You have gotten several responses to that, all the same - rejection of the claim. Unless you have some private understanding for your words there, they are incorrect and easily shown to be. Furthermore, you don't defend them, you just claim them. And one counterexample falsifies them. Take your pick. The advent of eukaryotes? That occurred over eons. The advent of multicellular animal like? Same answer. It's appearance on dry land? That change also occurred over multiple generations. How long did it take for eyes and flagella to evolve into their modern forms?
If you had an evidenced argument, it needn't be pages and pages. A few sentences will suffice if they comprise a sound argument, which is what is lacking from your claims. But if you had such an argument, your motivation for posting it might be to change the minds of critical thinkers, knowing that nothing less will have any impact on their belief set.
The faithful in the other threads often bemoan the same thing - they just can't get an idea past a critical thinker. I just saw such a comment: "I haven't helped any. I was trying to help. Sorry. See [RF user's] response. It's useless before it began, anyway." Yes, his approach was useless because he tried to change minds with unevidenced opinions and flawed arguments, but he should know that that is useless with that demographic every time. And they get frustrated and angry at it, which is when they scoffingly wheel out words like scientism and materialistic.
That's a statement that contradicts observation. Are you familiar with
ring species? They falsify your claim above.
Not exclusively. The difference between quantum science and cosmology is that one is the reductionistic approach to understanding physical reality (at the smallest scale) and the other considers the universe holistically. Analysis means breaking apart, synthesis its opposite. "
analysis, "a breaking-up" or "an untying;" from ana- "up, throughout" and lysis "a loosening" Medicine is also a good example. The health of the individuals is understood by understanding their organ system, which comprise organs, which comprise tissues, which comprise cells, which comprise organelles and cytoplasm, which comprise organic molecules. But individuals and their health require a holistic understanding, which sees the individual as part of a family which in turn is past of a community, etc., all of which is relevant to the topic.
I'm starting to get a sense of what you're trying to say here with the addition of empiricism to rational inquiry. See if this excerpt from a presentation I made a few years back on reason doesn't resonate with you. If it does, please feel free to borrow language from it liberally:
Thales to Galileo: rational skeptical philosophy to empirical science
In the West, rational skepticism was first introduced by the ancient Greek philosophers, whose skepticism about the claims that natural events were punishments from capricious gods led to free speculation about reality. Thales (624 BC - 546 BC) suggested that everything was a form of water, which was the only substance he knew of capable of existing as solid, liquid and gas. What is significant was his willingness to try to explain the workings of nature without invoking the supernatural or appealing to the ancients and their dicta. The more profound implication was that man might be capable of understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible rules that he might discover.
The questioning of dogma and the application of reason was a huge leap forward. But rational skepticism without empiricism, which is the appeal to reality as the arbiter of truth, is as sterile as religion. The pronouncements of Aristotle, such as the one that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, were also taken on faith, and were not tested with actual heavy and light objects until the time of Galileo, who added the element of empiricism to the matter. Galileo was therefore not just a rationalist and philosopher, but a scientist.
Between the ancient rational skeptic philosophers and the scientific skeptics of modernity came the faith based speculations of the Scholastics of the Middle Ages - the Age of Faith - which was also sterile for lack of its lack of skepticism and empiricism. They applied pure reason to the articles of their faith, which led to such irrelevancies as how many angels could dance on the head of a pin and how many different kinds of angels there were.
Thus we see that truth is not a function of reason alone, but of reason applied to experience, which in the sciences is usually called observation, experimentation, data collection, hypothesis testing, and the like.
.
I don't know what you mean by that.
You know that this claim will be rejected, right, so why make it if you can't defend it
Invented? Evolution gifted them with their talents.
Intelligence as I define it exists. It is the ability to understand and successfully manipulate one's environment, to recognize opportunities that can be exploited and pitfalls that can be avoided.
Here's another passage that I can't interpret. I can't paraphrase this because I wouldn't know what words to use. For starters, I would call a building collapse and event. And despite mentioning it twice already, I still don't know what you mean by the Tower of Babel. It looks like you mean the literal tower as described in the biblical myth, but you might mean something metaphorical, like the natural "speciation" of language that occurs with isolation of human subpopulations, as accents, dialects, and lexicons diverge until languages not mutually comprehensible evolve - just like with ring species, but at a human cultural rather than biological level.
LOL. I also don't know what that means. You are entertaining albeit enigmatic.
