Is science being divided?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Well yes. If there is nothing to see, what are you investigating?

Please, note that it is only after investigation that one can justifiably conclude that there was nothing to see! As I was saying, science is the experimentation and observation of the natural world. And in the case of Darwinism, after scientific investigation, the scientists concluded that there was "nothing to see" (as you say)! That is why Darwinism was rightly concluded not to be scientific.

I see. So Newton's law of universal gravitation is not science, because it is contradicted by observation and experience of the natural world.

Wikipedia has something interesting on that and which, in my judgement, points in the correct direction. Here is it:

• Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... ravitation

Now it is true that Newton's law of gravitation provides an excellent approximation because there is much corroborating empirical evidence even though there are also contradicting empirical evidence. But in the case of the claims of Darwinism, which claims that one species can become another, there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsover to show that one species has become another. If you or someone else can show me that one species was observed to have become another through an experiment or observation of the natural world, then I will accept that it too is a good approximation! But since the time of Darwin, including Darwin himself, no one has ever been able to do that!

___________

True, but science is not in the business of proof. The fossil record is evidence that supports an hypothesis.

I agree that the fossil record is evidence for the hypothesis that there once lived on earth animals with the structure as suggested by these fossils. But the fossil record is not evidence of Darwinism. Now Darwin himself was in possession of fossil record in his time already. Nonetheless, he himself already understood that the fossil record was not scientific evidence for his speculations.

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 18 June 1857:

• It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.

Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-2109.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 29 November 1857:

• What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.

Complete letter: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter ... -2176.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Cuthbert Collingwood on the 14th March 1861:

• But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution.

Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-3088.xml

Moreover many modern biologists have expressed similar views about the fossil record not being evidence of Darwinism. For example Dr Micheal Denton who is a biochemist and geneticist wrote on this in a critical essay on evolution in 2015. He had this to say:

Dr Denton wrote:

• IN Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Evolution), published in 1985, I argued that the biological realm is fundamentally discontinuous. The major taxa-defining innovations in the history of life have not been derived from ancestral forms by functional intermediates. This is the view that Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson defended in On Growth and Form:
  
  • In short nature proceeds “from one type to another” [emphasis added] among organic as well as inorganic forms; and these types vary according to their own parameters, and are defined by physical-mathematical conditions of possibility. In natural history Cuvier’s “types” may not be perfectly chosen nor numerous enough but “types” they are; and to seek for stepping stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.
  The contrary view remained predominant among evolutionary biologists until, at least, the 1980s, and remains predominant as the view offered the public today.
  
  There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations.
  
  This was my position in Evolution.
  
  It remains my position today.

Site: http://inference-review.com/article/evo ... d-part-one
_________

Well, by calling fossils, "fossilized remains", you are already making an hypothesis that cannot be supported by evidence. There is no example of a scientist observing the remains of a creature turning into a fossil over 60 million years.

As I already said, the “millions and/or billions of years” of age is pure speculation and utterly unscientific. These are only claims which cannot be backed by any reliable scientific evidence. When I mentioned “fossilized remains”, I never mentioned any date whatsoever. A fossil can be recognized by its actual structural and chemical properties.

__________________

You really need to understand the difference between proof and evidence.

Alright. Let us understand this difference then.

There are in fact different possible interpretations of the relationship between proof and evidence.



1. In law for example, proof is defined as convincing evidence.

From a legal dictionary we can read the following:

• In law a proof is the conviction or persuasion of the mind of a judge or jury, by the exhibition of evidence, of the reality of a fact alleged: as, to prove, is to determine or persuade that a thing does or does not exist.

Reference:https://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p184.htm

In law proof is merely the subjective appreciation/judgment of the judge or jury who is to be convinced of a given evidence or not. In law, if an evidence or a set of evidence convinces the judge or jury then it amounts to proof. Otherwise it does not amount to proof. So in law, either evidence is proof or evidence is not proof. I call this a binary logical system of evidence. Therefore, in law all proof is evidence but not all evidence is proof.



