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

There us no inherent materialism in scientific theories. Metaphysics and science are not necessarily tied together. I don't know why you assume they are. Science, religion, and philosophy have different aims. Science aim to quantify or explain observable processes. Religion aims to provide guidance to their followers and explain their belief systems, most of which are transcendental in nature. Philosophy is more general than science and tries to explain both of what religion and science explains.

Your disagreement with materialism is with a part of philosophy called metaphysics. Science only attempts to explain observable processes; thus, it will only explain the materialism aspects of the world. Unlike materialism, science does not explicitly assume everything is observable. Thus, claiming theory of evolution assumes this is wrong.

 

Perhaps you should learn the difference between empiricism and the philosophy of science instead of attempting to misrepresent Newton, let alone Aquinas.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

 

You should learn to address words and statements you quote instead of sending to google..

 

Oh? I just did. You obviously conflate aquinas'empiricism with the philosophy of science. It isn't even a nuanced difference.

As for Newton, your misrepresentation of his personal philosophy of science simply adds confusion to that conflation.

I do get that obfuscation is necessary to question scientific conclusions that run counter to one's faith in whatever religous dogma.

 

Where did I ever mentioned the philosophy of science the more separated it from any other philosophy?

Nowhere.

Nohow.

What is Newton's personal philosophy of science?

Newton's law are his personal philosophy?

What we call classical mechanics is his personal philosophy?

What religious dogma?

Can you point to it in the text you quoted?

You have just exhibited paranoia of a religious fanatic toward everything which may be beyond his narrow, short sighted view and knowledge.

 

I see you are in command of the well worn rhetorical dodge of demanding increasingly detailed responses to avoid direct response.

I guess supposedly adamant perspectives supported by sophistic misrepresentation requires such facility.

I see projection is also part of your "intellectual" arsenal.

 

Hello Inquisitor. This thread is of course open to any discussion and I have no issue with anyone going "off topic". Though out of curiosity, would you be able to provide for the ones posting here, scientific evidence for your beliefs on human origin? I am sure if evolution lacks credibility, there must be more credible evidence elswhere.

 

Hello ESTT,

would please read the post:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-5#post-1067675675

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.

But read it all, please

There is no such thing as scientific evidence.

Evidence is valid for personal beliefs, ideology, religion, but it has no place and no value in natural sciences.

 

n

Wasn't it Crick who concluded that life could not have originated and evolved here completely but was seeded from off planet? Seems like he thought there was not enough time for the mathematical impracticality of the complexity of DNA originating here.

 

Yes for reality has many mystical appearing qualities going on with it. For instance, in the parts and mechanics of an atom, there is energy and information. Information equals the tooth fairy.

 

Not at all. Crick pushed a Darwin day in England. Here are some quotes from his wiki page:

Crick was a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."[88] Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.[89]

In Crick’s view, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, revealed the secret of life.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick

 

Inquistor doesn't listen. I pointed this out to him a year ago, and he just ignores it. Much of Newtons work was based on observation and he even explained some cursory and basic concepts for the relativity that was later developed by Einstein and others.

 

It is very weak unless you link.

You cannot point to anything because you have no clue.

You don't even have a clue what you just have said.

As a year ago and as today I demonstrate the only one thing: believers in evolution cannot understand less answer most simple questions.

Now I am to demonstrate that believers in evolution cannot understand even the words they are typing:


Much is what?

90%?

51%?

on observation of what?

I will not ask you where and how Newton explained "some cursory and basic concepts for the relativity", because your inability to answer the questions above
already proves that you cannot understand what you type.

 

P.S.

Believers in evolution have never read Aquinas, believers in evolution have never read Newton, believers in evolution have never read Einstein’s TOR, believers in evolution have never read both Darwin’s books on evolution, believers in evolution don’t even know the names of the books.

But they form a crowd to argue with one standing alone guy who did.

The crowd is called "overwhelming majority of the scientific community".

And all overwhelming majorities of the scientific community have is their blind belief and their hatred to the nailed to the wood, fed with vinegar under the burning sun, betrayed and whipped, and still loving them God of that standing alone guy.

Funny.

 

Quibbling over an exact percentage is quite a deflection:
This program, for at least one force, is carried out in Book III of the Principia wherein Newton claims to establish the law of universal gravity primarily from Keplerian features of planetary and lunar motion and then to derive from this force the tides, the shape of the earth, the precession of the equinoxes, lunar anomalies and other phenomena.
Law of universal gravity based on observation.
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/isaac-newto...ta-into-evidence-about-gravity-and-cosmology/

I can continue and find more links for you, but you don't really care.

And since you are deflecting with insults here is an layman's explanation of newtonian relativity:
https://skullsinthestars.com/2008/02/19/relativity-newtonian-relativity/

Same old inquistor. Stubborn, rude and wrong as usual.

 

I would be interested is reviewing evidence that supports the assumption that evolution is false.

 

I said:

As a year ago and as today I demonstrate the only one thing: believers in evolution cannot understand less answer most simple questions.

Now I am to demonstrate that believers in evolution cannot understand even the words they are typing.

Repeating your words and simplest questions:


Much is what?

90%?

51%?

on observation of what?

I will not ask you where and how Newton explained "some cursory and basic concepts for the relativity", because your inability to answer the questions above
already proves that you cannot understand what you type.

 

It is 78.1 percent.

 

There can be anything supporting an assumption, by the definition of assumption.

There can be anything supporting the assumption that evolution is false.


There can be anything supporting the assumption that evolution is true.

 

Can you please provide a quote of Newton's words and decode your way of coming to the number.

I guess you are coming to an agreement with me that it is funny.

You don't have to be the clown.

Unless it is your original intention and it is the state of your soul, I am sorry , of your mind, I am sorry - your belief is that you don't have such, so I have to rephrase - unless it is the state of your feelings below your belly.

Do you have any other feelings to share with the public here?

 

You really don't understand what an assumption is. In the general linear model (GLM), there is an assumption the the variables are normally distributed. As evidence that this assumption is true, I make qqplots and check them for deviations. Here is the code in R to do this.
https://biologyforfun.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/checking-glm-model-assumptions-in-r/

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Well, you seem to not read links or posts. You get stuck on dumb and unimportant questions. For example, you claim that Newton's work is based purely on deduction. I countered and said much is based on observation and provide a quote with a link. You freak out and demand to define an inexact adkjective to an exact percentage. This is your obvious attempt to derail the discussion that shows you were wrong again. Here is the same evidence:
This program, for at least one force, is carried out in Book III of the Principia wherein Newton claims to establish the law of universal gravity primarily from Keplerian features of planetary and lunar motion and then to derive from this force the tides, the shape of the earth, the precession of the equinoxes, lunar anomalies and other phenomena.
Law of universal gravity based on observation.
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/isaac-newto...ta-into-evidence-about-gravity-and-cosmology/

I only need this one piece to prove you wrong. Deal with it.

 

Right here:
This program, for at least one force, is carried out in Book III of the Principia wherein Newton claims to establish the law of universal gravity primarily from Keplerian features of planetary and lunar motion and then to derive from this force the tides, the shape of the earth, the precession of the equinoxes, lunar anomalies and other phenomena.
Law of universal gravity based on observation.
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/isaac-newto...ta-into-evidence-about-gravity-and-cosmology/

 

Just say "NO!" to drugs.

It amazes me to think that your post may have made sense to you when you typed it.

 

As would I. Some have pointed out the flaw of gaps in fossil records showing with 100% accuracy that species transitioned into others. A fair point. Though they have yet to show any proof of an alternative.