Anti-Science Republicans

It's right there in the opening. The environment does not study or believe in things. Eugenics is human evolution guided by intelligence. Basically, animal husbandry for humans.
Eugenics, is a discredited form of "applied" evolutionary theory. What makes Eugenics subjective is what it defines as superior human attributes, particularly social attributes, which is where Eugenics crosses the line from applied science to psuedo science. If Eugenicist stuck to objective and measurable changes, as is done by animal husbandry, it might have some validity as an applied science but it does not. It is a social psuedo science.
 
Contradict yourself much? Yes, "faith" is a belief in a proposition without proof, like the proposition that God doesn't control the climate or didn't originally create life. You can't disprove God with science, therefore, it requires FAITH for you to disbelieve God based on science.

I don't know what to tell you, I guess you didn't try the proper search terms. Did you find any indication of how various beliefs break down? I know someone has done these, where they find how many people are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Some people believe in Naturalism or Nature, some people even believe in multiple Gods, but every survey or study I've seen, has the Nihilists at about 5%. If you have something that contradicts that number, or if you'd like to suggest an alternate number, I am all for that. But to just continue to stubbornly deny something so basic, is almost laughable, if it weren't so pathetic. And the only thing MORE pathetic, is to see that Rune and Rana "thanked" your belligerent non-point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)

Francis Collins, learn his name, he will be forever noted in history as the Christian man who mapped the human genome. I don't know if he is one of them wacky Republican Christians who believe the earth is 9,000 years old, because he was appointed Director of the NIH by Obama, but he is definitely a Christian believer in God.

I made no contradiction. You have a serious problem switching between general and formal uses of words and with fuzzy logic.

Color is not the same as red. Red is a type of color, as is blue. That does not mean red is the same as blue. Belief is not the same as faith. Faith is a type of belief and that does not mean that all other beliefs are the same as faith.

Belief is when one holds a proposition or premise to be true. Faith is about the basis for that belief meaning belief without proof, in general use, and belief in the propositions of a religion, in more formal use. Not believing does not require any basis at all. It does not mean that you hold a proposition or premise to be false. It means you do not hold the proposition to be true. That could be because you don't have an opinion or because you believe the proposition false.

I gave you the link including my search term. If it were common knowledge, as you claim, I would have gotten hits. You can show us your search term quite easily, but you are clearly bluffing.

You are the one that needs to learn his name, instead of referring to him in a vague and misleading way as the guy that mapped the human genome, since you bring him up in every one of these discussions. His faith still has no relevance to this discussion.
 
I made no contradiction. You have a serious problem switching between general and formal uses of words and with fuzzy logic.

LMAO.. yeah, I have a problem not being able to freely apply my own interpretations to words on the fly as I use them, so as to always make my point regardless of how wrong I am. It has to do with my formal education, and the fact that I have learned the meanings of words and understand context. If I practiced really hard, I could probably be more like you, able to dodge and dart with semantics arguments and artfully avoid the topic at hand, while appearing to make my point without regard for accuracy or logic.

Color is not the same as red. Red is a type of color, as is blue. That does not mean red is the same as blue. Belief is not the same as faith. Faith is a type of belief and that does not mean that all other beliefs are the same as faith.

I don't get why you are still on this? I never said that two entirely different words mean the exact same thing. The mere fact that there are two entirely different words, would indicate to most non-morons, there are two different implications and meanings which apply to the respective words, which is the purpose and reason for having two distinctively different words. Of course, whenever you are a moron, used to conversing with fellow morons, and you can manipulate words and meanings to artfully dodge the topic and play cute semantics games with context, then I guess this becomes a natural assumption, regarding what others are saying to you.

Belief is when one holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Not necessarily. You can also believe a proposition or premise to be false or inconclusive.

Faith is about the basis for that belief meaning belief without proof, in general use, and belief in the propositions of a religion, in more formal use.

Again, you are wrong. Regardless of what your perception of "proof" is or what you believe to be the basis, your "beliefs" are based on your "faith" that those beliefs are accurate and justified. "Faith" is often used to refer to, or describe religious beliefs, but it is not exclusive to religious belief. Science, by definition, DOES NOT PROVE! Therefore, a belief in what science indicates, requires faith. You have to have "faith" that what you perceive as "proof" is adequate evidence to support your conclusions, as this is the basis for your belief. It still requires faith. What is important for you to try and comprehend is, the people who have religious "faith" in what they believe is adequate evidence and "proof" are just as convinced of what they believe as you are. Their faith is just as strong as yours. The lack of evidence from the realms of physical science, have no bearing on the faith of an existence of something that is not within the realm of physical science. It makes no logical sense that such a lack of physical evidence, makes any difference in the beliefs they have faith in.

