Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

I disagree with evolution on the bases that there should be very detailed archeological evidence of all the minute stages.Nothing.Ziltch…..Brainwashing comes to mind, at the very least alarm bells.

You are speaking from ignorance.

[Belindi]

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You can cite no leaders in Nature science, nor any work being done in Nature science? If so it sounds like your personal opinion or personal theory (pipedream sounds a bit dismissive). Okay. Got it.

Dismiss it then.That’s your choice.

All I can suggest is that “player” science I.e, nature science (because it explains consciousness) does answer the deeper queries whilst backing it up with real science.I would suggest that natures science is a team player.

I would also suggest that secular “spectator” science is unable to do the above because it doesn’t understand consciousness and the role it plays in science and is definitely not a team player across the sciences.

All "players" may be mistaken. Even you may see a bit of withered leaf on the floor and think it a large insect. Even you may listen to someone's deluded idea and think it truth.

Even your best waking awareness after a good night's sleep may mislead you.

You may be correct in HOPE.

I prefer “player” science or natures science because it allows and explains where consciousness fits in and answers all my queries and provides sound science to back it up.

We know, so I don’t need to suggest, that “spectator” science or secular science does not allow or explain where consciousness fits in and so deep seated queries remain.I would suggest that the science that tries to back up secular “spectator” science is in error and observations related to its Big Bang foundational theory are proving by observation to be incorrect.

The Big Bang theory relies on that unknown flowery “secular” mathematical force “Gravity” which we all know to date is a mythical force.

Nobody has the slightest clue what it is.

Consciousness does so fit in with secular science. In seeking the causes of events secular scientists take great care to not deceive themselves with wrong ideas or mistaken perceptions.

[Belindi]

Joshua, did you ever get to do scientific experiments when you were a boy at school?

[Joshua10]

Dismiss it then.That’s your choice.

All I can suggest is that “player” science I.e, nature science (because it explains consciousness) does answer the deeper queries whilst backing it up with real science.I would suggest that natures science is a team player.

I would also suggest that secular “spectator” science is unable to do the above because it doesn’t understand consciousness and the role it plays in science and is definitely not a team player across the sciences.

All "players" may be mistaken. Even you may see a bit of withered leaf on the floor and think it a large insect. Even you may listen to someone's deluded idea and think it truth.

Even your best waking awareness after a good night's sleep may mislead you.

You may be correct in HOPE.

I prefer “player” science or natures science because it allows and explains where consciousness fits in and answers all my queries and provides sound science to back it up.

We know, so I don’t need to suggest, that “spectator” science or secular science does not allow or explain where consciousness fits in and so deep seated queries remain.I would suggest that the science that tries to back up secular “spectator” science is in error and observations related to its Big Bang foundational theory are proving by observation to be incorrect.

The Big Bang theory relies on that unknown flowery “secular” mathematical force “Gravity” which we all know to date is a mythical force.

Nobody has the slightest clue what it is.

Consciousness does so fit in with secular science. In seeking the causes of events secular scientists take great care to not deceive themselves with wrong ideas or mistaken perceptions.

Let’s be clear.Secular science has no idea what consciousness is Belinda.Not a clue.Just as it hasn’t got the first clue what gravity is,that mythical force that it invented from its flowery maths.It’s flag ship single Big Bang theory is being proven by observation to be complete and utter nonsense.It’s not looking good is it?

[Joshua10]

Sorry Belindi, apologies,predictive text.

[Joshua10]

I disagree with evolution on the bases that there should be very detailed archeological evidence of all the minute stages.Nothing.Ziltch…..Brainwashing comes to mind, at the very least alarm bells.

You are speaking from ignorance.

Why do you think that? Animals can only reproduce within their kinds and this has always been the case.What is observed is many changes within the animal kinds.There is no detailed stage by stage transitions that shows evolution.Nothing at all.So are you suggesting that nothing at all is sufficient evidence?

[Sculptor1]

I disagree with evolution on the bases that there should be very detailed archeological evidence of all the minute stages.Nothing.Ziltch…..Brainwashing comes to mind, at the very least alarm bells.

You are speaking from ignorance.

Why do you think that? Animals can only reproduce within their kinds and this has always been the case.What is observed is many changes within the animal kinds.There is no detailed stage by stage transitions that shows evolution.Nothing at all.So are you suggesting that nothing at all is sufficient evidence?

How many books on evolution have you read?



http://darwin-online.org.uk

[Joshua10]

I disagree with evolution on the bases that there should be very detailed archeological evidence of all the minute stages.Nothing.Ziltch…..Brainwashing comes to mind, at the very least alarm bells.