2. In science, however, no amount of corroborating empirical evidence of a scientific theory can amount to proof of that theory. Popper explains that a scientific theory can never be confirmed by observation, it can only be corroborated, while the possibility of it being falsified in the future remains open. Therefore, all knowledge in science is tentative knowledge. In science no evidence or set thereof is proof. I call this a unary logical system of evidence.



3. There is also a third possibility. This is what I call a probabilistic interpretation of proof and evidence, under a Bayesian interpretation of probability.

From Wikipedia, we can read on Bayesian probability:

• Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.
  
  Bayesian probability belongs to the category of evidential probabilities; to evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated to a posterior probability in the light of new, relevant data (evidence). The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
  

So in this approach, it can be construed as quantifying over the level/degree of conviction that an evidence or a set of evidence gives. Each evidence is interpreted as convincing to a certain degree. Here instead of the binary concept of proof and evidence as in law, and the unary concept as in science, there is here a multi-ary (or n-ary) concept of proof and evidence. Some evidence will amount to weak proof and others will amount to strong proof.

So, here, we quantify over the level of conviction that a given piece of evidence confers. Let H refer to a hypothesis, and E refer to an evidence or a set of evidence, then P(H/E) is the conviction that one has in hypothesis H given one has evidence E. P(H/E) is a value which ranges between 0 and 1, i.e., 0 ≤ P(H/E) ≤1, where ‘0’ means no conviction at all and ‘1’ means complete conviction. Between these two extremes there are an infinite number of possibilities. The interval [0,1] can also be quantized into n equal levels and thus giving rise to n-ary logic. A binary logical system as in law corresponds to n=2. And a unary logical system as in science corresponds to n=1.

Therefore, under this interpretation all evidence amounts to proof. An evidence which gives a very small value for P(H/E) will be a weak proof and hence the evidence also will be called weak. So, in a nutshell, a weak evidence will correspond to a weak proof and a strong evidence corresponds to a strong proof. Under this interpretation all evidence is proof and all proof is evidence. If an evidence E does not amount to proof (e.g. P(H/E)=0) then it is not evidence for hypothesis H. David Hume and his commentator Lorkowsky vaguely alluded to this possibility in their writings, but of course not anywhere as detailed as the original account that I present here.

It is up to the individual now, whenever he or she has the opportunity to exercise his freedom of conscience to choose one of these possibilities to incorporate in his or her semantics. I would not find it wise if someone were to unwarrantedly impose his/her semantics on me!
_________________

It would probably help if you could first understand the difference between 'synonymous' and 'means exactly the same as'.

It all depends on one’s philosophy/semantics. If one were to adopt the legal semantics then they would be near synonyms and they would not mean exactly the same. If one were to adopt the scientific semantics, they would not even be synonymous! But on a probabilistic interpretation, they would be exact synonyms.

There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' dickwad. Darwin discovered how evolution worked. You don't go around calling gravity 'Newtonism' do you? Calling it 'Darwinism' is just a religio-fuck ploy to make it sound like some bullshit religious belief system.
Go fuck yourself.

Not worth sticking your head in the oven over this.

PhilX

[Averroes]

...the definition of science that I used is that of mainstream science as attested by the common English dictionaries and the practicing scientists themselves! Even Darwin accepted the mainstream definition of science that I used!!! And even Darwin found that his theory was not scientific by the mainstream standard of scientific inquiry.

None of which has any bearing on whether Darwin was right.

Actually, I am saying that Darwin was in fact right when he said numerous times that his speculations(i.e. theories) were not "true science" because as he clearly stated out, he could not show any one species ever becoming another. Here are the quotes again;

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 18 June 1857:

• It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.

Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-2109.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 29 November 1857:

• What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.

Complete letter: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter ... -2176.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Cuthbert Collingwood on the 14th March 1861:

• But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution.

Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-3088.xml

And now 160 years after the Origin of Species, still no species have ever been observed to have become another. This is crystal clear for me that Darwin was right when he said his speculations were not scientific. I am actually agreeing with Darwin here! Don't you agree with Darwin? You congratulated me for being Darwinian before when I was disagreeing with Darwin. Now that I am finally agreeing with Darwin when he said his theory is not true science, wouldn't you congratulate me again? It would be more appropriate now!
______________

So if Darwinism is to amount to science in accordance with your own definition, then it must be a coherent explanation of phenomenal data...

And here is what I said in response:

You response was inadequate as I already pointed out to you. For example you say:

If you do not accept that creatures evolve into different species,

As I said if you or someone else were to provide empirical evidence for one species being observed to have become another though adaptation then I would have no choice but to accept the theory of Darwin. This can be settled very easily in your favor if you were to bring me that empirical evidence. Why don’t you show me the empirical evidence for one species being observed to becoming another species? You must be having that empirical observation, otherwise you would not be believing it, right? Don’t tell me you believe that one species can become another without ever having observed this for yourselves??? If the latter is the case, then I think that Darwinism is more appropriately qualified as a cult rather than as science. And this would mean that those who speculate darwinically are Darwinian theologians! As it is a cult, then we should not be having this discussion on this section of the forum, rather the philosophy of religion section of the forum would be more appropriate for such kind of discussion!
_____________

What knowledge and guidance does "God, the Almighty" give in regard to the fossil record?

This is a very good question, but alas this section of the forum is not appropriate for you to be asking that question to me and thus I cannot reply to it here. However, I invite you to visit my philosophy forum where I have replied to this question of yours. Here is the link to the answer:http://philosophyforum.aba.ae/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=362

[Averroes]

There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' *******. Darwin discovered how evolution worked. You don't go around calling gravity 'Newtonism' do you? Calling it 'Darwinism' is just a ************ ploy to make it sound like some bullshit religious belief system.
Go **** yourself.

It clearly seems to me that you are getting angry quite unnecessarily. As I already demonstrated to you before, this kind of response is not effective in philosophy, and it also does not have a lasting effect. For anger clouds our judgment and when the smoke clears out, the stupidity stands out! And the latter when exposed has a more lasting effect! Let me repeat the demonstration!

As a matter of fact if you had not resorted to anger but instead taken the time to verify the words ‘Darwinism’ and ‘Newtonianism’, you would have undoubtedly found entries in all the common English dictionaries! Indeed these are English words in current usage nowadays!

Here are some references for you to verify for yourself.

Darwinism: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors. [Merriam-Webster]
Reference: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Darwinism

Darwinism: The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin. [Oxford dictionaries]
Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/darwinism

Newtonianism: the doctrine of the universe as expounded in Newton's Principia; especially : Newton's mathematical theory of universal gravitation. [Merriam-Webster]
Reference: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Newtonianism

Newtonianism: The Newtonian system of physics; (in extended use) a philosophical approach based on that of Newton, or formed by analogy with his system of physics, typically emphasizing the role of laws and predictable order in the universe, and of experiment and observation in the discovery of truth. [Oxford dictionaries]
Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... wtonianism


Now, I find it quite appropriate that you have provided the additional example of Newtonianism with respect to being used in a pejorative sense analogous to the use of the word Darwinism! Let me explain that because it is not obvious to the layperson in science. I have already touched on that though on this thread itself but now I will go into a bit more detail so far as you will be able to understand hopefully!

Indeed the law of gravitation of Newton has now been superseded by the General Relativity of Einstein. In Einstein General Relativity, Newtonian gravity is relegated to being merely a fictitious force and this phenomenon is in fact now accounted for in science by the curvature of space-time.

From Wikipedia:

• Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun).

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... ravitation

From Wikipedia:

• A fictitious force (also called a pseudo force, d'Alembert force, or inertial force) is an apparent force that acts on all masses whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference, such as a rotating reference frame.
  
