Then there is the germ theory of disease that describes how all that works, which we can use to accurately predict things.
Click to expand...

I agree on all the above points, 'cept that I believe that phenomenon is referred to as "the law of gravitation" but that is small apples, I would never correct anyone just calling it gravity.

Amadeus said:
And in the same way, evolution (which I dare you to define without looking up, because I'm 100% sure you'll get it wrong) is an observed fact. Then there is the theory of evolution, which explains how evolution works, and which we can and have used to make accurate predictions.
Click to expand...

lol "I dare you to define without looking it up" more awkward victory mentality stuffs.

I have no need to lookup the word evolution dude. Nor do I need to google what a spoon is.

Adaptation is an observed fact, not evolution.
 
The Pumpkin King said:
I have no need to lookup the word evolution dude. Nor do I need to google what a spoon is.

Adaptation is an observed fact, not evolution.
Click to expand...
If you knew what evolution is, you would not be here trying to deny that it's observed fact.

That's how I know you don't know what evolution is.
 
Amadeus said:
If you knew what evolution is, you would not be here trying to deny that it's observed fact.

That's how I know you don't know what evolution is.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we have an expert on evolution here, because I have many questions I have always wanted to ask one:

Since evolution is a scientific fact, as you say, meaning it is measurable and observable...


1) "Can you give a relatively accurate approximation of fast things evolve?"

i.e. 1 new species forming over the course of 10 million years, etc.
(Please provide units of measurement towards this measurable scientific fact.)


2) "Does evolution move at a constant rate, or does it fluctuate massively and why is that the case?"


3) "How does DNA mutate to provide completely new information that allows the animal to have entirely new traits and what brings this new information into existence?"


4) "What is the driving catalyst or energy force behind evolution that causes these constant mutations in an animal's DNA?"


5) "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkey's?


Thanks Amadeus, I am excited to learn about the measurable and observable factual basis of evolution from a real expert like you.
 
Last edited:
And the fact that every one of those is a strawman, as is pretty much everything else you've said in this thread, is how I know that you lied about caring about the truth of your statements.


So once again, thanks for proving correct my very first post: that if these discussions are a waste of time, it's because of people not caring about truth and trying to prop up their ignorance as some kind of moral superiority.
 
Amadeus said:
And the fact that every one of those is a strawman, as is pretty much everything else you've said in this thread, is how I know that you lied about caring about the truth of your statements.


So once again, thanks for proving correct my very first post: that if these discussions are a waste of time, it's because of people not caring about truth and trying to prop up their ignorance as some kind of moral superiority.
Click to expand...

Amadeus communication:

A) It is a fact that a three legged boogy monster exists!

B) Really? How fast does it move? How tall is it?

A) Total strawman! I don't have to answer! I know you lied about caring! You only proved the boogy monster actually exists by asking me questions about it.



Normal scientific fact communication:

A) It is a fact that cars exist.

B) Really? How fast do they move? How large are they?

A) About 100 miles per hour. Very roughly the size of a large grizzly bear.



If evolution were scientific fact, answering any of the above questions I listed would be relatively effortless, especially the first question.

You claim to be a man of investigation and science. Yet me asking very basic and simple investigatory questions about your proposed scientific fact is utterly rejected and ad hominem attacks are thrown against me for attempting to validate your claims. How awfully unscientific of you...

You say that evolution is a measurable scientific fact.

I repeat, how fast do animals evolve? Please provide units of measurement for this simple measurable scientific fact.

I believe I am quoting you exactly when you said:

"The truth is never afraid of investigation." -Amadeus
 
giphy.gif
 
The Pumpkin King said:
If evolution were scientific fact, answering any of the above questions I listed would be relatively effortless, especially the first question.
Click to expand...
You have entirely wrong ideas about what science is and what its claims are. The questions you ask are either about strawmen that science does not posit, or high school level basic stuff that 2 minutes on Google could tell you.

If you really cared about the truth of your statements, then you would not feel the need to be asking them. You would have found out for yourself.

But you don't care about truth, so I'm not gonna waste my time.

Keep posturing if you want. You've made a big enough clown of yourself in this thread already.
 
Amadeus said:
You have entirely wrong ideas about what science is and what its claims are. The questions you ask are either about strawmen that science does not posit, or high school level basic stuff that 2 minutes on Google could tell you.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Science doesn't posit how fast things go, measure them, observe them, and test them? But you said:

Amadeus said:
It's the totality of methods and tools that we have so far found reliable for ascertaining truth.
Click to expand...

I see, you could answer any one of those questions about evolution super easily if you wanted, but you just choose not to. Makes sense.

I know how you feel, because I have wings and I can fly, but I just choose not to do it in front of other people because I don't wanna brag or anything...



"What physical evidence is there of God?" -Amadeus

"What would a direct experience with God be like?" -Amadeus

Also Amadeus:

Amadeus said:
If you really cared about the truth of your statements, then you would not feel the need to be asking them. You would have found out for yourself.
Click to expand...

Self-incrimination approaching max level.

Amadeus said:
But you don't care about truth, so I'm not gonna waste my time.
Click to expand...

Why would you suggest that questions, investigation, scrutiny, and testing if things hold up is for people that do not care about truth?

After you leave, I may never find another high level expert on evolution ever again, so I'll ask again:

How fast do things evolve? Is the rate constant or does it fluctuate?

"The truth is never afraid of investigation." -Amadeus

It would seem that this high level expert cannot answer any basic questions on the topic.

Amadeus said:
Keep posturing if you want. You've made a big enough clown of yourself in this thread already.
Click to expand...

If it makes you a clown to investigate a claim and ask basic questions about it, then all scientists are clowns, and I will happily remain a clown all my life.

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top