Blowing Up Darwin

[Hollie]

You were unaware I see that physics used to be called natural philosophy.

Physics rests atop metaphysics and metaphysics rests atop philosophy. The very claim "science can explain everything" is a philosophical statement not a scientific one.

All scientific theories, explanations predefine assumptions, axioms, things just assumed to be true.

The naive rejection of philosophy is new, very new really and espoused by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss both of whom are militant atheists, these men believe in scientism as you seem to.

You are unaware, I see, that philosophy is not a utility that proceeds along the avenipue of the Scientific Method. Militant ID’iot creationers like yourself and dregs from the Disco’tute tute such as Steven Meyer, are dismissed as fringe loons by those with actual science degrees and who do actual research.

 

[Hollie]

Magic is actually learned. It has nothing to do with science. Magic does not strive to explain. Science does strive to explain. We have several posters who hate to explain. But they love to pretend they do.

Take for instance this woman who is a super fast clothing changer.

As you get your science from silly YouTube videos, I’ll require you troll YouTube and post something about making an elephant disappear.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You are unaware, I see, that philosophy is not a utility that proceeds along the avenipue of the Scientific Method. Militant ID’iot creationers like yourself and dregs from the Disco’tute tute such as Steven Meyer, are dismissed as fringe loons by those with actual science degrees and who do actual research.

Well now you speak of "utility" and unless we define that you cannot really argue that philosophy has no utility. If it had absolutely no utility people would not study it or discuss it or write books about it.

Does surreal art have utility? does this music have utility?

 

[Robert W]

A cowardly sidestep. Your claim was that “The belief that the universe was designed i.e. ID was the norm for scientists until quite recently.”.

What you cut and pasted was an undated, unsourced, snippet that does nothing to support your claim.

Hollie is not here to learn from any of us. She operates as the ultimate knower of all facts arising from the study of the creation of life. I told the forum they would profit reading the Cradle of Life by professor Schopf. It is a marvelous book that studies and explains some mysteries of the creation of life.

I did not mention this before but he details the elements needed for life. It can be called CHON AND AT TIMES WITH S along with P.

AI Overview
Learn more

In The Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils, William Schopf discusses the elements that are essential for life. The book explores the origins of life on Earth and how scientists have discovered them.

Elements needed for life

• Carbon: An important element in living organisms
• Hydrogen: A building block of life
• Nitrogen: A building block of life
• Oxygen: A building block of life
• Phosphorus: A building block of life
• Sulfur: A building block of life

These elements are often referred to by the acronym CHNOPS. They are used to create DNA, proteins, and other essential molecules.

 

[Hollie]

It is a source, in the sense you too can visit it, it does not come simply from me but others, it's not just my opinion but the opinion of others.

Just do this, type this text into Google's search engine "did scientists used to believe the universe was designed"

View attachment 1054619

You can dispute the source, even reject it out of hand and I really don't care, but it is a source and that's what I was asked to provide.

There is nothing to dispute regarding an undated, unsourced, cut and pasted paragraph. Is that something you stole from Harun Yahya?

That would explain your cutting and pasting of What you can’t defend.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everybody here would do well to listen to at least the first few minutes of this famous debate. Neither side disparages the other, neither side attacks the personality or character of the other. This is how true intellectuals discuss things. Both are recognized experts and scholars of philosophy.

Those of us who are mathematically inclined might consider Pascal’s wager, as it applies to God’s existence, and, therefore, to an afterlife.

Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).” Pascal's wager - Wikipedia



And Voltaire’s argument for society being religious:

Voltaire (1694-1778), a passionate atheist and the godfather of the aggressively secular French Enlightenment, acknowledged:
“I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, and even my wife to believe in God because it means that I shall be cheated, and robbed, and cuckolded less often. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Voltaire, God and Human Beings, 1769.



Don’t forget….like Santa, He knows if you’ve been bad or good….so be good for goodness sake!
Perhaps that's the reason for the antagonism......fear.

 

[Hollie]

Well now you speak of "utility" and unless we define that you cannot really argue that philosophy has no utility. If it had no utility people would not study it or discuss it or write books about it.

Well now, it’s clear you need to defend philosophy in your appeals to magic and supernaturalism because you can’t use science to defend religious extremism or ID’iot creationerism.

 

[Robert W]

As you get your science from silly YouTube videos, I’ll require you troll YouTube and post something about making an elephant disappear.

I am not attached as you are to a single source of data. I might first check with David Copperfield who on TV appeared to make the Statue of Liberty to vanish. That is better than any elephant.

The Magic of David Copperfield V: The Statue of Liberty Disappears
The Americans episode (season 4, episode 8)

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've not seen this particular book before so thanks and it looks very interesting. I have read this one however:

View attachment 1054584

The comments from experts to is quite revealing:

View attachment 1054586

Blurbs | Darwin's Doubt

darwinsdoubt.com

• provide the interview of Meyer by Piers Morgan…..and my notes from that interview. Meyer provides FACTS. Put aside the Democrat/Liberal/Marxist anti-religion propaganda, and focus on the science that demolishes Darwin’s Theory.
• 
  
• 
  
• Tucker Carlson, on Joe Rogan: “Evolution as articulated by Darwin is kinda not true. There is no evidence for it….if all life originated from a single organism, there would be a fossil record of that….and there is not.”
• • Meyer: “Here in London, 2016, there was a conference held by the most august scientific society, the Royal Society, a group of evolutionary biologists, are dissatisfied with Darwin’s method of evolutionary change, natural selection and random mutation …lacks the creative power to generate major changes in life.”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, how do you know those people did not experience that?

