Date of publication: 2017-09-03 00:05
you will find many individuals on both sides who are ill-informed. What the religious tend to reject is the nineteenth-century form of materialism that underlies Darwinism. 'Science' actually left that behind with Einstein & quantum physics. Biology clings to it, for some rather unscientific reasons, IMHO.
Philosophy bakes about as much bread as pure mathematics, & both are equally irrelevant to those who live by bread alone. I like some intellectual meat with mine. OGT
That check looks/sounds good superficially, but is your now familiar retreat into empty formalism. There was no substantive claim, rather the original challenge I put to you, here in different format. Is intelligence in the universe, or outside studying it? Or put it another, ultra-simple way are logic & math a human invention, or objectivities embedded in the universe? You do not answer. You retreat.
Your tenacity is not becoming, perhaps you think me a fool ready for exposure? You jest, sir. As I have claimed before, I do not partake in challenges tainted with personal agendas. I will discuss matters of science, philo and esoterica with you, but I'd ask you to refrain from unfounded guestimates concerning the limitations of my knowledge as a means to provoke me into senseless contests.
A particularly flagrant gaffe is your statement about sea animals evolving into land animals (By the way, the opposite also occurs. It's an interesting cycle). When it comes to millions of years what do you mean by "rapid?" Lungs and kidneys as we know them did not come into being on the spot, but gradually evolved. See Dawkins' discussion of the evolution of the eye contained in several of his videos and books.
Scientists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture so there is no 97% consensus. Even if there were, science is not a democracy. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. The laws of science are not some form of legislation.
What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and why do they tend to proliferate? Why does belief in one conspiracy correlate to belief in others? What are the triggers of belief, and how does group identity factor into it? How can one tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?
Fact is we know too little about these experiences now, and I would love for this to get more scientific recognition and that scientists also explore these experiences as they will have a better judgement on how 8766 real 8767 these experiences are and not jump on all these crazy theories about mechanical elves in outer space.
As far as the 97% consensus, I can’t fit that into a thought experiment because it’s an absurd proposition. With no patients as a reference, no empirical data, and a series of simulations that are inconsistent with my progress so far, it would be impossible to get ANY responsible physician to perform the surgery. The medical analogy fails completely because of that field’s insistence on through research and double-blind trials before any treatment is approved. In fact, climate science has a lot more in common with the marketing of vitamins and supplements being utilized by quasi-medical therapists and nutritionists. (Magnets anyone?)
ever actually read OR listen TO wakefield
and not the bloody msm goons paid for BY the pharma ads etc?
ever actually LOOKED at the usa vaccine courts payouts?
ever asked WHY? the vaccine companys got congress to give them immunity from legal actions?
and a 8775 special court 8776 had to be set up?
It falls apart. The Arrow of Entropy, rate of decay. that is where truth lies, if you believe in truth, and if you have the strength of character to look into that abyss. and survive.
There 8767 s also the simple issue that Doctors/ the medical community has also been vastly wrong about things recently- the McGovern report caused them to push an unhealthy diet on America for political reasons which created the obesity and diabetes problems we have now...
In the words of Max Planck, "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."
Long Live Newton! He's not dead he coming back with Sagan to fight Pat Robinson and Kenneth Copelland in Armageddon! Then we will fly away to a magical land on a planet of clouds!
Therefore, religion predates and is cause to, morality. While I still don't like extending credence to anything religious, I am a proponent of "credit where credit's due", as such my hands are bound. I read the link you provided (naturally) and it appears my idea coincides with the idea of a Richard Sosis (unknown to me) who pleads for "religion as adaptation".