  The notion of "fictitious force" comes up in Einstein's general theory of relativity. All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity. See Eötvös experiment.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force


Therefore, under the paradigm of General Relativity one could refer pejoratively to gravity as Newtonianism since it is a fictitious force under General Relativity! Now, the parallel with Darwinism then stands out quite eloquently and provides a beautiful simile too! Since Darwinism too is a fictitious process as there is no corroborating empirical evidence whatsoever for one species ever becoming another through evolution! This is an interesting find from you! Good job! I wouldn't have made this relation if you had not mentioned it! Thank you for your contribution to this topic again. It was interesting to have exchanged with you!

Now, I have to advise you to remain civilize and calm in a philosophical exchange with me because a hysterical response will not benefit you at all when you exchange with me! However, this is just an advice and if you still cannot control your emotions then rest assured that it will not have any negative consequence whatsoever on me were you to get angry and hysterical in your response again!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' *******. Darwin discovered how evolution worked. You don't go around calling gravity 'Newtonism' do you? Calling it 'Darwinism' is just a ************ ploy to make it sound like some bullshit religious belief system.
Go **** yourself.

It clearly seems to me that you are getting angry quite unnecessarily. As I already demonstrated to you before, this kind of response is not effective in philosophy, and it also does not have a lasting effect. For anger clouds our judgment and when the smoke clears out, the stupidity stands out! And the latter when exposed has a more lasting effect! Let me repeat the demonstration!

As a matter of fact if you had not resorted to anger but instead taken the time to verify the words ‘Darwinism’ and ‘Newtonianism’, you would have undoubtedly found entries in all the common English dictionaries! Indeed these are English words in current usage nowadays!

Here are some references for you to verify for yourself.

Darwinism: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors. [Merriam-Webster]
Reference: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Darwinism

Darwinism: The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin. [Oxford dictionaries]
Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/darwinism

Newtonianism: the doctrine of the universe as expounded in Newton's Principia; especially : Newton's mathematical theory of universal gravitation. [Merriam-Webster]
Reference: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Newtonianism

Newtonianism: The Newtonian system of physics; (in extended use) a philosophical approach based on that of Newton, or formed by analogy with his system of physics, typically emphasizing the role of laws and predictable order in the universe, and of experiment and observation in the discovery of truth. [Oxford dictionaries]
Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... wtonianism


Now, I find it quite appropriate that you have provided the additional example of Newtonianism with respect to being used in a pejorative sense analogous to the use of the word Darwinism! Let me explain that because it is not obvious to the layperson in science. I have already touched on that though on this thread itself but now I will go into a bit more detail so far as you will be able to understand hopefully!

Indeed the law of gravitation of Newton has now been superseded by the General Relativity of Einstein. In Einstein General Relativity, Newtonian gravity is relegated to being merely a fictitious force and this phenomenon is in fact now accounted for in science by the curvature of space-time.

From Wikipedia:

• Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the Sun).

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... ravitation

From Wikipedia:

• A fictitious force (also called a pseudo force, d'Alembert force, or inertial force) is an apparent force that acts on all masses whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference, such as a rotating reference frame.
  
  The notion of "fictitious force" comes up in Einstein's general theory of relativity. All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity. See Eötvös experiment.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force


Therefore, under the paradigm of General Relativity one could refer pejoratively to gravity as Newtonianism since it is a fictitious force under General Relativity! Now, the parallel with Darwinism then stands out quite eloquently and provides a beautiful simile too! Since Darwinism too is a fictitious process as there is no corroborating empirical evidence whatsoever for one species ever becoming another through evolution! This is an interesting find from you! Good job! I wouldn't have made this relation if you had not mentioned it! Thank you for your contribution to this topic again. It was interesting to have exchanged with you!

Now, I have to advise you to remain civilize and calm in a philosophical exchange with me because a hysterical response will not benefit you at all when you exchange with me! However, this is just an advice and if you still cannot control your emotions then rest assured that it will not have any negative consequence whatsoever on me were you to get angry and hysterical in your response again!

