I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Audie]

Well, it's not like learning it in school will actually help you in that regard. Some people just "got" it. Now, when you think about it: Science is a philosophy. So you're a philosopher no matter what. It's just... Distinct from philosophy applicable to human well-being. Well, directly.

/E: Even semantics is a form of philosophy. The most reprehensible kind in my opinion but still. Some people live for it.

While talking semantics here, lets point out that saying
"science is philosophy" kind of spreads the meaning of
the word "philosophy" mighty thin.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Explain to me how. You just keep asserting this. This is a debate forum. Not Facebook. What are you doing with these one liners with no follow up?

I gave sufficient support for my point, to such a level that this point you keep reiterating, has already been destroyed. Don't bother holding on to it if you're not prepared to defend it.

I explained how already. Just a few responses back.

 

[Darkstorn]

I explained how already. Just a few responses back.

No you didn't. You just kept repeating "it's still the other way around."

Several times.That's not an explanation. I don't think you knew what you signed up for when you started posting on these forums.

While talking semantics here, lets point out that saying
"science is philosophy" kind of spreads the meaning of
the word "philosophy" mighty thin.

Good. It's a misconception that philosophy is about psychology and human well-being alone. Yeah, a lot of people think that when they think philosophy.

I shouldn't need this:

Philosophy - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

No you didn't. You just kept repeating "it's still the other way around."

Several times.That's not an explanation. I don't think you knew what you signed up for when you started posting on these forums.



Good. It's a misconception that philosophy is about psychology and human well-being alone. Yeah, a lot of people think that when they think philosophy.

I shouldn't need this:

Philosophy - Wikipedia

Then I guess i should not either.

 

[Darkstorn]

Then I guess i should not either.

Try it anyway.

 

[Audie]

Try it anyway.

Eve? Is that you again?

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't get it.

I think.

 

[Audie]

I don't get it.

I think.

"Try it anyway"

 

[Shushersbedamned]

No you didn't. You just kept repeating "it's still the other way around."

What I meant was that your insinuation one cannot explain the word value without philosophy says something about value not philosophy

Several times.That's not an explanation. I don't think you knew what you signed up for when you started posting on these forums.

LMAO

 

[Darkstorn]

"value" without philosophy. Go on, try it.
What I meant was that your insinuation one cannot explain the word value without philosophy says something about value not philosophy

I already answered that: "No, i asked you to try and explain it without using philosophy. You still haven't. All it does is say something about you."

Literally: I was asking you to do something. I wasn't making any claims. I asked you to do something. You didn't do it. This says nothing about value NOR philosophy. It says something about you.

Simple enough?

LMAO

I don't think you're judging the situation clearly.

"Try it anyway"

Is that a joke? What? I don't get it.

I was asking you to read the link.

 

[1robin]

The requested copy and paste would likely be far more than a paragraph. It is better to go to a link than to request an article be posted here.

I only requested a paragraph. So I can't be held accountable for asking more. I still do not get what your driving at. Are you trying to show that I violated some forum rule? If so quote both the rule in question and what I said that violated it. Thanks.

 

[1robin]

@Jose Fly @Polymath257 @Subduction Zone @Darkstorn @metis @Thermos aquaticus

Ok guys, it has become necessary to point out a few things to all of you.

1. Yesterday I posted responses to 2 people in this thread.
2. I received over 30 responses from you guys just in this thread alone.
3. How on earth am I supposed to keep up in just this thread alone.
4. Many of you guys post between 2 and 5 responses to every one post of my own.
5. Despite spending hour after hour typing a fast as possible but falling farther behind every day.
6. I prefer to respond in depth concerning a few claims than to give shallow responses on a multitude of issues.
7. I have only two ways I can try to get caught up. I can limit my responses to only the core issues or I can end my discussions with many of you to concentrate on only one or two of our discussions. I regard both of those courses of action as rude on my part but I must select one to implement. So I am going to only respond to the core issue which is stated below.

Provide me with proof that common descent is true. You can do this by copying and pasting from a paper or article that contains evidence of "macroevolution". If I find what you copied and pasted challenging then I will investigate the link you provided. I must limit our discussions to this one argument to have any chance to keep up with our debates. So, whatever you post that is not what I just requested I will refer you back to this post.