Not believing does not require any basis at all. It does not mean that you hold a proposition or premise to be false. It means you do not hold the proposition to be true. That could be because you don't have an opinion or because you believe the proposition false.

Whether you believe a premise to be true, false or inconclusive, and regardless of the basis on which you hold the belief, it still requires FAITH. You must have FAITH in what you BELIEVE. You may have physical evidence, you might have religious enlightenment, but in order to "believe" whatever you "believe" you must have FAITH. You can't define something as "red" without using "color" unless you are a moron who fancies himself as some brilliant wordsmith, who can assign meaning and context to words on the fly, in order to make himself appear to always be correct.

I gave you the link including my search term. If it were common knowledge, as you claim, I would have gotten hits. You can show us your search term quite easily, but you are clearly bluffing.

Again, I stated that approximately 5% of the population are self-described Nihilists. Calculating from 7 billion, that would be roughly 350 million people on the planet who are Nihilists. I think that is a reasonable number, but for the sake of argument here, how many do you think there are? 400 million? 500 million? And what possible relevance does this have with anything we are discussing here? What we see here, is someone who is so desperate to make ANY point, they have abandoned the larger debate to myopically focus on some trivial bit of data, and attempt to "win a point" by contesting and objecting to what was presented. I'm Mohamed Ali, heading to the dressing room after knocking your ass through the ropes, and I really don't care that you want to spit blood and throw your mouthpiece at me crying foul.

You are the one that needs to learn his name, instead of referring to him in a vague and misleading way as the guy that mapped the human genome, since you bring him up in every one of these discussions. His faith still has no relevance to this discussion.

I already know his name, I posted it, moron! There's nothing misleading about the way I referred to him, and you may as well get used to this, because he will forever be known as 'the man who mapped the human genome.' His faith has as much to do with this discussion as anything you've pointed out. You are the one who condemned "Anti-Science Republicans" because they (as well as many Democrats) believe in God and oppose the Global Warming bullshit, (which actually has no basis in legitimate science.) The clearest implication you attempted to make, is that people who have religious faith, are rejecting Science. Collins proves that premise false, there are scientists who have very strong religious faith as well, and he is one of the most prominent and well-known examples.
 
LMAO.. yeah, I have a problem not being able to freely apply my own interpretations to words on the fly as I use them

That is EXACTLY what you do. You switch between contexts on a word.

I am done with you you are boring and stupid. Belief does not equal faith.
 
That is EXACTLY what you do. You switch between contexts on a word.

I am done with you you are boring and stupid. Belief does not equal faith.

LOL Awww, Stringy, how is Rana going to show you love if you stop posting?

I never said "belief equals faith" I correctly stated that you must have faith to believe. If you have no faith in what you believe, then you really can't say you fully believe it. Now, instead of you admitting that I made a valid point here, you felt compelled to dance around playing a semantics game, and tried to literally change the context of the words and rearrange what I actually said, in order to make yourself appear right. When that didn't work, you wanted to dance back to some trivial detail about the number of Nihilists in the world, maybe you can "win a point" there? You just refuse to concede ANY point to me, no matter how much you have to manipulate the conversation and run away from the topic. When I call you on all of this, you respond with insults and check out. That's it, pinhead... RUN AWAY... Run far, far away!
 
LOL Awww, Stringy, how is Rana going to show you love if you stop posting?

I never said "belief equals faith" I correctly stated that you must have faith to believe. If you have no faith in what you believe, then you really can't say you fully believe it. Now, instead of you admitting that I made a valid point here, you felt compelled to dance around playing a semantics game, and tried to literally change the context of the words and rearrange what I actually said, in order to make yourself appear right. When that didn't work, you wanted to dance back to some trivial detail about the number of Nihilists in the world, maybe you can "win a point" there? You just refuse to concede ANY point to me, no matter how much you have to manipulate the conversation and run away from the topic. When I call you on all of this, you respond with insults and check out. That's it, pinhead... RUN AWAY... Run far, far away!

Nope, faith is not a required part of belief.

Again, you grossly loosen up your definition of faith here to play a game of semantics. Here you are using it to mean a "commitment" and so you have changed contexts, AGAIN.

It's pointless discussing anything with you because you are thoroughly dishonest, very ignorant and worst of all extremely boring.

The point about your continued mention of the inaccurate and misused nihilists factoid just demonstrates how your fucked up mind works. You think that your constant repetition of it makes it an unassailable fact. But it is just a worthless bit of misinformation that you can't support.

You are just a troll using stale material.
 
Nope, faith is not a required part of belief.

Okay, let's put this to the test... Name something you BELIEVE to be true, but you have no FAITH it is true?

Again, you grossly loosen up your definition of faith here to play a game of semantics. Here you are using it to mean a "commitment" and so you have changed contexts, AGAIN.

