Evolution is the biggest lie ever told !

Post Reply New Topic

Philosophic commitments tend to be an incredible impediment. You see it in a different manner and degree even with people who are held up as paragons of reason, for example Dan Dennett's commitment to free will. When you see someone's philosophic/ideological commitments surface though yes - the conversation, as a conversation, is pretty much over and about all one can do is walk away gracefully and hope the person in question's commitments meet some kind of obstacle that they can't withstand on the grounds of that person's own need for some degree of psychological consistency.

The first step to 'winning' an argument with someone who's entirely divorced from reality is to learn to identify them and avoid them quickly. We've all made this mistake here at some point, assuming a poster was able to be engaged and able to be reasoned with.

Science is not liberating.

Why would believing in made-up, very likely wrong ideas , be liberating ?

As an adult , why live like that ?

Physics is liberating, because they admit the truth, we don't know.

No, they don't know how reality works.

I made a topic about it ...
viewtopic.php?t=353090

Also, 300 years of scientific method was thrown out the window with the discovery of the quantum level.

Quantum physics suggests, ALL SCIENCE theories is WRONG because it suggests reality is probabilistic, not deterministic as ALL the scientific formulas suggest.

That's why the formulas break down. For example ... "behavior of the sub-atomic particles cannot be described by Netwon's Laws"
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae392.cfm

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 25 Aug 2017, 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You just stated yourself that you were liberated by science!

You were oppressed as a child because everyone around you was ignorant.
But then you yourself stated you are freer now because of the advance of knowledge.

As a child you were bullied and oppressed because of the absence of X.
But now you are more free because- there is more of X today.

And that X factor is...science!

Science freed you - and then you turn around and blame science for your former oppression.

You are totally contradicting yourself!

I never said "science liberated me".

Why do you make this unnecessarily personal ?

Is logic another thing you don't believe in?

LNH

that is PRECISELY what you DID say.

Not in the those words. And you did not INTENSIONALLY say it.

But that is precisely the ghist of what you said.


You said everyone oppressed you out of their ignorance early in your life.

But now you know about things like learning disabilities, and sensory issues, that no one knew about back in the day.

And the reason for that new knowledge was the advance of science.


The advance in knowledge helped to free you from bad thoughts about yourself from the early abuse you got.

So you made a great case for how science indeed liberated you.

yes, another construct of humans

That's the dilemma of the "Double Slit experiment" .. it confounds the logical mind, because the behavior of the particles is determined based on the wave function which is probabilistic, not based on determinism.

It bothered Einstein that deterministic "logic" was not the nature of reality.

The Logic-Defying Double-Slit Experiment Is Even Weirder Than You Thought
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... n-weirder/

Sooo...because our current understanding can't account for the Double-Slit Experiment, you don't have to acknowledge the logical and lexical meaning of anything you say?

I don't believe in the Adam and Eve story because I think that females were here before males and that maybe they were asexual. Someone had to give birth to humans and it is females that give birth. X chromosomes contain a lot more data than Y ones so I see females as more complex.

What's been on my mind lately are parallel worlds. If one is created every time a decision is made then one of them has to be perfect. A heaven. And if the devil is real, what if an alternate dimension was created when he had to make the choice to fall to earth or not? The same rules apply for the Adam and Eve story. A choice was made in that story to create hell, so there would have to be a parallel world where that never happened.

I'm not sure if I believe in an evil force called the devil. I don't believe in karma because events have no meaning until humans give them a meaning.

I watched the video, and no, it is not. An ad hominem fallacy is an argument looke like this:

"My opponent is a terrible person and/or idiot therefore they are wrong."

This is not an ad hominem fallacy even though it is often mistaken for one:

"My opponent is wrong because of [well structured argument here] and also they are a terrible person/idiot."

That video contained neither though, it simply explained what fallibility is and why it's so important, and then demonstrated that it's something the vast majority of conspiracy theories don't have.


How do you think science works exactly? We are communicating right now on computers, machines that are monuments to how far science has come. The processor that is rendering out my screen in my graphics card and the processor on my motherboard that is running the browser code and will be sending this message to the network interface card when I send it uses components so small that quantum mechanics must be taken into account when designing them and the data travels through them so fast that relativity effects it too. The data is sent through twisted pair RJ-45 cables that are designed to reduce the interference effect electromagnetic induction has on wires by applying Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, and you have no idea how useful the scientific method can be when diagnosing computer problems.

You are literally using applied science to bash science. Sure, it's not perfect and it's been wrong before but it's by far the best system we have of figuring things out and the fact that it can correct it's self and change to accomidate new evidence is one of the reasons I trust it.

People say "I don't know" when they don't know in all fields of science but also in all fields of science including physics there is a lot that is known. It's so funny how clearly the Dunning–Kruger effect manifests it's self here. Just look at flat earthers, creationists, and anyone else who denies science. They claim to have the absolute truth so often while making models that have no predictive power or practical applications whatsoever. Meanwhile the people who predict solar eclipses thousands of years in advance, design processors, and build spaceships will readily admit their ignorance.

I said physics is liberating.

Physicists admit "we don't know" and, "we may never know".

Where are such humble people in psychiatry, biology, evolution, pharmacology, medicine ?

It's common for con-man scientists to declare they know how reality works.

It's these con-men -- phonies masquarding as know-it-alls -- that are echos from my childhood.

You do know that quantum mechanics solved that problem like a few centuries ago, right?

Everywhere...? I mean, we have no idea how many popular anesthetics even work and you won't have to dig deep to find someone readily willing to admit that.

It is explicitly ad hominin, because the poster does not address the my points, instead, posted a video that paints me as a "conspiracy nut".

When you "attack" the person, and not the points that is called an "ad hominin argument".


Science is the results gained by the scientific method, which would exclude theoretical physics.

The scientific method may or may not give us truthful results about reality.

As I pointed out earlier, Newton's laws of motion, a renown scientific law for hundreds of years, is regarded as incorrect as a truth of reality.

This is not me saying this. This is what you learn taking a basic physics course, or reading online. I will provide a sample link below from a physics website.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae392.cfm



If we are better off with science is a philosophical question, and not something I even addressed here.

My only point is that most scientists are con-men pretending to understand reality. This should be self-evident.