Umm, exactly what do you expect to see? A fish giving birth to a stoat? I think I've already gone over this with you! Species is simply a convenient (but artificial) way of separating different groups of organisms. All living organisms are made up of the same handful of chemicals. Imagine an alien who can view the cells that make up organisms, or the DNA in those cells. He isn't going to see 'species'. What it boils down to chuck, is that after a billion or so years you are going to have an organism that looks completely different from the way it looked millions or billions of years ago! Call it a different 'species' if you want to, or call it the same organism that has experienced lots and lots and lots and lots of gene mutations (as one would expect to happen over millions or billions of years)!! By the way! Since you don't 'believe' in gradual change, then you are doing extremely well, communicating on this site using only a primitive adding machine from your cave!

As a matter of fact no one can control their emotions! Some people just don't have any emotions!

[uwot]

Actually, I am saying that Darwin was in fact right.

I knew you'd see sense in the end.

I invite you to visit my philosophy forum where I have replied to this question of yours. Here is the link to the answer:http://philosophyforum.aba.ae/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=362

Good luck with your forum.

[-1-]

There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' dickwad. Darwin discovered how evolution worked. You don't go around calling gravity 'Newtonism' do you? Calling it 'Darwinism' is just a religio-fuck ploy to make it sound like some bullshit religious belief system.
Go fuck yourself.

Marxism-Leninism
Trotskyism
Aphorism
Jism

Marx and Lenin did nothing more than discover the intricacies of social and economic movements.
Trotsky did nothing more than discover the intricacies of hatchet movements.
Aphor did nothing more than discover the intricacies of Aph.
J did nothing more than discovered the ... whatever.

There is no evil calling a natural event or place after its discoverer. Mount Everest, the Magellan Straight, the Bering Straight, The MacKenzie River, Zabriskie Point, America, Columbia, British Columbia, Villa Colombo, District of Colombia, degrees of Fahrenheit, volts, Faradays, Kiloparats, Coulombs, Clitoral Orgasms, Bolivars, Newtons (!), Joules, etc. etc.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' dickwad. Darwin discovered how evolution worked. You don't go around calling gravity 'Newtonism' do you? Calling it 'Darwinism' is just a religio-fuck ploy to make it sound like some bullshit religious belief system.
Go fuck yourself.

Marxism-Leninism
Trotskyism
Aphorism
Jism

Marx and Lenin did nothing more than discover the intricacies of social and economic movements.
Trotsky did nothing more than discover the intricacies of hatchet movements.
Aphor did nothing more than discover the intricacies of Aph.
J did nothing more than discovered the ... whatever.

There is no evil calling a natural event or place after its discoverer. Mount Everest, the Magellan Straight, the Bering Straight, The MacKenzie River, Zabriskie Point, America, Columbia, British Columbia, Villa Colombo, District of Colombia, degrees of Fahrenheit, volts, Faradays, Kiloparats, Coulombs, Clitoral Orgasms, Bolivars, Newtons (!), Joules, etc. etc.

Not the same at all. Not even similar.

[Arising_uk]

... However, I invite you to visit my philosophy forum where I have replied to this question of yours. Here is the link to the answer:http://philosophyforum.aba.ae/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=362

I see you're posting that hoax about giant humans. The picture you show purporting to show a 'Swiss 'museum' displaying the skeleton of a giant human is in fact a fake giant skeleton made for Erich von Däniken’s Mystery Park ancient astronaut theme park in Interlaken, Switzerland. So essentially your answer is that you are a creationist godbotherer who gleans his 'facts' from other creationist godbotherers on the interweeb.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

This is a very good question, but alas this section of the forum is not appropriate for you to be asking that question to me and thus I cannot reply to it here. However, I invite you to visit my philosophy forum where I have replied to this question of yours. Here is the link to the answer:http://philosophyforum.aba.ae/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=362

That is single handedly, the most pathetic thing I've ever seen posted on here; Creating an entire forum to reply to a comment, shamelessly advertising it, and then acting as though you're actually going to draw in people who would have a respectful conversation with you.

