Thief
Rogue Theologian
look who's arguing for argument's sake....You are just arguing for arguments sake.
Rather difficult to take you seriously at this point.
So I am using you to relieve boredom.
you have been most cooperative.
Thank you.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
look who's arguing for argument's sake....You are just arguing for arguments sake.
Rather difficult to take you seriously at this point.
So I am using you to relieve boredom.
you have been most cooperative.
Thank you.
It has hardly been an argument...rather a matter of revealing to you the error of your thinking regards the state of play of dark energy reality...You are just arguing for arguments sake.
Rather difficult to take you seriously at this point.
So I am using you to relieve boredom.
you have been most cooperative.
Thank you.
So do you now agree that dark energy can't be measured because it is not detectable directly....the only measurements done are those of things we can measure that serve as evidence that dark energy exists?
Haha....now you know I am a humble, gracious, and sensitive soul...I would not rub it in if you were to admit to me that you were at first believing that dark energy itself was being measured....trust me...I promise, after all....to err is human...I have always said that gravity and dark energy are measured by their effects on matter. That's how we know they are there, and that's why we named them.
As far as your inability to understand the difference between a circle and a line.... I have no idea.
Haha....now you know I am a humble, gracious, and sensitive soul...I would not rub it in if you were to admit to me that you were at first believing that dark energy itself was being measured....trust me...I promise, after all....to err is human...
Well if that is right......how come you didn't agree with me from the beginning that dark energy can not be measured directly....I don't remember you telling me that?...lolYou're going to "rub it in" that I have been honest, consistent, and right for fifty pages?
Go for it.
Well if that is right......how come you didn't agree with me from the beginning that dark energy can not be measured directly....I don't remember you telling me that?...lol
That's because you are not able to bring yourself to admit you were wrong......if I am ever wrong, I show you how it's done...I explained that gravity and dark energy are both directly observed by measurements in reality...the way matter moves.
We're back at the start.
Science infers that the instinct for survival evolved for the same reason that science infers that Pluto orbits the sun although science has not directly observed the repetition of either event. Because we don't know of any factors affecting biological development other than the evolutionary process, and we observe evolution hourly in thousands of labs across the globe each day, and because survivability is at the core of evolution, there is no other "place" for the survival instinct to come from.
My guess is that there are many many more data points indicating that survival instinct evolved than data points indicating that Pluto orbits the sun. I happen to know an evolutionary biologist, so I will try to confirm that suspicion, but the holidays might stand in our way. Shall I attempt to contact her on this matter?
That's because you are not able to bring yourself to admit you were wrong......if I am ever wrong, I show you how it's done...
Its amazing how many try to use science as a shield for their world view but when called upon to provide the science based evidence that should be repeatable by anyone it just seems to evaporate into nothingness.
I explained that gravity and dark energy are both directly observed by measurements in reality...the way matter moves.
I'm not using science as a shield; I'm simply explaining what science states. Just because some people think it says something doesn't mean that it does.
Is it the theory of evolution in general you have a problem with or is it just instincts? Suppose we say that everything evolved including the wiring in the brain except for instincts which were put there by some god? Would that sound logical to you?then provide the scientifically repeatable test to back your assertions or stop making assertions that have not been backed by the scientific method. pretty simple don't ya think?
Lol.
So you "believe" that science is able to mathematically confirm that survival evolved based on the same type of mathematical observations of Pluto. Ok could you show me the math and the observational evidence it is derived from?
Scientists may have a desire to tie all things to the evolutionary concept but if a scientist wants to retain a contiguous methodology to provide backing for a concept then it must follow all the steps defined by the scientific method otherwise they will leave the scientific realm and enter the twilight zone. A funny point about your reference to evolution being observed hourly is evident here. Evolution as redefined hourly by its proponents is asserted to simply be change over time right?
tell me then how has any animals instinct been observed to have changed at any time? One of the most observable points about instinct is its adherence to remaining static and virtually unchanging for as long as observations have been recorded. If as you "believe" that instinct evolved then why don't we see evidence of this ongoing process of change during our recorded observations?
Now as for data points indicating something can you provide 'any' data points (any at all) derived from a scientifically repeatable experiment that backs the concept of instinct evolving?
Here is one more thing you should be able to answer if science is the foundation of your world view...
What are the mechanics for the gaining and retaining of an instinct? You see one of the many things endearing to me about scientific inquiry is that it is used to define how things work. So, if instinct evolved then it should be a simple thing to define the mechanics of the process.
then provide the scientifically repeatable test to back your assertions or stop making assertions that have not been backed by the scientific method. pretty simple don't ya think?
No. I don't think it's simple. If you do, then you don't understand much about evolution at all. Evolutionary processes are very complex. Do you also walk up to mathematicians and demand that they explain the Poincaré conjecture. Then when they do, you complain that because it's taking too long and you don't understand it that it's ridiculous?
So what you are saying here is that you don't have scientific backing that I asked for to back your assertion but you would like to infer that I should not require such a reference because such assumed "evolutionary processes are very complex" The truth here is that if someone asks you for the evidence to back your conjecture it shouldn't matter whether they complain about how its delivered as long as you are capable of actually making the delivery.
So for this conversation you obviously have no evidence to provide but still wish for people to believe what you believe because you think that by playing the complexity card for your rationale there is no longer a need for scientific backing.
Welcome to religion.
Show me God.
I don't need to show him to you because he is too complex for you to comprehend. Just believe me when I tell you that that he exists
Oh cmon that guy is just rambling about something he doesnt even have a clue about,god? Meh another man made figure to comfort themselves or sometimes to control people like isis.You are in no position to lecture about conceit. Go and burn some witches.
Or maybe you would rather tie Saint Dawkins to a stake and make him a martyr?!