Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYes, but yet there is not a crystal clear and unique objective of the philosophy. It is supposed that philosophy of Nature/ History/ Society/ Religion/ Politics etc are branches that they check the general and theoritical problems of those specific sciences, but the scientists of those scientific fields don't recognize a priori the philosophers of their field; my opinion is that the philosophical tendencies are in touch with the social needs of each historical period, which they constantly change. Since it's impossible to stop the social evolution it's impossible to stop the various philosophical tendencies associated with them, while each philosophical tendency has a different approach of the whole social process.
[b]…The scientific method does not apply to Philosophy, so it cannot be considered a science. ...…
That depends on exactly what you mean by “Philosophy”.
If you mean “moral philosophy” then I would agree -that would be a false science.
I have once heard of the so called “science of ethics” which I regard as a laughable contradiction in term ...[text shortened]... lly proved or disproved in these fields of philosophy thus they really are part of real science.[/b]
But definately, philosophy cannot be a full free and abstract contemplation, and that's why I consider that Theology is not a science.
Originally posted by black beetleWhat part of what you said do you fear could “make me sick?” 🙂 -As far as I can tell, you haven’t said anything recently that I disagree with and, even when somebody does say something I disagree with on any forum (not just this forum), although I would say I have often been “annoyed” by what I read, I would not say I have ever even once experienced “feeling sick” by what I have read even when I though what was said was just terrible!
I hope I did not made you sick AH dude???🙂
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI was just joking🙂
What part of what you said do you fear could “make me sick?” 🙂 -As far as I can tell, you haven’t said anything recently that I disagree with and, even when somebody does say something I disagree with on any forum (not just this forum), although I would say I have often been “annoyed” by what I read, I would not say I have ever even once experienced “feeling sick” by what I have read even when I though what was said was just terrible!
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle"Very sorry I made you sick, but your questions regarding the theory of the evolution are the common questions by the creationists, and creationism is based blindly on faith.
Very sorry I made you sick, but your questions regarding the theory of the evolution are the common questions by the creationists, and creationism is based blindly on faith.
More than 600 million years ago, early organisms had photoreceptor cells that could be used for shadow detection in order to escape from predators and for controlling their circa ...[text shortened]... well understood at the anatomical, physiological and molecular levels.
Have a good time, KJ;
"
NO, my questions were to why do you believe it is true, that isn't faith
that is an attempt on my part to find out why you believe what you do
is true. You can again attempt to make me out to be something other
than someone attempting to get informaiton out of you. You may
want my questions to be faith based, but I would like you to show me
how that is true! I want you to show me how in our conversation had
me saying anything to you that was blindly based upon faith! I believe
you will take the same trek you did after you asked me to debate you
on the evolution of the eye, which is dodge, and an attempt to paint
my conversation as other than what it was, me asking you to prove
your points.
Kelly
Originally posted by black beetleDon't bother trying to debate anything with this guy, you can provide him with all the evidence in the world and get nowhere...... eventually he will agree to read a "peer reviewed article" (or like) which clearly proves your point, and he will say "give me time to get back to you" (or something similar), he will then exit the debate and never get back to you. Once you've been here long enough you will recognise this clear pattern to KJ's posts.
Very sorry I made you sick, but your questions regarding the theory of the evolution are the common questions by the creationists, and creationism is based blindly on faith.
More than 600 million years ago, early organisms had photoreceptor cells that could be used for shadow detection in order to escape from predators and for controlling their circa ...[text shortened]... well understood at the anatomical, physiological and molecular levels.
Have a good time, KJ;
Every post he makes will eventually get back to "science is faith" or "you weren't there to witness it so you can't prove anything"
Originally posted by timebombtedI rec this.
Don't bother trying to debate anything with this guy, you can provide him with all the evidence in the world and get nowhere...... eventually he will agree to read a "peer reviewed article" (or like) which clearly proves your point, and he will say "give me time to get back to you" (or something similar), he will then exit the debate and never get back t ...[text shortened]... "science is faith" or "you weren't there to witness it so you can't prove anything"
I once minted the "KJ retorics." You describe it well.
Originally posted by timebombtedYou can provide me with evidence, it does not mean I am blindly
Don't bother trying to debate anything with this guy, you can provide him with all the evidence in the world and get nowhere...... eventually he will agree to read a "peer reviewed article" (or like) which clearly proves your point, and he will say "give me time to get back to you" (or something similar), he will then exit the debate and never get back t ...[text shortened]... "science is faith" or "you weren't there to witness it so you can't prove anything"
going to accept the same meaning you have towards it. It is also
interesting, again it comes back to attacking me instead of getting
answers to questions being put forward.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ,
You can provide me with evidence, it does not mean I am blindly
going to accept the same meaning you have towards it. It is also
interesting, again it comes back to attacking me instead of getting
answers to questions being put forward.
