IBDaMann
Well-known member
Why do you feel compelled to babble and gibber on JPP? I couldn't find anything that you got right. You don't know what you are talking about; you should be taking notes.
The Scopes Monkey Trial is 100 years old this year; surprisingly we still have evolution-deniers
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
LOL.
^^^ Strict physical materialist who imagines nothing is real unless you can observe it or touch it.
We observe the universe originated 13.7 billion years ago, without understanding why.
You cannot touch mathematics or observe pi*. And even though we can frame the questions, there are many unresolved problems in math we do not understand or have the answers for.
Please explain to me how you have ever touched, or quantitatively measured your mother's love. Feel free to concede to me that your mother's love is not "true".
* pi is an irrational number composed of an infinite decimal expansion, you have only ever seen approximations of pi.
Depends what you mean.
We can never prove the resurrection of Christ, all we can do is compile circumstantial evidence for or against it.
To me, it's entirely reasonable to infer there is a purposeful creative force underlying the universe; humans call it the Tao, the eternal logos, the universal spirit, etc.
And in some way we do not really understand, the truth of that logos might be unified with the truth of the mathematical laws and empirical facts of nature.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Who is the Marxist "we" who supposedly observed the universe's origin, to attest that it occurred 13.7 billion years ago?
...nor can you touch a dream. So?
Your position is stupid, i.e. that if an answer is not known then you get to fabricate any WACKY theory and insist that it is "what we know."
IBDaMann
Well-known member
... but in the next post you'll insist that the resurrection of Christ is historical (which is the same thing)
Sure, if one doesn't really understand science. It's easy enough to assume the really arcane discussion of what a given mathematical construct results in in reality can seem pretty "mystical", but it's not as mystical as those who would abuse that arcane language would wish.
I think it's dangerous to over-extend the link between the "mystical" and the "scientific" if only because it may not be as it appears.
Science comes to mysticism when it wants to drive home the mysterious aspect to the interpretation, and mysticism comes to science when they want to feel like they are onto something real and need confirmation that, indeed, things can seem pretty weird in the world. Murray Gell-Man who helped set up our understanding of subatomic particles, modeled it on the 8-fold way of Buddhism because he was into Buddhism and there was an 8-fold aspect to the model. I don't necessarily think that it means that Buddhism explains quantum anymore than quantum justifies a Buddhist belief.
One works as a good "cartoon model" to explain how the system is working without going into the technical details. The other is at risk of providing a false sense of understanding of the reality of the situation.
You literally tried to advance the theory that nothing can be true or real unless you can see and observe it.That kind of strict physical materialism has been laughed out the academy for at least a century.
It didn't occur to you that you can't observe pi, and you can't measure and observe love.
SlaveForChrist
Verified User
Science is not falsifiable nor repeatable wrt evolution. You can't show us a repeatable observation of a human turning into another species let alone another genus becoming a human.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You literally assigned that bogus position to me, even though I do not hold it, just so you could pretend to have something to attack.
You also believe that I didn't notice how you EVADED every single question and every single point that was presented.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Darwin's theory of evolution is not science. Darwin's theory of evolution is not falsifiable.
Correct. I cannot show it.
You conflated truth with things we can physically observe - and if we don't happen to observe it then we don't assign any truth claims to it -->
But thanks for backpedaling, retreating, and begrudgingly recognizing your strict physical materialist viewpoint that nothing is true unless we observe it is laughably naive and uninformed.
That isn't the falsifiability criterion for evolution.
We know evolution is real because we have written record of it. We have the fossil record to show us the change. Better than having live video foootage of the process.
Wanna see it in action?
Whales:
Humans:
And the ABSOLUTE BEST evidence is that evolution is SO GOOD at its job in the sciences that biology is 100% evolution based, medicine is 100% biology based and hence evolution underlies literally everything keeping you and I alive!
It works.
That's the best "verification" of a theory that I can imagine.
SlaveForChrist
Verified User
Show me repeatable experiments of a Basilosaurus evolving into another species let alone into an orca.That isn't the falsifiability criterion for evolution.
We know evolution is real because we have written record of it. We have the fossil record to show us the change. Better than having live video foootage of the process.
Wanna see it in action?
Whales:
Humans:
That's not evolution, that's adaptation. A virus and bacteria don't change species in medicine and become something else.
Now you're crab walking backwards into you comfort zone and safe space of strict physical materialism.
You evidently read a blog or two that convinced you nothing is true or real unless you can see it, observe it, or touch it.
Fermat's Last Conjecture was finally proven in the 1990s after three centuries, and this constitutes exactly the kind of abstract and immaterial truth you never realized exists.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. You asserted that I did so that you could attack the bogus position you assigned to me, and you waited for me to point out that I never held that bogus position so you can then claim that I somehow backpedaled and/or retreated.
Smooth. Now how about answering my questions and addressing my actual points?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You are pivoting again away from addressing my point, which would otherwise be an easy matter if you actually knew something about what you were posting.
Now you have pivoted yourself into the next county. Come on back and reengage in the discussion.
^^^ Now backtracks and tap dances away from strict physical materialism, and insinuates that he has always been an advocate for truth found in the abstract, unobservable, and immaterial realm
Are you ever going to keep your stories straight?
I'll take satisfaction in making you realize there is more to truth than what you can see, observe, or touch. Truth even includes the abstract, the intangible, and the immaterial.
That's a hard leap for someone raised on a steady diet of strict physical materialism, so I am proud of you for extending yourself beyond your preconceptions and limitations.
Yakuda
Verified User
Surprisingly we still have God deniers. To deny God you have to ignore a ton of facts.