Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 15:51:45 GMT -5
Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer Faces his Critics, pt. 1: The Presentation www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW6egHV6jAwExcerpt - “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any we've ever created.” Bill Gates.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Sept 6, 2019 16:01:50 GMT -5
“The argument that Hawking has offered may be conveyed by question-and-answer, as in the Catholic catechism. A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology Q: From what did our universe evolve? A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg. Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like? A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird. Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions? A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious. Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name? A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter. Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe? A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein’s field equations. You may think of that as a good thing. Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg? A: It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac. Q: When was it there? A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery. Q: Where did the egg come from? A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing. Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there? A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal. Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg? A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things. This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is quantum cosmology.” ― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions The Biologists have too much at stake to admit The Origin of Species doesn't explain the Origin of Species. Listen to the Paleontologists who are admitting the fossil record doesn't fit Darwin's theory. Science has its limitations. Understanding other Dimensions - Flatland
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 6, 2019 16:16:06 GMT -5
“The argument that Hawking has offered may be conveyed by question-and-answer, as in the Catholic catechism. A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology Q: From what did our universe evolve? A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg. Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like? A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird. Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions? A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious. Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name? A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter. Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe? A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein’s field equations. You may think of that as a good thing. Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg? A: It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac. Q: When was it there? A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery. Q: Where did the egg come from? A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing. Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there? A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal. Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg? A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things. This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is quantum cosmology.” ― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions The Biologists have too much at stake to admit The Origin of Species doesn't explain the Origin of Species. Listen to the Paleontologists who are admitting the fossil record doesn't fit Darwin's theory. Science has its limitations. Understanding other Dimensions - FlatlandYou are hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 6, 2019 17:13:49 GMT -5
His first assertion is (naturally) misleading. His claim is based on the supposed lack of "transitional forms". Never mind the fact that the fossil record has a plethora of examples of this very thing, it's a losing effort to point even this out. All that's required, upon finding the transitional form between (to use one of hundreds of examples) fish with skeletal body symmetry and the flatfish (a flat fish with one eye pointing downward, once required as evidence by creationists, now found and ignored) is to say that the transition is merely one of God's special creations that went extinct. Furthermore, every time a connecting fossil is found, it simultaneously creates two gaps on either side of it. Couple this with the fact that fossilized soft body organisms are relatively scarce, (as is funding for science to find them) and you have an argument which is championed in proportion to the ignorance of the champions. The above is the absolute bare minimum of responses, and terribly inadequate. A proper response would include a lot more data, which would be even more of a waste of time than this response. Don't waste your breath on Gratu. Time is precious and can better be used reading something like "Brief Answers to the Big Questions. Great book. Here it is in pdf for anyone that's interested in reading it. It's free www.academia.edu/39555749/Brief_Answers_to_the_Big_Questions_by_Stephen_Hawking
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 6, 2019 17:21:11 GMT -5
“The argument that Hawking has offered may be conveyed by question-and-answer, as in the Catholic catechism. A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology Q: From what did our universe evolve? A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg. Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like? A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird. Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions? A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious. Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name? A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter. Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe? A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein’s field equations. You may think of that as a good thing. Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg? A: It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac. Q: When was it there? A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery. Q: Where did the egg come from? A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing. Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there? A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal. Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg? A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things. This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is quantum cosmology.” ― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions The Biologists have too much at stake to admit The Origin of Species doesn't explain the Origin of Species. Listen to the Paleontologists who are admitting the fossil record doesn't fit Darwin's theory. Science has its limitations. Understanding other Dimensions - FlatlandYou need to actually read Hawkings book, I posted a link to the download above. Read the book instead of listening to people that haven't a clue.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 6, 2019 18:24:26 GMT -5
