3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobif you say so PK it must be true! did you make an omelette this morning? I had my
Wow, you read one link!! How mighty and brave of you, did you walk round for the rest of the day with your chest puffed out and your head held high after reading one science link?!
The simple fact is that you're a coward, and it doesn't matter how you dress it up or how much spin you put in it, that is what you are. A grown man too scared to read science books. It would be funny if it wasn't quite so tragic.
weetabix 🙂 Actually i walked around wondering why speculative conjecture and
unsubstantiated and conflicting opinions were being palmed off as empirical science, but
then I remembered science is not concerned with truth, but that which is plausible and
everything became peaceful again.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's not because i said so, it's because YOU said so.
if you say so PK it must be true! did you make an omelette this morning? I had my
weetabix 🙂 Actually i walked around wondering why speculative conjecture and
unsubstantiated and conflicting opinions were being palmed off as empirical science, but
then I remembered science is not concerned with truth, but that which is plausible and
everything became peaceful again.
Science is concerned with the evidence, and the evidence is telling us at this moment in time that there is Neanderthal DNA in the human genome. No doubt there will be further investigations into this matter, some are probably going on right now, new evidence may come to light or new analysing techniques may be developed. The evidence will be continually (re)investigated and the conclusions molded to fit the evidence, that is how the scientific process works.
No omelette as of yet, i have only two eggs left. So instead i will go to the gym, have a fasted training session, and then have breakfast.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI should go to the gym, after all, i am paying for it! dont you mean the evidence
It's not because i said so, it's because [b]YOU said so.
Science is concerned with the evidence, and the evidence is telling us at this moment in time that there is Neanderthal DNA in the human genome. No doubt there will be further investigations into this matter, some are probably going on right now, new evidence may come to light or new analys ...[text shortened]... eft. So instead i will go to the gym, have a fasted training session, and then have breakfast.[/b]
moulded to fit the conclusions, as is common practice , reducing atmosphere,
punctuated equilibrium , etc etc
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe evidence isn't molded to fit the conclusions, as for your repeated claims about punctuated equilibrium i would suggest reading the chapter in The Blind Watchmaker concerning this topic. But i know you're not going to read it.
I should go to the gym, after all, i am paying for it! dont you mean the evidence
moulded to fit the conclusions, as is common practice , reducing atmosphere,
punctuated equilibrium , etc etc
The beauty of the scientific process is that the work is peer-reviewed. Take the recent case of the neutrinos that were thought to be travelling faster than the speed of light, other scientists went over the work and found it too be wrong. That's how the scientific method works, if you think it's wrong, the work is there for all to see.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThey need to take more time and go over the theory of evolution in the same way as this guy on the videoes says.
The evidence isn't molded to fit the conclusions, as for your repeated claims about punctuated equilibrium i would suggest reading the chapter in The Blind Watchmaker concerning this topic. But i know you're not going to read it.
The beauty of the scientific process is that the work is peer-reviewed. Take the recent case of the neutrinos that ...[text shortened]... how the scientific method works, if you think it's wrong, the work is there for all to see.
#1
&feature=relmfu #2
&feature=relmfu #3
Originally posted by RJHinds😴
They need to take more time and go over the theory of evolution in the same way as this guy on the videoes says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwHzUEWtKq4&feature=relmfu #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnjnIwDkN0o&feature=relmfu #3
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe beauty of the scriptural process is that the work is peer-reviewed, any
The evidence isn't molded to fit the conclusions, as for your repeated claims about punctuated equilibrium i would suggest reading the chapter in The Blind Watchmaker concerning this topic. But i know you're not going to read it.
The beauty of the scientific process is that the work is peer-reviewed. Take the recent case of the neutrinos that ...[text shortened]... how the scientific method works, if you think it's wrong, the work is there for all to see.
understanding of scripture undergoes a constant reappraisal making sure ones actions
are in complete harmony with the revealed will of God.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, or else one might be shunned and called names. HalleluYah !!!
The beauty of the scriptural process is that the work is peer-reviewed, any
understanding of scripture undergoes a constant reappraisal making sure ones actions
are in complete harmony with the revealed will of God.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's complete tosh, you're instructed what to believe by the Governing Body in Brooklyn. Anything which contradicts what they preach you just ignore as has been evidenced on this forum many times.
The beauty of the scriptural process is that the work is peer-reviewed, any
understanding of scripture undergoes a constant reappraisal making sure ones actions
are in complete harmony with the revealed will of God.
As for punctuated equilibrium, you are being lied to. Simple as that. As Stephen Jay Gould, one of the men who came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium has said -
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Originally posted by RJHindsI have no interest in what you have to say, let alone your dung heap youtube videos.
That happened to me too. Maybe, when wake up and have your coffee. Ha ha.
P.S. Maybe you can make it through this 5 min video with his main point as reguards to evolution theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8&feature=related
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI had figured out that you were not interested in the truth along time ago. You are like your father, the Devil, who is interested only in deceiving with the big lie. That is the reason you post on this forum.
I have no interest in what you have to say, let alone your dung heap youtube videos.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsOh no!!! You've finally figured me out. 🙄🙄
I had figured out that you were not interested in the truth along time ago. You are like your father, the Devil, who is interested only in deceiving with the big lie. That is the reason you post on this forum.
A known engine user accuses someone of deceiving and lying. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThere you go. Lying again. God has really sent you a strong delusion so you will believe the lie rather than the truth.
Oh no!!! You've finally figured me out. 🙄🙄
A known engine user accuses someone of deceiving and lying. Pot. Kettle. Black.
The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 NKJV)
Originally posted by humyThis is how I have summarized it in the past:
I am just curious, what would be your definition of the word “morality” and how would it deviate from mine?
1. Do not do deliberate harm to others for benefit to oneself.
2. Assist others when the cost to oneself is low.
3. You may harm others to prevent loss to oneself, when that loss is caused by others (self defence).
4. All rules are given weightings based on how important the 'other' is to you.
Roughly like this
a) Loved ones first.
b) Family / friends / close colleagues.
c) Country / race / religion or other groupings.
d) Species.
I think morality is largely instinctual, though we can override that consciously. I do not think that a penguin needs to consciously understand what it is doing for it to behave morally.
Do you separate empathy from morality?