Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Science doesn't declare something impossible just because it can't be quantified, science only says "it doesn't know".

Correct. But your belief of exclusive naturalism does.

No it doesn't. I'll repeat what I posted before, "The assumption of naturalism is not the same as proof of naturalism".

real life wrote:

That is why science is not based on your belief in naturalism.

Science is based on naturalism. You can look up the definitions. It has nothing to do with me. Go argue with the dictionary.

0 Replies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Quote:

Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to the system of acquiring knowledge - based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

0 Replies

This person doesn't even know what science is, let alone whether what is is arguing is logical or rational.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

This is how the pessimist and the optimist test worked:

1. A pessimist was placed into a room full of horseshit. Within twenty minutes he was howling, "Get me out of here."

2. An optimist was placed into the same room. To the amazement of those looking through the two-way mirror, he was tearing through the horseshit, tossing it aside and revealing patches of floor.
They let him out and asked, "What on Earth were you doing in there?"

Well, said the subject, "With all that horseshit, there must be a horse in here somewhere."

Remind you of anyone?

That's not optimistic, that's plain stupid.

0 Replies

What's Einsteinium?

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

What's Einsteinium?

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele099.html

Atomic Number: 99

Atomic Weight: 252

Melting Point: 1133 K (860°C or 1580°F)

Boiling Point: Unknown

Density: Unknown

Phase at Room Temperature: Solid

Element Classification: Metal

Radioactive Artificially Produced

Period Number: 7 Group Number: none Group Name: Actinide

What's in a name? Named after the scientist Albert Einstein.

Say what? Einsteinium is pronounced as ine-STINE-i-em.

History and Uses:
Einsteinium was discovered by a team of scientists led by Albert Ghiorso in 1952 while studying the radioactive debris produced by the detonation of the first hydrogen bomb. The isotope they discovered, einsteinium-253, has a half-life of about 20 days and was produced by combining 15 neutrons with uranium-238, which then underwent seven beta decays. Today, einsteinium is produced though a lengthy chain of nuclear reactions that involves bombarding each isotope in the chain with neutrons and then allowing the resulting isotope to undergo beta decay.

Einsteinium's most stable isotope, einsteinium-252, has a half-life of about 471.7 days. It decays into berkelium-248 through alpha decay, into californium-252 through electron capture or into fermium-252 through beta decay.

Since only small amounts of einsteinium have ever been produced, it currently has no uses outside of basic scientific research.

Estimated Crustal Abundance: Not Applicable

Estimated Oceanic Abundance: Not Applicable

Number of Stable Isotopes: 0 (View all isotope data)

Ionization Energy: 6.42 eV

Oxidation State: +3

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:
This is how the pessimist and the optimist test worked:

1. A pessimist was placed into a room full of horseshit. Within twenty minutes he was howling, "Get me out of here."

2. An optimist was placed into the same room. To the amazement of those looking through the two-way mirror, he was tearing through the horseshit, tossing it aside and revealing patches of floor.
They let him out and asked, "What on Earth were you doing in there?"

Well, said the subject, "With all that horseshit, there must be a horse in here somewhere."

Precisely and it is a joke.

Remind you of anyone?

That's not optimistic, that's plain stupid.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

aperson wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
This is how the pessimist and the optimist test worked:

1. A pessimist was placed into a room full of horseshit. Within twenty minutes he was howling, "Get me out of here."

2. An optimist was placed into the same room. To the amazement of those looking through the two-way mirror, he was tearing through the horseshit, tossing it aside and revealing patches of floor.
They let him out and asked, "What on Earth were you doing in there?"

Well, said the subject, "With all that horseshit, there must be a horse in here somewhere."

Precisely and it is a joke.

Remind you of anyone?

That's not optimistic, that's plain stupid.

Ya I sort of figured.

Sorry to be a party pooper but I was just pointing out that you can be optimistic and not thick.

0 Replies

You can be perceived as pessimistic or cynical when you are actually skeptical. Scientists have to be skeptical until have enough evidence to publish their findings. Too bad the writers of the Bible didn't follow their track.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Scientists have to be skeptical until have enough evidence to publish their findings. Too bad the writers of the Bible didn't follow their track.

Actually, Luke (Author of Luke and Acts) was a doctor, so he was quite skeptical. Thomas, not an author of any of the books, refused to believe Jesus had risen from the dead until he could place his hands on Jesus hands and see the scars for himself. The Apostle Paul made a living of killing Christians before he became a Christian. And Peter continually wavered back and forth in His commitment to Christ because of his skepticism. Jesus had many followers leave him because of their skepticism, but he also had many stay.

The...............

0 Replies

I've not met many doctors who are skeptical. They are quite decisive in their diagnosis even if they might be wrong. It's a serious blindspot with professional doctors.

Thomas was not one of the writers -- you are reading a passage that was written well over a hundred years later based on no written history but hear say. The skepticism is planted in the story of Christ especially to support the story. I'm more than skeptical about that as any rational, logical mind should be.

Peter is obviously the most respected of the prophets but are we going to believe everything he stated or wrote down?

I'm focusing about the writers of the Bible, not those who are being written about.

0 Replies

Quote:

Actually, Luke (Author of Luke and Acts) was a doctor, so he was quite skeptical.

How do you know he was skeptical? Because he was a doctor? Doctors can be very closed-minded about anything new; anything that went against what their tradition taught them as to what the proper method of healing a patient. It has been that way with many doctors for ages. Even today.

Quote:

The Apostle Paul made a living of killing Christians before he became a Christian. And Peter continually wavered back and forth in His commitment to Christ because of his skepticism.

Paul was a religious nut case, not a spokesman for God. If Paul were alive today he would be put in the same category as Falwell or Robertson. In case you are unaware of it, both Falwell and Robertson have conversations with God every day. So I would think that any books they have written should be given the same weight as Paul's letters. They do get their word right from the source, right?

Paul was not a spokesman for God or Christ. There are major disagreements between Paul and Christ and Christ's blood brother, James. Paul brings paganism into the Christian religion. He converted pagans and these converts bought into the religion certain beliefs they loved and felt comfortable with. We see the same thing today in Africa, South America and the Caribbean.

0 Replies

xingu,

And why should I take your word for it?

The...............

0 Replies

Paul wasn't too skeptical of voodoo in the broad sense of the word.

0 Replies

Ligfhtwizard,

I said Thomas was not an author of one of the books.

The............

0 Replies

Then why bring him up? My point exactly. Continue with your non-skepticism of the Bible, even those who are portrayed as skeptical. They weren't just skeptical, they were doubters to the Nth degree at one point or another. That's where the term doubting Thomas came from.

0 Replies

TheUndonePoet wrote:

Actually, Luke (Author of Luke and Acts) was a doctor, so he was quite skeptical.

This is an unwarranted statement. Given the state of the practice of medicine in western cultures until quite recently, this would authorize a speculation that Luke was hag-ridden by superstition. The rest of your post is scriptural mumbo-jumbo for which there is no historical basis.

0 Replies

Okay.

The............

0 Replies

Right, more preaching with little substance to back it up other than what was gleaned from Sunday School -- where they should be teaching evolution alongside Creationism/ID.

0 Replies

Quote:

And why should I take your word for it?

My word for what? The differences between Paul and Christ? It's in the Bible.

The introduction of paganisn into the Christian religion? That's history.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know