“The argument that Hawking has offered may be conveyed by question-and-answer, as in the Catholic catechism. A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology Q: From what did our universe evolve? A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg. Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like? A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird. Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions? A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious. Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name? A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter. Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe? A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein’s field equations. You may think of that as a good thing. Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg? A: It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac. Q: When was it there? A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery. Q: Where did the egg come from? A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing. Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there? A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal. Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg? A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things. This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is quantum cosmology.” ― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions The Biologists have too much at stake to admit The Origin of Species doesn't explain the Origin of Species. Listen to the Paleontologists who are admitting the fossil record doesn't fit Darwin's theory. Science has its limitations. Understanding other Dimensions - FlatlandI appreciate what your thinking. However,those ideas are a bit dated. It is now excepted that there is no such thing as nothing. No matter how much absolute vacuum you can accomplish there is still matter in the verse.Shockingly as it may seem in the last six months it has been discovered there are a few stars that are older than the big bang. I for one wish that the term big bang had never been used to describe the process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 20:02:34 GMT -5
James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPgExcerpt Year presented – 2018Video Time stamp – 54:49 - 55:11 Call for a Moratorium on Origin of Life ResearchA change is warranted that demands addressing hurdles such as: the origin of life's code, routes to the complex assembly and interactomes that are essential to circular functioning, mass-throughput in synthesis to provide the requisite quantities of molecules in their homochieal forms. Alternately, some conjectures should be offered, underpinned by experiments, to show that perhaps these features, such as the code or the interactomes, are irrelevant to life's origin from prebiotic chemicals. Ramifications of calling conjectures factsClaims that mislead the patient taxpayer are unhelpful and the public will eventually distrust scientific claims even into other fields. Uncorrected or unfounded assertions jeopardize science beyond a singular field, especially since there in mounting distrust of higher education in general. Condescending comments toward the public (or a student), if they will not embrace our conjectures as facts, will lead to continued division bewtween scientists and nonscientists, which can yield public reluctance to fund our research. We must tell the truth with specificity. If it is a fact, say it. If it is not a fact, say it. Blackballing scientists if they bear legitimate non-conformist views, by excluding them from professional societies and academies, withholding their funding or denying them tenure, is anti-scientific and will retard the advancement of science.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 6, 2019 20:47:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 6, 2019 20:48:19 GMT -5
Sounds like Professor Tour sold his soul to the devil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 21:07:10 GMT -5
"Blackballing scientists if they bear legitimate non-conformist views, by excluding them from professional societies and academies, withholding their funding or denying them tenure, is anti-scientific and will retard the advancement of science." Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Michael J. Behe, PhD) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xht_bqPrbWc
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 7, 2019 0:01:27 GMT -5
Sure there is. Your fiance buys you flowers. Point up. Your fiance blows off a planned weekend together for a bachelor party. Point down. ( Respecting the decision to marry) Looks like a shallow relationship.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 7, 2019 0:15:11 GMT -5
“The argument that Hawking has offered may be conveyed by question-and-answer, as in the Catholic catechism. A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology Q: From what did our universe evolve? A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg. Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like? A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird. Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions? A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious. Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name? A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter. Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe? A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein’s field equations. You may think of that as a good thing. Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg? A: It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac. Q: When was it there? A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery. Q: Where did the egg come from? A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing. Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there? A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal. Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg? A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things. This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is quantum cosmology.” ― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions The Biologists have too much at stake to admit The Origin of Species doesn't explain the Origin of Species. Listen to the Paleontologists who are admitting the fossil record doesn't fit Darwin's theory. Science has its limitations. Understanding other Dimensions - Flatland Mr. Ballard, who is the "Hawking" you speak of? Do you mean Steven Hawking?
David Berlinski who made such a mock of Hawking, hasn't any of the credentials in the science of cosmology to even hold a candle to Hawking.
A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Seattle-based think tank that is a hub of the intelligent design movement.
