Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vicious Love · 07-09-2007, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

We are:

Craniates

I've always favored a "teach the controversy" approach to this classification.

Oolon Colluphid · 07-09-2007, 02:30 AM

Oops. Just realised that 'craniate' could be a euphemism for 'nutcase'.

Calilasseia · 07-09-2007, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldtraveller

Is that whole long screed too much to submit to FSTDT? What's the word limit for a single entry??

Carry on....

Cheers,
Lane

Already submitted the OP.

Mikael · 07-09-2007, 02:53 AM

I still see no evidence of Evolution being wrong.
I expected more from you OP.

Oolon Colluphid · 07-09-2007, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikael

I expected more from you OP.

You did? <raises eyebrow>

deadman_932 · 07-09-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

Oops. Just realised that 'craniate' could be a euphemism for 'nutcase'.

I once had a g/f that was eu-cranian, and never rushin'
*scores the coveted triple pun*

Nialler · 07-09-2007, 05:58 AM

Ask and ye shall recieve.

You lot asked for proof and you got it smack between your eyes.

Forget about FSTDT. The Nobel Committee is surely a more appropriate destination for a prrof which, to my jaded mind, is incapable of being rebutted in any way, shape or form.

But not to worry. I have sent it to a translation service, and I'm sure that when I have read it in English it will all make perfect sense.

In the meantime, I'm not sure that asking every living thing where they originated from is such a good idea.

Heck, where I come from, a good pedigree involves being able to correctly trace your lineage back to your father. To be able to go back 6,500 years would be pushing it.

samurai · 07-09-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCPHumanist

OK, I've got to admit: anyone who uses the term "pokemon styled" as if it's a serious way of describing anything loses a ton-load of credibility. And anyone who seems to seriously think that anyone believes that nature can literally communicate with anyone doesn't look too in tune with reality either.

But then I got to here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Science is about observing the physical universe and identifying, as best as can be determined, the processes that govern it. The act of identifying physical processes does not mandate the faith that the processes are all there is.

and my mind allowed for a glimmer of hope. Samurai, that is what the theory of evolution is all about. Observing the physical world, and identifying the processes that govern it. Observing the data after the fact, and piecing together as best as possible a theory to fit the facts - and that theory is evolution.

So maybe you can stop playing petty wordgames, and start actually looking at the data, and start actually reading the Darwin quotes presented and the links provided. Just maybe.

You did not get the point.

It is not the Theory of Evolution that observe, identify, and piece together the facts. It is human beings that we called scientists who observe, identify, and piece together the facts, and they called it Evolution. And since science is limited by scientists themselves to stay in "natural" realm only, without their knowing, strictly and logically speaking, they are invoking , if possible the direct participation of nature so that they could get rid of supernatural deities of religion. But since they could not invoke directly the participation of nature, then, those human scientists, especifically, Evolution Theory scientists are doing everything (including the supposed part/role) of nature, if nature could only speak and talk.

As a result, without their knowing, those Evolution Theory scientists also are resorting to supernatural.

samurai · 07-09-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coragyps

Quote:

But he quickly resorted to "EVOLUTION!! EVOLUTION!".

Quickly? Twenty-three years from the Galapagos to publishing is "quickly?" And CD didn't use the word "evolution" at all in the first edition of origin.

Facts matter, Sam. Sorry.

Thanks for correction.

samurai · 07-09-2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someotherguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Don't stop your mind to think. There is possibility. But there is a limit. And since nature is very limited, then, the explanation that we observed from nature must be also limited. WE cannot say EVOLUTION. We can simly say, interrelation.

For example,

When Darwin went to Galapagos Island, he should not quickly concluded that the animals there are evolving. He should be called interrelating animals with respect to their surroundings.

But he quickly resorted to "EVOLUTION!! EVOLUTION!". It is supernatural!

Samurai - I'm not trying to be mean here, but judging from this and the other posts you have made in this thread, it's quite evident that you, quite literally, have no idea what you're talking about here.

I think I have the point, the point that Evolution Theory is not reallly based on natural explanation but in supernatural explanation.

In science, we have OCCAM'S RAZOR and science is using it to choose the simplest and best and most fit explanation, BUt in science it doesn't have, I call it, SAMURAI'S RAZOR, distinguishing scientific explanation from naturalistic to supernatural.

If we have this SAMURAI'S RAZOR, we could help our science to maintain its goal to stay always in naturalistic explanation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2007, 02:30 AM	#122
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Oops. Just realised that 'craniate' could be a euphemism for 'nutcase'.

07-09-2007, 02:53 AM	#124
Mikael Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Finland Posts: 305	I still see no evidence of Evolution being wrong. I expected more from you OP.

07-09-2007, 05:58 AM	#127
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	Ask and ye shall recieve. You lot asked for proof and you got it smack between your eyes. Forget about FSTDT. The Nobel Committee is surely a more appropriate destination for a prrof which, to my jaded mind, is incapable of being rebutted in any way, shape or form. But not to worry. I have sent it to a translation service, and I'm sure that when I have read it in English it will all make perfect sense. In the meantime, I'm not sure that asking every living thing where they originated from is such a good idea. Heck, where I come from, a good pedigree involves being able to correctly trace your lineage back to your father. To be able to go back 6,500 years would be pushing it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.