SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nobody mentioned that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
cladking
Well-Known Member
Every word has an infinite number of definitions using words which all have many definitions. I defined the word and you are playing word games.\
You do not get to define the words I use any more than you get to pick the words I use.
Word play has been beneath you hithertofor.
If this is intended to mean that people can't communicate effectively using words, it's more of that epistemic nihilism again. I have no difficulty communicating with most people most of the time, and when I do, it's usually because the topic was a little difficult to understand or because I used words not in their lexicon - not because I was vague or imprecise.
If that's not your intended meaning, then I don't know why you wanted to write that sentence in this discussion, and this would be a nice example of YOU not being understood, but not for the reasons I just gave for myself not being understood. I understand what your words mean, but not why you wrote them. More commonly, as with metaphysics, I also don't know what the word means to you, as with Homo omniscence, gradual, or consciousness. I can only tell from your writing that it's not what I would mean with those last two (I wouldn't have reason to use the first for anything).
That happens commonly. You complain about it frequently. You report that no matter how many times you express a certain idea, nobody seems to understand you.
Yet I STILL don't know what metaphysical means to you.
I saw this on another thread today: "The brain is physical. The mind is metaphysical." That's meaningless to me. It says nothing about the nature or the substance of mind or its source.
I didn't ask what he meant by that, but let's use your definition of metaphysics - "the basis of science." His comment then becomes, "The brain is physical. The mind is the basis of science." Nope. Still no information there.
Incidentally, the basis of science is a group of principles such as skepticism, empiricism, falsifiability, repeatability, and peer review - not metaphysics as the word is commonly used.
Metaphysics generally relates to the unseen reality outside of and responsible for conscious experience - what Kant referred to as noumena (cf. phenomena) or ding an sich (the thing-in-itself being experienced distinct from and existing prior to the experience of it). To use Plato's cave, it's the objects outside the cave (noumena), some of which cast shadows that are perceived by the cave dwellers (conscious phenomena), and some of which might generate no shadows (no conscious phenomena) and are thus unknowable using the senses and mind.
Hopefully, you understood that. If not, the problem would not be because the words I used had "an infinite number of definitions using words which all have many definitions," but because YOU didn't understand some of the words written or couldn't conceptualize them as a single idea comprising multiple words.
I asked YOU to do that.
I think the reliability of science is actually one of the reasons that deniers pull so hard to deny it. There are no verifiable, observable outcomes of religion that do not involve the actions of people. Often either in the form of inaction when action would be demanded or too much action toward the violent end of the spectrum or in the proliferation and defense of denialism.
As a Christian I don't recall a commandment that advocated throwing common sense, reason and practicality out the window.
Nonsense. A get out of reasoning and understanding free card is all I see this sort of vacuous claim provides.
It is playing word games and giving oneself an infinite field to play them on.
The advance of knowledge and understanding improves one funeral at a time.
Some people believe and see what they want and they don't seem to see too well.
Standing in the shadow of the butts of giants and believing one is on their shoulders isn't advancing anyone out of being stinky-footed bumpkins.
The promotion of ignorance and fantasy seems a morally deficient position that promotes things like WWII, anti-vaxing, insurrection and a host of other negative and counterproductive activities and conditions.
Claims of Ancient_________________(fill in the blank) have answered nothing, advanced nothing and have been supported by nothing.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I DID NOT SAY THAT.
IF I HAD SAID IT I'D HAVE MEANT ANOTHER DEFINITION OF "METAPHYSICAL".
All you are doing is word games.
cladking
Well-Known Member
NO!@!!!
As I've tried to explain many times the basis of science is experiment. If you expand on this you can add "observation". And then add in threory. then definitions and axioms. You can go all day defining "metaphysics'.
Peer review is irrelevant and contained in no definition except among those who don't understand metaphysics and the nature of real science. If you think that Peers define what is and is not science you are never going to be a real scientist or understand the nature of science. If people are hav9ing this much trouble understanding simple English and simple science it's little wonder they are missing the concept of "paradigm" altogether.
cladking
Well-Known Member
And herein lies the ultimate irony of the belief in "Evolution": There is no experiment to support the concept of a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest.
I know.
I can't understand you, so I can't address your meaning, and it's fine if you ignore my posts.
The irony remains that science deniers continue to equate acceptance of science based on evidence and reason equivalent to a belief system like believing in some ancient science, language, talking beavers, fish are still fish, nonsense, etc or any religious belief. And done as if there is something wrong with having a belief system. And all claimed by those that clearly have no understanding of science. That is the irony.
More irony. There is a vast body of observational and experimental evidence that supports the theory of evolution. If you are as omniscient as you allude, then you should be aware of this and not making silly, erroneous statements that cannot hold up.
I don't believe you are done with word games. That seems to be all that you have, since the evidence is against your claims.
And you have been wrong every time. The basis of science is observation.
A definition you have never provided. I doubt there are any that know what you mean when you bandy that word around like an incantation or mantra. If they claim to understand, then perhaps they will be so kind to provide the explanation and definition, since you do not.
Only to those who cannot provide valid work for sloppy scholarship, undefended claims, poor or no explanations, evidence or reasoning.
More meaningless claims.
A straw man that shows a complete misunderstanding of peer review. It is not a giant conspiracy.
You do seem to understand, but go out of your way to confuse the issue with apparent word games, baseless claims, or just ignoring points made by others.
What have you really added to the discussion that helps create understanding with all your attempts to seem like you know everything and your revealed truth should be accepted without question?
I remember it was on one of these threads where you first discovered punctuated equilibrium. And not all that long ago either. A relatively well-known theory. So, given what appears to be a very, very limited subject matter detail of evolution and the theory, I find that your claiming against the theory as if you have expertise in the field to be ironic as well.
The "experiments" of science are tests of hypotheses. The hypotheses are based on observations and the findings of previous experiments. I don't see how Experimentation conflicts with the skepticism, empiricism, falsifiability, repeatability, and peer review that It Ain't Necessarily So mentioned.
Do you understand what peer review is?
I've asked you many times what a "peer" is, and you've yet to define it. You use the term as if a peer were some sort of committee member.
I've given up trying to understand. When you read nonsense like every word has infinite meanings but you must only use mine... then go on to accuse the person of word games
Last edited:
I don't know that there is anything to understand other than that it is a bunch of empty claims, dramatic statements about giants, funerals. conspiracies and a fictional ancient culture that could do anything. I see a rambling, inconsistent and contradictory agenda, admonishment against reason and a lot of nonsense from the perspective of science uttered as seeming projection.I've given up trying to understand. When you read nonsense like every word has infinite meanings but you only use mine... then go on to accuse the person of word games
I don't have to wonder what sort of reception I would get if if tried to explain the develop of resistance in corn earworm to some active toxin if I used the techniques and claims that I've seen render here.I've given up trying to understand. When you read nonsense like every word has infinite meanings but you only use mine... then go on to accuse the person of word games
That would be a good way to tell them nothing and end my career.