Anti-Evolutionist Scientific Explanations On Human Origin-ALL VIEWPOINTS WELCOME

I am flattered.

What sentence, words or comma do you want me elaborate more than I did?

 

"The method given by St. Thomas Aquinas" sure
intrigued me.

A summary would be awesome.

 

I can only repeat the summary:

The method given by St. Thomas Aquinas is called empiricism.

In nutshell empiricism makes Logical deductions based on empirical (the one we can Observe, measure with our instruments, experiment with) Evidence.

This method is used by ToE.

 

Aha yes.... the Wikipedia article is quite helpful as well......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

From what I have read of para-psychology a powerful case can be presented that the majority of our sub-conscious minds are far from being a blank page.


http://barbrokarlen.com/

Dr. Ian Stevenson spent thirty years studying about 3000 similar cases because he felt that they would revolutionize psychology and psychiatry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

 

The article is of no help, but rather deception.

It is written from a very narrow perspective and full of [edit] or in other word BS.

As I said Empiricism was developed by Xn. Monks and St. Thomas Aquinas gave us the polished product.

The paragraph quoted by you refers to Stoics etc.

Do you know anything about ancient Rome and Greece from any other sources but from writings of Xn. Monks?

Do you really think Xn. Monks were coping Aristotle generation after generation without their own input and corrections made from their point of view?

Do you?

Then it refers to Avicenna.

Can you think and tell me why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna - why Avicenna if a Muslim could make no contribution to medicine and thus the fairly tail of the article is all a made up lie?

It is your homework.

Your article refers to blatant lies thus it it has no credibility.


In nutshell empiricism is what I told it is.

It is used by ToE.

It is what Newton made scientific revolution against.

You are taking away from the subject but as to psychology and psychiatry they are based on assumptions which cannot be universally agreed upon, which actually are a matter of controversy.

The only psychiatrist I know was Bekhterev.

Please don't take away from the subject which is the total difference in methodology between ToE and physics, chemistry, genetics and similar.

 

Claiming the ToE does not respect the scientific method is absurd;so is your attempt to politicize it.

Evolution is the central organizing theory of biology, and has fundamental importance in other sciences as well.
It is no more controversial in scientific circles than gravity or electricity is.

 

It is very simple.

Medicine has no use for ToE, but anatomy is a must.

For anatomy drawing humans and parts of human body is a must.

Islam directly, clearly and strictly forbids not only drawing of human body or parts of it, but even possession of such drawings could be punished by death.

That’s all.

No need to spend time and check all dead end sources of the claim that Avicenna, if ever existed, was a Muslim, because RULE 1 says:

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say, that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain, when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.”

 

You have nothing, zero, zilch to object any info, any fact, any word I posted.

But you are accusing me in politicizing.

What?

I didn’t claim the ToE does not respect the scientific method, this is your claim.

What scientific method?

The worse for biology.

The worse for scientific circles, claiming that ToE has fundamental importance for gravity or electricity.

What?

 

Arguments from ignorance plus you contradict yourself.

 

Nonsense/non sequiturs/non-denial by Inquisitor who has NO answer.

Dishonest reply.
He did Not say ToE has importance for Gravity or Electricity. He said it's No more controversial.
You had no answer so tried Lying for Jesus/a parochial shool reply.
`

 

This poster appears occasionally to peddle his own brand of reality. It's mostly nonsense. He is agenda driven, but he takes great care in hiding and obfuscating that agenda. For example, here he is pretending that empiricism was invented and created by a couple of folks who had little, if anything, to do with the discovery and development of empiricism. Then, he extrapolates into politics, science and other areas that he seems to have little, if any, understanding. This is all done (by him) to internally justify the nonsense he spews.

For the lurkers and other posters...ignore this one.

 

I find it interesting these topics keep showing up. Not surprised actually just interesting many of the same keep hammering away from their POV.

Very few are going to change their minds IMO.

Seems very few if any (I've seen none but I've not been here long) discuss intelligent educated posters who see God's hand in all this somewhere and somehow. People seem to take one of two sides and demonize each other. That's getting nowhere fast.

When did man acquire a soul or what serves as one? Or become God aware (atheists believe in Not-God)? Are whales totally alien to us or do they love like us? Do they have a God? If so why did any of the above evolve or if you're a creationist be created?

Since man created God did he do so because there is one or was it strictly a need to explain great mysteries?

This may seem OT but whether we evolved or were created God is a part of the record of man as much as music and art. Is it just the brain evolving because and for survival that these things exist?

 

Should I check whether you ever posted any reasonable and different in wording and meaning objection to statements you quoted in your 353 spits.

I bet you never did.

Anybody?

 

LOL.

A believer in evolution trying to do logic.

LOL.

The quoted by you arguments are from the established truth:

1. Everyone so far agrees that ToE makes Logical conclusions deducted from observed empirical evidence.

2. I just pointed to the fact that it is the method given by St. Thomas Aquinas, and it is used in theology, personal philosophy, ideology, personal and group beliefs and it is called empiricism.