That alone should tell us just how unreliable Berlinski's ideas are.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 7, 2019 1:16:45 GMT -5
“The argument that Hawking has offered may be conveyed by question-and-answer, as in the Catholic catechism. A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology Q: From what did our universe evolve? A: Our universe evolved from a much smaller, much emptier mini-universe. You may think of it as an egg. Q: What was the smaller, emptier universe like? A: It was a four-dimensional sphere with nothing much inside it. You may think of that as weird. Q: How can a sphere have four dimensions? A: A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three-dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious. Q: Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name? A: The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter. Q: Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe? A: Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein’s field equations. You may think of that as a good thing. Q: Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg? A: It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac. Q: When was it there? A: It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery. Q: Where did the egg come from? A: The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of this as astonishing. Q: If the egg did not come from anywhere, how did it get there? A: The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of this as a done deal. Q: How did our universe evolve from the egg? A: It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things. This catechism, I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is quantum cosmology.” ― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions Another contribution from the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. There is no reference that links the above to anything Hawking actually said. One might imagine a similar discussion between Antoine Lavoisier and a believer in the phlogiston theory. New information is rejected for no other reason other than it is new and not understood. Throughout this book Berlinski references Darwin's theory which has undergone significant modification as new data has become available. Do you have a reference to one of the mentioned paleontologists? Yes, it does. But t is also self-correcting instead of self-perpetuating errors.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 7, 2019 1:19:38 GMT -5
I have read a lot of Hawking and I have never seen anything like what is reported above.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 7, 2019 1:25:40 GMT -5
I have read a lot of Hawking and I have never seen anything like what is reported above. In support of pseudoscience facts and truth do not matter as long as the statements tend to support your belief.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Sept 7, 2019 1:27:52 GMT -5
I have read a lot of Hawking and I have never seen anything like what is reported above. In support of pseudoscience facts and truth do not matter as long as the statements tend to support your belief. That's true. Religion is based on lies so why not tell a few more in support of the original lie when science presents facts that prove the creation story to be no better than what comes out of the bulls bum.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 7, 2019 8:13:02 GMT -5
In support of pseudoscience facts and truth do not matter as long as the statements tend to support your belief. That's true. Religion is based on lies so why not tell a few more in support of the original lie when science presents facts that prove the creation story to be no better than what comes out of the bulls bum. I can’t remember what its called but I once heard about a condition or effect that arises when a person with knowledge tries to convince a person with beliefs. It happens when presenting facts does nothing to correct the others false unsubstantiated belief. As I recall the more facts offered the stronger the believer becomes in their belief system. This becomes so entrenched that the believer will take their misconceptions to the grave in many cases and never become enlightened. As I recall (and remember as I get older memory sometimes fails) it has something to do with how the believer is receiving the facts. Because the believer does not view the fact caller as a god (OMNISCIENT) there is no way in which they can accept the facts because mom and dad won’t and the workers never indicated they did either and grandpa said “if it aint in the Bible it’s all hog wash.” So friends and neighbors what it boils down to is that believers when receiving corrective data see it as a contradicting argument which to them makes it extremely more ambiguous then merely being open to receiving new information from a godly source. In almost all cases there will be a resistance to even trying to understand what is being offered. But hey it’s not the end of the world just yet. It only means one less person to help pull the plow towards a better understanding.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 7, 2019 9:45:38 GMT -5