The same way we know evolution is a fact. So you're kind of wasting my time.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hollie is not here to learn from any of us. She operates as the ultimate knower of all facts arising from the study of the creation of life. I told the forum they would profit reading the Cradle of Life by professor Schopf. It is a marvelous book that studies and explains some mysteries of the creation of life.

I did not mention this before but he details the elements needed for life. It can be called CHON AND AT TIMES WITH S along with P.

AI Overview
Learn more

In The Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils, William Schopf discusses the elements that are essential for life. The book explores the origins of life on Earth and how scientists have discovered them.

Elements needed for life

• Carbon: An important element in living organisms
• Hydrogen: A building block of life
• Nitrogen: A building block of life
• Oxygen: A building block of life
• Phosphorus: A building block of life
• Sulfur: A building block of life

These elements are often referred to by the acronym CHNOPS. They are used to create DNA, proteins, and other essential molecules.

Ha, very true, I recall that in school studying organic chemistry a friend and I memorized that as "CHONSP" !!

 

[Robert W]

Those of us who are mathematically inclined might consider Pascal’s wager, as it applies to God’s existence, and, therefore, to an afterlife.

Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).” Pascal's wager - Wikipedia



And Voltaire’s argument for society being religious:

Voltaire (1694-1778), a passionate atheist and the godfather of the aggressively secular French Enlightenment, acknowledged:
“I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, and even my wife to believe in God because it means that I shall be cheated, and robbed, and cuckolded less often. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Voltaire, God and Human Beings, 1769.



Don’t forget….like Santa, He knows if you’ve been bad or good….so be good for goodness sake!
Perhaps that's the reason for the antagonism......fear.

As a lot of scientists believe, what you explained has only gains and absolutely no losses.

IF the Atheist is correct, his guide to immorality is gone!!!

If the believer in GOD is correct, his believe results in a vast array of positives.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well now, it’s clear you need to defend philosophy in your appeals to magic and supernaturalism because you can’t use science to defend religious extremism or ID’iot creationerism.

For the second time, does this have utility, why are you reticent to answer this question when you claim to know about utility?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So no idea, so it could be 0% thanks.

Could be. Probably not. For the reasons mentioned.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those of us who are mathematically inclined might consider Pascal’s wager, as it applies to God’s existence, and, therefore, to an afterlife.

Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).” Pascal's wager - Wikipedia



And Voltaire’s argument for society being religious:

Voltaire (1694-1778), a passionate atheist and the godfather of the aggressively secular French Enlightenment, acknowledged:
“I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, and even my wife to believe in God because it means that I shall be cheated, and robbed, and cuckolded less often. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Voltaire, God and Human Beings, 1769.



Don’t forget….like Santa, He knows if you’ve been bad or good….so be good for goodness sake!
Perhaps that's the reason for the antagonism......fear.

Pascal's wager is of course nonsense.

It can be turned right around.

 

[Hollie]

Does this have utility, why are you reticent to answer this question?

Nothing to do with your claims to gods, demons, supernatural realms or science.

 

[Robert W]

The same way we know evolution is a fact. So you're kind of wasting my time.

Evolution is not the study of how life started out. It studies only the beliefs that things changed to what we now know changes. It is not related to the study of GOD since it does not even address that part.

Let's assume for sake of argument that due to what you teach, your family will simply get a plot of land to exist at until they all rot.

What we hand to you is the chance they can have everlasting life. If they accept your teaching, our teaching tells you they will vanish as does clay when the soil get very wet over a long time. Examples of the clay I speak of check what happens at the end of the Mississippi River in the delta.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie is not here to learn from any of us. She operates as the ultimate knower of all facts arising from the study of the creation of life. I told the forum they would profit reading the Cradle of Life by professor Schopf. It is a marvelous book that studies and explains some mysteries of the creation of life.

I did not mention this before but he details the elements needed for life. It can be called CHON AND AT TIMES WITH S along with P.

AI Overview
Learn more

In The Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils, William Schopf discusses the elements that are essential for life. The book explores the origins of life on Earth and how scientists have discovered them.

Elements needed for life

• Carbon: An important element in living organisms
• Hydrogen: A building block of life
• Nitrogen: A building block of life
• Oxygen: A building block of life
• Phosphorus: A building block of life
• Sulfur: A building block of life

These elements are often referred to by the acronym CHNOPS. They are used to create DNA, proteins, and other essential molecules.

I’m not here to learn about your nonsense claims about spirit realms, Supernatural entities and unverified claims. You want to scare people with your angry gods and threats of hells and eternal torment.

Do that elsewhere.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is not the study of how life started out.

Nobody claimed otherwise.

Red herring.

We know what was described in that verse is not possible.

You say it is, because magic!

I have no use for that nonsense, sorry. Don't waste my time.

It also implies geocentricity, which is expected, given the myths were made up by iron age people who didn't know any better.

 

[Robert W]

Pascal's wager is of course nonsense.

It can be turned right around.

Can you teach humans have a chance to obtain eternal life?
No, you will not. You teach humans they all end up rotted with bones left over for archeologists to later discover should they bother seeking the bones.