Life After Death [modified]
-
Hmmm... didn't think my facetious rhetorical question would get answered, but thanks for the pedantic reply.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The first problem is your use of the word theory. It has a precise scientific meaning which too many people get wrong -
Not a problem with me. I don't deny the theory of evolution. I also don't assume its complete and absolute. That would require me to "believe". It is still not known. It is still assumed. It cannot be guaranteed with your money back. I can accept a theory without requiring myself to consider it absolutely true. And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong. Until it becomes an undeniable, indisputable fact, it is still just a theory.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Secondly, things don't adapt because they want to adapt. They're not motivated to adapt, and it's not random either - it's driven by a natural consequence of survival, i.e. that in a given environment, the weak tend to die - despite their best efforts - and the strong tend to survive.
Exactly. I never implied "want". I never implied the motivation was personal. Thanks.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
in fact, the whole REASON that organisms reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexually) is because diversity in a population offers the greatest chance of survival.
Accidentally. Not reasoned. How and when did sexual reproduction begin? How was this switch achieved? A mutation? How did it escalate? To be the dominating aspect. My point is that evolution as a description is incomplete. Which I'm fine with. There are some gaps. Which I'm also fine with. I think that over time they'll fill in. But it is unscientific to assume that the case is closed. As our understanding of the world and the science of it around us changes so do the theories we assumed true. Drink some more kool-aid. And again, I subscribe to evolution as a viable explanation for our worlds development of life. But nothing is absolute.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong.
Yes it is.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Until it becomes an undeniable, indisputable fact, it is still just a theory.
There are no such things as 'facts' in science - theories are as good as it gets.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
My point is that evolution as a description is incomplete. Which I'm fine with. There are some gaps. Which I'm also fine with.
How do you know it's incomplete? What gaps?
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
But it is unscientific to assume that the case is closed.
The only people who assume that are religious people.
-
He has no idea what he's talking about - he (and probably you as well) think that evolution is driven by motivation. :doh:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He has no idea what he's talking about - he (and probably you as well) think that evolution is driven by motivation. :doh:
Considering how well (and how frequently) you (yes, you!) "misunderstand" direct statements I've made on relatively simple topics, no one should put much stock in your insinuation. Besides which, you (yes, you!) don't understand "evolution." Hell, you don't even know what you mean by the term most of the time when you use it.
-
You are free to interpret and put words into my mouth all you want. You are free to twist my meaning into your joke. You are free to insist that your version of reality is the only one. (relativism?) You are free to limit your thoughts to your own plateau of reason. You are free to deny that you don't know it all. You are free to assume that you know it all. You are free to screw yourself. How could GOD be a Christian? Did Jesus die for GOD's sins? That's a joke. In my reasoning God could only be Buddhist as he would be in the eternal now. Heh, he is the GODHEAD. I AM. Stretch your thinking a bit. This is only an opinion and contains nothing regarding self-denial. You, are ill.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
You are free to screw yourself. ... You, are ill.
And you're a moron (Man! Just look at all that moronic rant I didn't quote.) The first principle of Buddhism is that there exist no selves, at all. If God were indeed a Buddhist, he must perforce deny that you exist and that he exists.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He has no idea what he's talking about - he (and probably you as well) think that evolution is driven by motivation. :doh:
Considering how well (and how frequently) you (yes, you!) "misunderstand" direct statements I've made on relatively simple topics, no one should put much stock in your insinuation. Besides which, you (yes, you!) don't understand "evolution." Hell, you don't even know what you mean by the term most of the time when you use it.
I'd really enjoy discussing evolution with someone, but unfortunately you're a moron.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong.
Yes it is.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Until it becomes an undeniable, indisputable fact, it is still just a theory.
There are no such things as 'facts' in science - theories are as good as it gets.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
My point is that evolution as a description is incomplete. Which I'm fine with. There are some gaps. Which I'm also fine with.
How do you know it's incomplete? What gaps?
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
But it is unscientific to assume that the case is closed.
The only people who assume that are religious people.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
shiftedbitmonkey wrote: And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong. Yes it is.