Thanks,

 

[Darkstorn]

I made the claim that you use a lot of time for lurking and writing in this thread, but you don't bother actually reading. You responded to my posts by thinking i was someone else and that i was arguing something totally different than i actually was. Further leading me to conclude that you don't actually bother reading your opponents' responses, you just give out a stock response.

ALL this deflection and demanding of people to copy paste from links(even after a moderator told people not to do that) when in the same time you could have read that ONE single link you have SO MUCH ISSUE with many times over. Seriously. It was a short article with huge pictures.

And you still think you're coming from higher ground here? Well, here's how it looks like: You're using a lot of time and effort into excuses as to why you supposedly don't have enough time to read the evidence you so demand.

 

[1robin]

You are pretending your post where you earned that comment did not exist. You gave a rude response to a well thought out post. Complaining when you are scolded for your bad behavior is simply wrong.

At least the first part of your post seems incoherent therefor I do not know how to respond to it.

 

[1robin]

Uh, i think the fact that he barely bothers to take you seriously(i don't blame him) should provide a few lessons.

Why is he not taking you seriously? Ask yourself that.

I am responsible for defending truth as best as I can come to know it. I am not responsible for making you feel one way or the other about it. If you have such a low opinion of my posts then you should not bother responding to me.

 

[1robin]

@1robin when people offer you evidence you either ignore it or try to claim it is not "proof". That only tells us that you are either not willing to debate honestly or do not have a basic understanding of how science is done. Rather than assume that you are dishonest I assume that you merely need to learn the basics.

So let's go over the basics first. It will save you from making the same errors in post after post.

See post #432

 

[1robin]

@1robin when people offer you evidence you either ignore it or try to claim it is not "proof". That only tells us that you are either not willing to debate honestly or do not have a basic understanding of how science is done. Rather than assume that you are dishonest I assume that you merely need to learn the basics.

So let's go over the basics first. It will save you from making the same errors in post after post.

See post #432

 

[1robin]

I didn't post any links. Are you actually trying to imply that it's a random guy's job to do your work for you?!

I didn't say you did. I asked everyone in general to copy and paste a selection from the links they provided and you started making excuses why you nor anyone should do so.

It's not THIS simple. We're not talking about subjective opinions here. Or movies.

What I asked for is dirt simple. If I am wrong there should mountains of evidence that can be pointed to but all I get is excuses why no one provides that evidence.

That is my first post in this thread. Or are you talking about yourself?

I was referring to the summation of those I am having discussions with in this thread.

Yes, but you don't really bother to read. As evidenced by this post. And which is my original claim: You don't bother to read. You only wish to speak.

See post #432

No, and no?

This is exactly why your argument has no persuasive power.

/E: I assume you didn't bother to actually read my username. Don't you think that kind of proves my point here?

What is /E? I also do not understand the rest of your post here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Jose Fly @Polymath257 @Subduction Zone @Darkstorn @metis @Thermos aquaticus

Ok guys, it has become necessary to point out a few things to all of you.

1. Yesterday I posted responses to 2 people in this thread.
2. I received over 30 responses from you guys just in this thread alone.
3. How on earth am I supposed to keep up in just this thread alone.
4. Many of you guys post between 2 and 5 responses to every one post of my own.
5. Despite spending hour after hour typing a fast as possible but falling farther behind every day.
6. I prefer to respond in depth concerning a few claims than to give shallow responses on a multitude of issues.
7. I have only two ways I can try to get caught up. I can limit my responses to only the core issues or I can end my discussions with many of you to concentrate on only one or two of our discussions. I regard both of those courses of action as rude on my part but I must select one to implement. So I am going to only respond to the core issue which is stated below.

Provide me with proof that common descent is true. You can do this by copying and pasting from a paper or article that contains evidence of "macroevolution". If I find what you copied and pasted challenging then I will investigate the link you provided. I must limit our discussions to this one argument to have any chance to keep up with our debates. So, whatever you post that is not what I just requested I will refer you back to this post.

Thanks,

Take your time and answer as well as you are able.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am responsible for defending truth as best as I can come to know it. I am not responsible for making you feel one way or the other about it. If you have such a low opinion of my posts then you should not bother responding to me.

How did you supposedly "come to know it"? Faith is not a pathway to the truth since one can be a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or what have you by faith. If your pathway is flawed then the "truth" that you may have will probably be flawed as well.