You are speaking from ignorance.

Why do you think that? Animals can only reproduce within their kinds and this has always been the case.What is observed is many changes within the animal kinds.There is no detailed stage by stage transitions that shows evolution.Nothing at all.So are you suggesting that nothing at all is sufficient evidence?

How many books on evolution have you read?



http://darwin-online.org.uk

I have looked into secular science’s evolutionary theories enough to come to a conclusion that it is one of secular sciences weaker theories that is desperately clutching at straws.Red blood cells and actual skin tissue found on many dinosaur bones!!! come on ….let’s move on.

[Belindi]

Joshua, how do you account for there being different species of animals and plants?

[Sculptor1]

You are speaking from ignorance.

Why do you think that? Animals can only reproduce within their kinds and this has always been the case.What is observed is many changes within the animal kinds.There is no detailed stage by stage transitions that shows evolution.Nothing at all.So are you suggesting that nothing at all is sufficient evidence?

How many books on evolution have you read?



http://darwin-online.org.uk

I have looked into secular science’s evolutionary theories enough to come to a conclusion that it is one of secular sciences weaker theories that is desperately clutching at straws.Red blood cells and actual skin tissue found on many dinosaur bones!!! come on ….let’s move on.

No.
You have not got a clue.
The body of data is utterly massive and growing all the time.
You do not know what you are talking about.
"Secular Science" is a tautology, because, once again, you really do not know where you are on this issue.

[Belindi]

Joshua, did you do science at school?

My reason for asking is that my schoolmates and I were taught elementary scientific experiments at ages twelve and thirteen. The little we learned was basic principles of the scientific method. I presume all education in developed countries includes some scientific experiments even if you leave school aged fourteen. I wonder which country you got your elementary education in, because your ideas about standard science are eccentric, as I expect you are aware.

[Sy Borg]

Of course, Joshua. Evolution is unproven and untested. Ridiculous! What would palaeontologists know about forensics? Nothing! They just pick up old bones, look at them for a second or two, and make up a funny name for it, right?

The obvious truth, of course - for which there is great evidence - is that a gigantic spirit man created everything. It's amazing that people in this day and age cling to primitive Darwinian superstitions when God told us everything we needed to know two thousand years ago.

[Joshua10]

Joshua, did you do science at school?

My reason for asking is that my schoolmates and I were taught elementary scientific experiments at ages twelve and thirteen. The little we learned was basic principles of the scientific method. I presume all education in developed countries includes some scientific experiments even if you leave school aged fourteen. I wonder which country you got your elementary education in, because your ideas about standard science are eccentric, as I expect you are aware.

I would suggest that my ideas might appear eccentric to a secularist.Secularist ideas appear eccentric to me.I am aware of that yes.

[Joshua10]

Why do you think that? Animals can only reproduce within their kinds and this has always been the case.What is observed is many changes within the animal kinds.There is no detailed stage by stage transitions that shows evolution.Nothing at all.So are you suggesting that nothing at all is sufficient evidence?

How many books on evolution have you read?



http://darwin-online.org.uk

I have looked into secular science’s evolutionary theories enough to come to a conclusion that it is one of secular sciences weaker theories that is desperately clutching at straws.Red blood cells and actual skin tissue found on many dinosaur bones!!! come on ….let’s move on.

No.
You have not got a clue.
The body of data is utterly massive and growing all the time.
You do not know what you are talking about.
"Secular Science" is a tautology, because, once again, you really do not know where you are on this issue.

I would suggest that I do have clue.

I would suggest that the body of data collected may be massive however no amount of data will confirm evolution as being true.Desperation of it wanting to be true will provide no definitive proof.The truth is as I have suggested before,even Darwin would probably have given up on his theory by now.Secularist evolutionary theories are it’s its weakest theories.Mere wishful HOPES.

[Belindi]

Joshua, did you do science at school?

My reason for asking is that my schoolmates and I were taught elementary scientific experiments at ages twelve and thirteen. The little we learned was basic principles of the scientific method. I presume all education in developed countries includes some scientific experiments even if you leave school aged fourteen. I wonder which country you got your elementary education in, because your ideas about standard science are eccentric, as I expect you are aware.

I would suggest that my ideas might appear eccentric to a secularist.Secularist ideas appear eccentric to me.I am aware of that yes.

"Eccentric " is not evaluative or any sort of insult. "Eccentric" is descriptive of the state of being outside of the usual circle of received knowledge or belief. Many eccentric ideas have come to be received and incorporated into the normal canon.

My question was inspired by curiosity as to how you came to believe science is wrong. If you had performed simple scientific experiments as a child you would not couple the scientific method with secularism.