I've not loosened definition or changed context. Anything you BELIEVE in, requires FAITH. Even in the presence of overwhelming proof and evidence to support your belief, it still requires faith to believe in the validity of proof and evidence. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, I have substantial evidence and proof this will happen. I can't prove it will happen, it is not certain there will be a tomorrow or the sun will rise, but I have faith it will.

It's pointless discussing anything with you because you are thoroughly dishonest, very ignorant and worst of all extremely boring.

No, it's pointless trying to argue an unarguable point with me, because I won't concede the point to you. The only person in this thread who has attempted to be dishonest and ignorant is you. If I were "boring" you wouldn't continue to be compelled to respond, but you are. Even after threatening to leave the conversation, you remain. This means I am compelling and intriguing, not boring.

The point about your continued mention of the inaccurate and misused nihilists factoid just demonstrates how your fucked up mind works. You think that your constant repetition of it makes it an unassailable fact. But it is just a worthless bit of misinformation that you can't support.

You are just a troll using stale material.

I haven't continued to mention anything, you keep bringing it up. I correctly stated that approximately 5% claim to be Nihilists, which you haven't offered anything to contradict or refute, other than your stupid insistence I am wrong. You won't even attempt to offer an alternative, because you realize I am probably pretty close to accurate with my number. The point of my original mention of this fact, is to illustrate that most of us do believe in something greater than self, and it's a rarity for a human individual to believe in nothing at all. I haven't even accused you of being a Nihilist, because I actually think you fall into a category of "believers" who have substituted science for religion.
 
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,”

LOL. Yeah, never mind the overwhelming evidence to support evolution. We should throw out the scientific method and listen to what 1500BC sheep herders had to say.
 
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,”

LOL. Yeah, never mind the overwhelming evidence to support evolution. We should throw out the scientific method and listen to what 1500BC sheep herders had to say.

What have you got against sheep herders?
 
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said at a banquet for a church sporting club. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Broun, who added that “I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old,” will remain on the science committee in the 113th Congress.

Nor is it just the rank and file members who have drawn attention with their pronouncements. The outgoing committee chair, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), has suggested that climate change is the product of a mass global conspiracy of scientists — the overwhelming majority of whom have concluded that burning fossil fuels cause warming — to obtain grant money. In 2011, he told National Journal he didn’t believe climate change was man-made because “I don’t think we can control what God controls.”

How do these idiots get on these committees? I understand how they get elected, but seriously!
 
Personally I can understand how people can choose faith over proof.

What is "proof?"

Do you not need "faith" to believe your "proof" is legitimate?

Is "proof" universally understood the same way by everyone who it is presented to?

Is it possible for me to view something as "proof" and at the same time, you disagree it is "proof?"
 
What is "proof?"

Do you not need "faith" to believe your "proof" is legitimate?

Is "proof" universally understood the same way by everyone who it is presented to?

Is it possible for me to view something as "proof" and at the same time, you disagree it is "proof?"

No I dont. I have reason and my five senses to show me proof.
 
No I dont. I have reason and my five senses to show me proof.

Yes, you have reason and senses, and you have faith that what you believe is proof, is legitimate. Others may not accept your proof as legitimate, but what matters is how much faith you have in it. Do you have any undeniable proof of where we came from? Where life itself came from? What happened before the Big Bang? Or do you have faith in a belief?
 
Yes, you have reason and senses, and you have faith that what you believe is proof, is legitimate. Others may not accept your proof as legitimate, but what matters is how much faith you have in it. Do you have any undeniable proof of where we came from? Where life itself came from? What happened before the Big Bang? Or do you have faith in a belief?

Yes I do have proof. If you want to see it go to a library Or get educated.
 
Yes I do have proof. If you want to see it go to a library Or get educated.

I more educated than you are, bear, and I don't need to go to the library, it's all online now.

You have what you believe and have faith in as proof, it doesn't mean I have the same faith in it. I asked you several questions, and you offered no proof on any level, you insist you have proof, but you can't show me. How can I evaluate your proof if you refuse to show it? Am I supposed to say, "well, wanderingbear says he can prove it, so it must be true?" Sorry, I don't have that much faith in you.
 
I more educated than you are, bear, and I don't need to go to the library, it's all online now.

You have what you believe and have faith in as proof, it doesn't mean I have the same faith in it. I asked you several questions, and you offered no proof on any level, you insist you have proof, but you can't show me. How can I evaluate your proof if you refuse to show it? Am I supposed to say, "well, wanderingbear says he can prove it, so it must be true?" Sorry, I don't have that much faith in you.

Im not going to fall for your right wing double talk any more the I do with the cops.
 
Back
Top