3. I just pointed to the fact that Isaac Newton made scientific revolution – against empiricism – and in his method he disregarded logical deductions and he allows no place for any kind of evidence in natural sciences.

4. Newton’s method has been used in all natural sciences - physics, chemistry, genetics by all givers of natural laws and theories– starting from Newton himself and finishing Einstein with his admiration and references to the Newton’s rules.

Nuclear theory, Thermodynamics, Hydraulics, air dynamics, Dynamics of liquid and gases, Materials, Metals, Pharmaceutical science, Medicine, Genetics produced everything using Newton’s rules.

4. St. Thomas Aquinas method and its variants has no other use rather than for theology, philosophy, ideology, beliefs.

5. Accordingly ToE has been having no other practical use rather than for Marxism-Leninism, Nazism, Virginia Act of 1923 and suppression of the Newton’s method you have never heard about, less ever read, - because you are not allowed.

6. WHERE DO YOU SEE GOD, SUPERNATURAL, RELIGION, OPINION ON GOD YOU KEEP ON RAMBLING ABOUT INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING MY POINTS THE SECOND POST IN A RAW?

As the truth above is established, including the truth that YOU SEE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT THERE, then, the arguments you trying to reply to, follow.

And there is no contradiction, it depends on what you consider to be scientific method, the pre-Newtonian one or the one established by Newton.

 

Your reasoning skills are under developed and your understanding of science is very unsophisticated.

 

It seems you jumping in missing the premises for my words, the facts established as the bases for the them. Here you go copied-pasted just for personally:


1. Everyone so far agrees that ToE makes Logical conclusions deducted from observed empirical evidence.

2. I just pointed to the fact that it is the method given by St. Thomas Aquinas, and it is used in theology, personal philosophy, ideology, personal and group beliefs and it is called empiricism.

3. I just pointed to the fact that Isaac Newton made scientific revolution – against empiricism – and in his method he disregarded logical deductions and he allows no place for any kind of evidence in natural sciences.

Newton’s method has been used in all natural sciences - physics, chemistry, genetics by all givers of natural laws and theories– starting from Newton himself and finishing Einstein with his admiration and references to the Newton’s rules.

4. Nuclear theory, Thermodynamics, Hydraulics, air dynamics, Dynamics of liquid and gases, Materials, Metals, Pharmaceutical science, Medicine, Genetics produced everything using Newton’s rules.

5. St. Thomas Aquinas method and its variants has no other use rather than for theology, philosophy, ideology, beliefs.

6. Accordingly ToE has been having no other practical use rather than for Marxism-Leninism, Nazism, Virginia Act of 1923 and suppression of the Newton’s method you have never heard about, less ever read, - because you are not allowed.

You quoted him:

“cosmo said:

and has fundamental importance in other sciences as well.

It is no more controversial in scientific circles than gravity or electricity is.”

Believers in evolution (the key word is believe. Do you believe in evolution?) as well as the founder of evolution Darwin have logic of 3rd graders. They do not understand if A=B and B=C then A=C.

That is above their comprehension.

If gravity or electricity are sciences in ecco’s view then ToE has fundamental importance in them in ecco’s view.

As to your need to express your hatred toward the crucified and God which is the expression of the word and meaning of good, it is obvious that you don’t give rats about science or anything else except this need of yours.

Where do you see me referring to the crucified in my 6 sentences above?

 

Why do you call us anti evolution instead of creationists?

 

Likely because many refuse to admit they are creationists for whatever reason and prefer to instead be seen as simply ignorant and argumentative. I had asked many times for the alternate explanation they would propose and remain unanswered.

 

Abiogenesis isn't the leading theory anymore and in any case it was just a theory and is as magical and requires as much faith as I.D.

 

1. My post was pointing out that Evolution does NOT depend on what the Origin of Life was.
NO rebuttal

2. Why don't you tell us what IS "the leading theory" that has replaced abiogenesis?
LOFL

3. 'Theory' in science is NOT just conjecture.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.
[......]
​

4. Sqoooosh!
+

 

wow. Just wow.

So, you know nothing about medicine, either.

 

There are many abiogenesis hypotheses. Many. None have yet become a scientific theory. Some of the hypotheses currently have a higher probability of being correct than others. There is nothing magical about abiogenesis scientific research. The scientists doing the hard work investigating, testing and evaluating the various abiogenesis hypotheses do not utilize faith in their work.

After all this time, you still don't get it. You are infected with Willful Ignorance Syndrome.

 

Just making sure I understand you here. Your claim is that physics, chemistry, and genetics "have no use of the logic and absolutely no use of any kind of evidence?" Or is this plural "which" a mistake?

 

Genesis 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Or

In the memory or peoples is a time when extraterrestrial aliens came and interacted with "people".
Teaching lessons. Changing the genome.

 

You understood me correctly.

I inform the general public that physics, chemistry, and genetics have absolutely no use of any kind of evidence, whether "metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical", and that physics, chemistry, and genetics have absolutely no use of any logic based on any evidence.

I also can inform the public that it is not anything I invented or I have thought out myself.

These are the rules I have not invented but have learned.

The words in the quote are not mine.