Kelly
I already proved that the theory of the evolution is well understood by the community of the science, no matter if a non scientist understands it in full or not. I proved that this conception derives from scientific experiments and finds and evidence -not from any kind of "faith"-, and that, although the whole theory is constantly under cross-checks from many different scientific fields there is not untill today the slightest evidence that it could be false. This is my opinion regarding our debate about the evolution of the eye, and it is your turn to prove that all the evidence I brought you is false and that the scientists that worked them out are frauds.
On the other hand I have to respond to another issue that you posed when you claimed that I made you sick; I had a slightly clear image of yours due to other comments you posted elsewhere, and reading them I assumed that you are a good Christian (although I don't know which dogma you follow, but this is meaningless to me). Therefore I mentioned that your opinion regarding the theory of the evolution reflects your Christian faith, but maybe I 'm wrong. Maybe you are not a creationist afterall. Many evolutionary biologists and important religious figures like Pope John Paul II agree that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of "god". They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Well, if you are a creationist, you shouldn't feel sick just because I mentioned the truth; and if you are an evolutionist who believes that through this way "god" governs the process of life on our planet, then again my quote is accurate because your opinion derives allright from your Christian faith;
edit: "NO, my questions were to why do you believe it is true, that isn't faith that is an attempt on my part to find out why you believe what you do is true."
KJ,
I am sure that the theory of the evolution has by far more possibilities to be true than the creationism due to the fact that until today there is not the slightest sdcientific evidence that is false;
Originally posted by black beetle"I already proved that the theory of the evolution is well understood by the community of the science, no matter if a non scientist understands it in full or not."
KJ,
I already proved that the theory of the evolution is well understood by the community of the science, no matter if a non scientist understands it in full or not. I proved that this conception derives from scientific experiments and finds and evidence -not from any kind of "faith"-, and that, although the whole theory is constantly under cross-che ...[text shortened]... n my quote is accurate because your opinion derives allright from your Christian faith;
Translation: You stated the belief of those that agree with you.
Kelly
Originally posted by black beetleWhat?
edit: "NO, my questions were to why do you believe it is true, that isn't faith that is an attempt on my part to find out why you believe what you do is true."
KJ,
I am sure that the theory of the evolution has by far more possibilities to be true than the creationism due to the fact that until today there is not the slightest sdcientific evidence that is false;
You are sure evoution has more possiblities to be true than creation,
why do you think that? Truth is what it is, when we are speaking of a
single event either you describe it correctly or not, having more choices
may give you more shots at getting it right, but it does not mean that
any of your choices are right it only means you have more choices at
being wrong. You only require one to be right.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo do you believe a plane will not fall on you today as you walk outside?
"I already proved that the theory of the evolution is well understood by the community of the science, no matter if a non scientist understands it in full or not."
Translation: You stated the belief of those that agree with you.
Kelly
Or is it based on the idea that statistically it doesn't happen much.
I assume you don't believe a plane won't drop on you because the Lord prevents it. So the difference there is the idea that you have a set of ideas in your head from a reasoned approach to the problem of this kind of accident. That is the difference between religious belief and what you keep calling a belief based on what other people say. If I boil water at sea level and it comes out at 100 degrees C every time, and I do that every day for a year and then make a projection based on those measurements it would be easy for me to predict the water will boil the next day at 100 degrees C.
That is not a belief system, that is science in action. If on the other hand I was slowly climbing a mountain and made the same measurements, I would find the boiling point going down as I got higher. If I tried to project the next reading I would not be as accurate because if it was the first time ever for such a thing I would only make an estimate but it still is not a belief driven thing. It is science in action.
The difference is your belief system is written in stone, never to vary because to vary it would be tantamount to heresy and you would not allow that, like I say I don't think Jesus died on the cross and was ressurected 3 days later. That in your parlyance is heresy but what I say is not science, just reasoning that something like that never happened before and never happened again and therefore a one of a kind event that I think never happened but having no scientific proof other than the unlikelyhood of it happening, I would just be making a gut feeling assesment. I know that full well but it is still based on reason not religious fervor.
Originally posted by KellyJayTo the point then KJ, what is your question here?
You can provide me with evidence, it does not mean I am blindly
going to accept the same meaning you have towards it. It is also
interesting, again it comes back to attacking me instead of getting
answers to questions being put forward.
Kelly
Please make it clear, concise and not fluffed out with your usual vagueness.