That's true. Religion is based on lies so why not tell a few more in support of the original lie when science presents facts that prove the creation story to be no better than what comes out of the bulls bum. I can’t remember what its called but I once heard about a condition or effect that arises when a person with knowledge tries to convince a person with beliefs. It happens when presenting facts does nothing to correct the others false unsubstantiated belief. As I recall the more facts offered the stronger the believer becomes in their belief system. This becomes so entrenched that the believer will take their misconceptions to the grave in many cases and never become enlightened. As I recall (and remember as I get older memory sometimes fails) it has something to do with how the believer is receiving the facts. Because the believer does not view the fact caller as a god (OMNISCIENT) there is no way in which they can accept the facts because mom and dad won’t and the workers never indicated they did either and grandpa said “if it aint in the Bible it’s all hog wash.” So friends and neighbors what it boils down to is that believers when receiving corrective data see it as a contradicting argument which to them makes it extremely more ambiguous then merely being open to receiving new information from a godly source. In almost all cases there will be a resistance to even trying to understand what is being offered. But hey it’s not the end of the world just yet. It only means one less person to help pull the plow towards a better understanding. One less candle in the dark...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 10:57:18 GMT -5
www.conservapedia.com/PseudoscienceTopics classified as pseudoscience Acupuncture Alternative medicine The ancient astronaut theory Animal magnetism Astrology Big Bang astronomy Biodynamic agriculture Clairvoyance Cryptozoology Crystal healing Darwinism Richard Dawkins' work[8][9] (see: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience) Dianetics Dominionism Environmentalism Evolutionary biology[10][11][12][13][14][15] Extrasensory perception Feng shui Free Energy Ghost hunting Global warming Graphology Homeopathy Hypnosis Iridology Levitation Lunar effects Lysenkoism Magnet Therapy Memetics (coincidentally originated by Richard Dawkins) Mesmerism Myers-Briggs Type Indicator PZ Myers' work[16] Naturopathy Neuro-linguistic programming Numerology Old earth geology Orgone therapy Palmistry Parapsychology Phrenology Population control Pseudoarchaeology Psychoanalysis Psychokinesis Reflexology Carl Sagan's work Scientific racism, the basis for Adolf Hitler's eugenics system Scientology Séances Self-projection as God (also known as vicarious autotheism) Transgenderism Ufology
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 7, 2019 11:13:39 GMT -5
www.conservapedia.com/PseudoscienceTopics classified as pseudoscience Acupuncture Alternative medicine The ancient astronaut theory Animal magnetism Astrology Big Bang astronomy Biodynamic agriculture Clairvoyance Cryptozoology Crystal healing Darwinism Richard Dawkins' work[8][9] (see: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience) Dianetics Dominionism Environmentalism Evolutionary biology[10][11][12][13][14][15] Extrasensory perception Feng shui Free Energy Ghost hunting Global warming Graphology Homeopathy Hypnosis Iridology Levitation Lunar effects Lysenkoism Magnet Therapy Memetics (coincidentally originated by Richard Dawkins) Mesmerism Myers-Briggs Type Indicator PZ Myers' work[16] Naturopathy Neuro-linguistic programming Numerology Old earth geology Orgone therapy Palmistry Parapsychology Phrenology Population control Pseudoarchaeology Psychoanalysis Psychokinesis Reflexology Carl Sagan's work Scientific racism, the basis for Adolf Hitler's eugenics system Scientology Séances Self-projection as God (also known as vicarious autotheism) Transgenderism Ufology Carl Sagan understood and taught his students: M = fO / fe fO = M x fe fe = fO / M fO = fR x DO DO = fO / fR Please explain what is sutio about them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 11:31:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 7, 2019 11:39:28 GMT -5
Oh my word. If you gona play the game you got to know the rules: Pseudoscience/sutio
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 11:58:35 GMT -5
“Pseudoscience/sutio “ appears in no online dictionary.
Sorry, your request remains gibberish.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 7, 2019 12:03:42 GMT -5
“Pseudoscience/sutio “ appears in no online dictionary. Sorry, your request remains gibberish. oh for crying out loud in a bucket: Please explain what is pseudoscience about what Carl taught his students.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 12:12:19 GMT -5
I gave the link to the quotation of the list as well as the link to its article on "Carl Sagan" - and you ask ME to explain an online encyclopedia's classification of his teachings of his students as "pseudoscience." (that is not a question) So "If you gona play the game" you will play it by your lonesome, "crying out loud in a bucket" but be careful that you wear hearing protection while doing so.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 7, 2019 12:30:52 GMT -5
