A personal relationship with God.

Intrepid wrote:

Just checking to see if any maturity and relevant content has returned to this thread. Guess not.

Not as long as Jason and Ionus are still in the sandbox, hogging all the toys. They're cute, though, those two little imps, ain't they?

Sure you did.Worst attempt to recover yet.

Your lack of a volcabulary is very hurtful.

A week has seven complete cycles of the earths rotation.

For you, that is going to school 5 times plus 2 holidays. Now do you see how long that is ?

Do you really believe philosophy is a science ?

Two people can reach the same conclusion ?

One persons philosophy is empirical to another's ?

Philosophy is a bar fight between people with dictionaries.

Never occurred to you your ideas were wrong.

This is called arrogance and stupidity.

It is not science.

I have no interest in homosexuality, thank you for your interest though.

I also accept that you were wrong.

Books are not DEAD LINKS. Some people even hold them in high regard.

and you think this is a quote supporting a LACK of scientific dogma ?

and an open mind free of the scientific dogma of his day

Science is dogmatic because the vast majority of scientists are dogmatic.

When true genius comes along they correctly use science to advance humanity

Lets have a guess...99% of the time science is dogmatic.

It is not within science. It is within the scientific method. Science is dogmatic.

Your boyfriends probably had bias. Remember that word ? Bias ?

It is obvious you are having a great deal of trouble understanding anything. You quote mine but you cant even do that properly( meaning these : Evolution is half thought out ?The Laws of Thermodynamics are vague ? The Speed of Light is a maybe ?) , but still manage to accuse me of doing it. Can you see the question mark ? You should have left it out because it gives you away. I was asking you if those were absolute truths. Do you think they might be right ? (you see that is another question mark).

By the way, you then posted a dead link.

I repeat, name me one change in evolution that was not an accident.

Only an uneducated creationist would say something like this...someone with no knowledge of natural science...just the insane ideas of some creationists.

This statement is dogmatic.

Despite a lack of knowledge you have followed your faith based on previous experience.

Now do you understand ?

If it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck...but if you think like a blind fool...then you're a philosophiser.

If that so...those that make science dogmatic?

Well...obviously you can't even follow the rules of writing a comprehensive sentence...

A week has seven complete cycles of the earths rotation. - Do you believe this or you know it?

For you, that is going to school 5 times plus 2 holidays. Now do you see how long that is ? - This is the most complete explanation you have given so far...and that's good, because that shows me that you're actually learning something.

One persons philosophy is empirical to another's ? - So what? What is the point?

Are you being sarcastic?

Your lack of "vocabulary" is very hurtful.

you provided links to the quotes of the books that you provided

how come that academia calls philosophy a "science".

thinking that those quotes mean that science is dogmatic

but the scientific method is not dogmatic, and since the scientific method defines science

5. Analyze the data.
6. Interpret the data and make conclusions that point to a hypothesis.

But the true genius that came alone used the scientific method in order to advance humanity...that genius implemented science...if you want to advance human knowledge, science can't be dogmatic...or it stops being science...

I was right...you don't know what a "dead link is"...

"volcabulary"?

And no, I'm not homosexual...

and by the way... I'm already taken.

OH MY GOD WOULD YOU TWO SHUT THE **** UP.

In this case, I would say that Pentacle Queen is justified.

spendius : I have experimentally induced such experiences ("personal God experiences") . Many times in fact. More than I dare admit. And "Oh my God!!" was a constant theme.

Ionus : OK, now you have me curious. Several native tribes experience a closeness to God with minor amounts of drugs. Our early ancestors used rhythmic chanting to induce hallucinations. What was your technique ?

Quote:

In this case, I would say that Pentacle Queen is justified.

Anything is justified to you, Intrepid...

You are narcistic to the point of stupidity.

You do know we are the only two reading this dribble you are coming out with, dont you ?

Your mechanism is to analyse every word I say and respond to it.

Thank you, but it was written as a whole..as usual you are missing the point.

If that so...those that make science dogmatic?

Deep breathing...now..what the hell are you talking about ? May I quote from you ?

Is it because of the vast majority or because of the scientific method being dogmatic?

What do you think a week is ?

Yes. I am learning you think you know everything but require the most basic things to be explained.

Again, you cant see the question mark. That makes it a question.

I am more worried I am being sadistic.

Youse dumb

Now see I was being sarcastic there. Never mind. Keep trying.

What is wrong with your library ? They threw you out for cutting and pasting ?

Only under the broadest definition can philosophy be called science.

It is usually offered as an add on to science to improve debating skills.

Something you would be aware of if you bothered to research it.

That is exactly what those quotes mean.

Defining anything is not the end of the matter. There is still flesh to be put on the bones. The problem arises in the steps below :

Human beings have vested interests and scientists are not God.

They make mistakes and then defend them out of sheer embarrasement like you. Science is dogmatic.

That is your conclusion. Mine is science is dogmatic but it is led into new eras but great men, true scientists who can implement the scientific method accurately without influence from their human and fallible nature.

In your delusion does the link work ?

Didnt we agree you were going to be my spellchecker ?

After all you cant check your own spelling.

You are too far up yourself for that.

God knows it is right on the limits of your capabilities and should be a challenge that improves you.

Please convey my condolences.

And you are not fooling anyone. It is obvious you are a creationist.

Your worship of philosophisers like Aristotle, whom the Catholic church held in such high regard it took hundreds of years for him to be overturned

They now have a new look on science, thanks to throwing out the philosophers.

This makes your intent obvious : you are a creationist and are arguing to damage science.