Muhammad is definitely face-palming you, right now.

[QuantumT]

That is single handedly, the most pathetic thing I've ever seen posted on here; Creating an entire forum to reply to a comment, shamelessly advertising it, and then acting as though you're actually going to draw in people who would have a respectful conversation with you.

Muhammad is definitely face-palming you, right now.

I said it weeks ago. Nobody believed me. He's here to derail valid discussions to further his islamic faith.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I think most of the people are only here to further their own beliefs. That appears to be my impression the more threads I see on this forum. There are still quite a few good, reasonable users around here, though.

[QuantumT]

I do my best to stay within subject, and to stay within science, unless the subject allows one to go further.

[-1-]

That is single handedly, the most pathetic thing I've ever seen posted on here; Creating an entire forum to reply to a comment, shamelessly advertising it, and then acting as though you're actually going to draw in people who would have a respectful conversation with you.

Muhammad is definitely face-palming you, right now.

I said it weeks ago. Nobody believed me. He's here to derail valid discussions to further his islamic faith.

And Averro does it by not believing anyone that "proof" and "evidence" are distinct, different concepts. He is quite adamant that they are the same, and he built his entire argument around that. Then he tenaciously stuck to that "fact" and Muhammad himself could not argue him away from sticking to it.

The guy is a bone-headed hijab, hajib, hajji, whatever. Not worth the breath of a man. I put him on my foe list back some time ago. My life took a turn to an immediate improvement with that.

He reminds me a of a kid in kindergarten, who clutches on to the ball they play with, and won't have any other kid touch it -- the idea being that the kid fails to conceptualize that the ball is only fun if it can be shared. Avarro clutches on to a false belief like you wouldn't believe, and he fails to see that a good grasp of the language is essential to successful argumenting.

The scary thing is that there are like one or two billion of them. Complete bone-heads who are incomplete in their mental make-up.

I never knew Muslims had posed such a huge threat to logical thinking until I met Avarro here on the forums.

[-1-]

There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' dickwad. Darwin discovered how evolution worked. You don't go around calling gravity 'Newtonism' do you? Calling it 'Darwinism' is just a religio-fuck ploy to make it sound like some bullshit religious belief system.
Go fuck yourself.

Marxism-Leninism
Trotskyism
Aphorism
Jism

Marx and Lenin did nothing more than discover the intricacies of social and economic movements.
Trotsky did nothing more than discover the intricacies of hatchet movements.
Aphor did nothing more than discover the intricacies of Aph.
J did nothing more than discovered the ... whatever.

There is no evil calling a natural event or place after its discoverer. Mount Everest, the Magellan Straight, the Bering Straight, The MacKenzie River, Zabriskie Point, America, Columbia, British Columbia, Villa Colombo, District of Colombia, degrees of Fahrenheit, volts, Faradays, Kiloparats, Coulombs, Clitoral Orgasms, Bolivars, Newtons (!), Joules, etc. etc.

Not the same at all. Not even similar.

Vegetarianism.

Vegetarianism (noun) 1. the movement of humans who believe humans should think like vegetables. 2. A lifestyle which promotes eating vegetable matters, and excluding meat from one's diet. 3. A movement advocating communications quality on the level of people being in a coma. 4. Any number of religions which dietize vegetable-gods. 5. A social movement of emancipating vegetables and giving them the right to vote and run for senate. The latter was later enacted by the seventeenth amendment (1867) to the constitution, and now by over half of the people's representatives. 6. A radical revolutionary force which aims to establish Vegetarchy.

[Averroes]

I said it weeks ago. Nobody believed me.

Why should anyone believe you on anything? Are you not the one who was propagating that all that which we consider as reality to be just a simulation on a cosmic computer intended to deceive us?!! So if it is just a simulation, then why bother believe you and take you seriously? Isn’t it all fake according to you? Or may be things have changed since I started talking about Darwinism!!!