I gave the link to the quotation of the list as well ass the link to its article on "Carl Sagan" - and you ask ME to explain an online encyclopedia's classification of his teachings as "pseudoscience." (that is not a question) So "If you gona play the game" you will play it by your lonesome, "crying out loud in a bucket" but be carefull that you wear hearing protection while doing so. I gave you a very relevant equations that Carl used in his classroom and asked you to explain what was pseudoscience about them. But as you have no idea what you are talking about and just seem to be repeating what you copy from online. Internet browsers are both a blessing and a menace. Robert Albert Sutio: the chief proponent of the pseudoscience's of his day. Why not use your arm chair to read the Bible and leave the relevant sciences to those qualified to understand and teach them? Always assuming the other person has no aporic idea what they are speaking about. You think everyone whom responds to your dogma is ipse dixit in their ideas but the reverse is actually the reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 12:51:12 GMT -5
I gave the link to the quotation of the list as well ass the link to its article on "Carl Sagan" - and you ask ME to explain an online encyclopedia's classification of his teachings as "pseudoscience." (that is not a question) So "If you gona play the game" you will play it by your lonesome, "crying out loud in a bucket" but be carefull that you wear hearing protection while doing so. I gave you a very relevant equations that Carl used in his classroom and asked you to explain what was pseudoscience about them. But as you have no idea what you are talking about and just seem to be repeating what you copy from online. Internet browsers are both a blessing and a menace. Robert Albert Sutio: the chief proponent of the pseudoscience's of his day. Why not use your arm chair to read the Bible and leave the relevant sciences to those qualified to understand and teach them? Always assuming the other person has no aporic idea what they are speaking about. You think everyone whom responds to your dogma is ipse dixit in their ideas but the reverse is actually the reality. “aporic “ does appear in an online dictionary: “aporic Adjective (comparative more aporic, superlative most aporic) 1 Of or pertaining to aporia” www.yourdictionary.com/aporic1. Which is as clear as mud to me, and required a look up of “aporia”: “aporia a·po·ri·a 1a difficulty, as in a philosophical or literary text, caused by an indeterminacy of meaning for which no resolution seems possible 2 a condition of uncertainty or skeptical doubt resulting from this Origin of aporia L, doubt from Gr, perplexity from aporos, impassable from a-, a- (sense ) + poros, passage: see pore“ www.yourdictionary.com/aporiaWhich is about as clear as mud to me in the context of both your request and your response to your own “game.” But then I knew a lot of 2x2s who used the fanciest words they could find aimed at impressing SOMEONE – are you sure you are not suffering from a 2x2 hangover? Have fun playing your "game." by your lonesome.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 7, 2019 13:02:49 GMT -5
I gave you a very relevant equations that Carl used in his classroom and asked you to explain what was pseudoscience about them. But as you have no idea what you are talking about and just seem to be repeating what you copy from online. Internet browsers are both a blessing and a menace. Robert Albert Sutio: the chief proponent of the pseudoscience's of his day. Why not use your arm chair to read the Bible and leave the relevant sciences to those qualified to understand and teach them? Always assuming the other person has no aporic idea what they are speaking about. You think everyone whom responds to your dogma is ipse dixit in their ideas but the reverse is actually the reality. “aporic “ does appear in an online dictionary: “aporic Adjective (comparative more aporic, superlative most aporic) 1 Of or pertaining to aporia” www.yourdictionary.com/aporic1. Which is as clear as mud to me, and required a look up of “aporia”: “aporia a·po·ri·a 1a difficulty, as in a philosophical or literary text, caused by an indeterminacy of meaning for which no resolution seems possible 2 a condition of uncertainty or skeptical doubt resulting from this Origin of aporia L, doubt from Gr, perplexity from aporos, impassable from a-, a- (sense ) + poros, passage: see pore“ www.yourdictionary.com/aporiaWhich is about as clear as mud to me in the context of both your request and your response to your own “game.” But then I knew a lot of 2x2s who used the fanciest words they could find aimed at impressing SOMEONE – are you sure you are not suffering from a 2x2 hangover? Have fun playing your "game." by your lonesome. Not sure where you went to school but they must have been short on book learning: The term a priori is a very (I could have slipped back into my redneck ways and used "most more") often-used term in logic and debate, the ability to label something as a priori knowledge is an important distinction. At the same time, it’s uncommon to see an idea explicitly labelled a posteriori. When this does happen, it is usually meant to rebut a claim that the statement can be known a priori. And if you can't use the vernacular well enough to have a little fun with word play I feel sorry for ya cause you're missing out on the humor that comes included for free with our brain and it's software.
|
|