Profound. You like to argue I think.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There are no such things as 'facts' in science - theories are as good as it gets.
Exactly my point. You have to keep an open mind that you might not have figured it all out so you are available when new data arrives. That is my entire point.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The only people who assume that are religious people.
Bullpucky. When I say its unscientific to assume the case is closed, I don't mean evolution might be proven false. I'm not religious. Get off that train of thought. You are pigeon holed by your insistence that any resistance to established thought is from a religious perspective. Mine is that new data is constantly available as our understanding changes. Case in point: Today in the lounge.[^] I'm not disputing evolution. I'm stating that we are better served by always seeking new data that might reveal more than we understood. Newton was trumped by Einstein in some ways, Einstein is trumped by Hawkins in some ways. All three of them have been considered crazy in their day. Enjoy that thought.
I've heard more said about less.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
You are free to screw yourself. ... You, are ill.
And you're a moron (Man! Just look at all that moronic rant I didn't quote.) The first principle of Buddhism is that there exist no selves, at all. If God were indeed a Buddhist, he must perforce deny that you exist and that he exists.
Ilíon wrote:
And you're a moron (Man! Just look at all that moronic rant I didn't quote.)
Oooh, you are so eloquent. Look at that craftily worded beatdown. Is that all you are capable of when confronted with opposition? Name calling? How .... kindergarten.
Ilíon wrote:
The first principle of Buddhism is that there exist no selves, at all.
Bullshite. You are confusing the ego with self. Also, take a look at Shinto Buddhism. They have the God concept integrated. The first principle of Buddhism is enlightenment. Good luck with your attitude.
I've heard more said about less.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
shiftedbitmonkey wrote: And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong. Yes it is.
Profound. You like to argue I think.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
There are no such things as 'facts' in science - theories are as good as it gets.
Exactly my point. You have to keep an open mind that you might not have figured it all out so you are available when new data arrives. That is my entire point.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The only people who assume that are religious people.
Bullpucky. When I say its unscientific to assume the case is closed, I don't mean evolution might be proven false. I'm not religious. Get off that train of thought. You are pigeon holed by your insistence that any resistance to established thought is from a religious perspective. Mine is that new data is constantly available as our understanding changes. Case in point: Today in the lounge.[^] I'm not disputing evolution. I'm stating that we are better served by always seeking new data that might reveal more than we understood. Newton was trumped by Einstein in some ways, Einstein is trumped by Hawkins in some ways. All three of them have been considered crazy in their day. Enjoy that thought.
I've heard more said about less.
What are we even arguing about? :confused:
-
What are we even arguing about? :confused:
Good question... no worries. Still getting used to the general attitude of the soapbox. Cheers: :beer:
I've heard more said about less.
-
I'd really enjoy discussing evolution with someone, but unfortunately you're a moron.
-
Ilíon wrote:
And you're a moron (Man! Just look at all that moronic rant I didn't quote.)
Oooh, you are so eloquent. Look at that craftily worded beatdown. Is that all you are capable of when confronted with opposition? Name calling? How .... kindergarten.
Ilíon wrote:
The first principle of Buddhism is that there exist no selves, at all.
Bullshite. You are confusing the ego with self. Also, take a look at Shinto Buddhism. They have the God concept integrated. The first principle of Buddhism is enlightenment. Good luck with your attitude.
I've heard more said about less.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'd really enjoy discussing evolution with someone, but unfortunately you're a moron.
And you're an ass. A moron can't help what he is. An ass chooses to be an ass.
Whoa, is that supposed to be an insult? No, please stop...you're hurting me....real bad. :doh:
-
Whoa, is that supposed to be an insult? No, please stop...you're hurting me....real bad. :doh:
No, he's admitting that he's a moron and just can't help it.
I've heard more said about less.
-
Isn't there something in the bible regarding calling someone a fool? For some reason your insults don't insult me. No weight to them. Just a bunch of fluff. Kinda like the village idiot telling someone their stupid. Whatever. I do have a serious question for you. In my short time here I've noticed that the bulk of your posts are just name calling. This alone speaks volumes. My question is: Is that your only tactic when faced with debate?
I've heard more said about less.