By the way, we are still waiting for you to define "transitional species". Boy oh boy, it was so important to you to screech and wail about this...until you got asked to use your big boy words and define it. Then it's tuck tail and full retreat time....
It is YOUR job to prove a point not mine. You have not done so yet keep trying.
Well that's ass backwards wrong, and you sound like an abject moron.
That's my plan, crybaby! Define transitional species, and i will do my best to compel you that some have been found, despite your claim to the contrary (as you seem to have forgotten, it was actually your whiny ass that made this claim first).
Science starts with a guess then makes assumptions and you know it and have admitted it in the past. Yes somethings have been mostly proven but a lot has not. YET you BELIEVE.
But that is not all science does or is made of, despite your moronic claim to the contrary. Got it?
YES it is they make a guess then they make assumptions and then after a GUESS they test what they can and for most of it never prove anything. Lets start with man made climate change shhall we, NO ONE has tested the supposed theories of how man CAUSED global warming they just made assumptions and in most cases IGNORED what science actually does know. LIKE CO2 follows rises in temperature it doe snot cause them and that CO2 has a lessening effect on added hit as more is added.
Yes dummy, i literally just taught you that. You kept asking for proof, and i had to correct you. Goddamn you are one poorly behaved, ungrateful little child.
Yet you believe it, you claim because we can NOT prove God exists that he does not then say Science which you do BELIEVE doesn't prove ANYTHING either. God you are ******* stupid as shit.
Not my job it is YOUR JOB to prove it not mine dumb ass.
You scoff because you don't understand existing realms.
They call it humanism. It seems a better moral code than can be discerned from the bible if you don't cherry-pick.
Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life. You don't even have a good guess.
I do know, and have been fully persuaded by the truth I've found in the Bible.
No, you're speaking of learned standards. I'm speaking of the ingrained conscience God created in man.
Of course not, because I know full well that "discovery" would be fake news.
Hate to break this to you, but God is needed. He created man to have a relationship with Him, and anyone who turns from Him will miss out on His free GIFT of eternal life.
"Morality's weekness".....surely you jest. You have nothing to base your morality on. You have no standards.
You're pretty funny, you know that?
You certainly fight hard in denial of your Creator. ONE God. Kicking against the goads is what that's called.
U
That only tells me you are ignoring God. And that's your right.
There is a difference between being "self-entitled", and doing what is right. I certainly understand that you haven't an inkling of anything spiritual. As far as I can see, nothing will be helpful to you until you are brought to your knees by circumstances beyond your control. God is certainly able to reach you -- in spite of yourself.
"You have no (moral) standards'' is a classic Christian attempt at a slur. It's rather an odd claim as the history of Christianity depicts the most immoral acts and among the greatest cruelties to humanity.
How lucky you know with certainty what you don't know with certainty. That might otherwise be called delusional.
There's no fighting against your gods. Your preoccupation with the decisions of those who use reason and rationality to come to conclusions about existence is concerning. Its really remarkable how angry proselytizing religionists become when they can't sell their religious wares.
I might actually be ignoring your gods. Let's pretend otherwise as me ignoring your gods causes you such angst.
As to "doing what is right", I tend to be suspicious of preachy Christians who want to lecture others about what is right. There's an arrogance and a motive for doing so and I have no reason to accept lectures from hypocrites.
My saying you have no moral standard makes you mad, doesn't it?
Tell me, then, what standards do you use? Skip all the righteous indignation and answer that one question.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.
Ah, to their OWN lives. So thieves and child molesters have the right and responsibility to please themselves....making themselves their own god. There is nothing ethical about humanism. Each man sets his own standard of ethics. Yeah, that's working real well in this world today, isn't it?
Nope, see we live in a humanist society, meaning the society as a whole decides what is the correct standard of ethics. Most of us are raised in the knowledge that our actions have consequences on the world around us this means a thief and child molester is usually aware of their actions being bad. Taking responsibility for your actions also means that bad actions have bad consequences.
I also want to point out that you believe in a book that condones slavery, rape, incest, the death penalty for things like adultery, homosexuality, and disrespecting your parents. The reason you ( I assume) don't condone those things anymore is because SOCIETY, not the Bible has recognized them as harmful.
No, I realize those things pertained to the Jewish Law which had a system of sacrifices that allowed a payment for those sins to be paid. Those laws and the sacrifices went hand in hand. So if someone committed adultery, for instance, sacrifices were offered and the sin debt was paid. That was for the Jews. The rest of us (gentiles) are not under those laws, as the Apostle Paul explains in his letters.
Present day society has it's own set of laws, but my personal beliefs have nothing to do with those.
Really?
For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)
These are all passages in the NT saying that the laws in the OT still applied. You are perfectly willing the follow the OT when it comes to believing in the Great Flood, Adam and Eve, the story of Abraham. But are perfectly willing to state that as far as morality goes the laws described in the OT are invalid. Although according to the NT Jesus clearly stated the laws in the OT still applied?
Oh and immediately stop lying about what the OT said should happen to those who broke those laws.
One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death. (NRSV) — Leviticus 24:16
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (NIV) — Leviticus 20:10
Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense. (NLT) — Leviticus 20:9
You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on that day must be put to death. (NLT) — Exodus 35:2
“If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones … (NKJV) — Deuteronomy 22:13-14,20-21
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. (NIV) — Leviticus 25:44
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) — Leviticus 20:13
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV) — Timothy 2:11-12
You see any room for ambiguity here because I sure don't?
.
.
Be specific NOW and link to these TESTS and the RETEST to verify man made global warming.
(COMMENT)
.
And yet we have a whole field that never used the scientific method and there is supposedly a scientist consensus that it is true, climate change caused by man. Or perhaps YOU unlike the others I have asked can provide the tests retest and experiments used to come to this scientific consensusRE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ RetiredGySgt, et al,
BLUF:
In science, the tendency is to observable and reproducible data as evidence in acquiring knowledge that has characterized as significant to the scientific method. Through observation, employing rigorous tests and evaluations about what is observed, a step-by-step process that begins with formulating a hypothesis, via induction, based on experimentation and measurement-based testing that either support or dispute the hypotheses based.
(COMMENT)
Of course, there can be some guess-work in the beginning, but through the test and evaluation of the hypothesis will weed-out improper assumptions.
Proof in science is somewhat different then what most people think. Yes, Newton did the basic work on the forces of gravity. And in part, Newtons work was not 100% correct. But we still teach Newtonian Physics because it is a very close approximation. Just as the formulas for the circumference of a circle, or the area under a curve are very close approximations because we use irrational numbers. Much of the technology we use today was based on application of imaginary numbers.
Your concept of belief on guesswork ("very few things science claims are proven") may make sense to you, but I suggest that you look at the technology you used to convey that very hypothesis of yours. In classical philosophy, there are defects people make such as you have made here. They are generally referred to as Errors of Commission:
While you may not have all these errors, certain arguments can be made that you committed most of these errors.
✦. Inconsistency/Incoherence
•. One cannot appropriately say in one place that something affirms or entails P and in another place that it affirms or entails not-P.
✦. Implausibility/Stretching Credibility
• The motto "Credo quia absurdum" (I believe because it is absurd) may have some merit for the theologian but is improper for the philosopher.
✦. Probative Deficiency
•. Inadequate substantiation is a crucial offense.
• One’s contentions should be presented in an environment that renders them at least plausible and at best compelling.
✦. Oversimplification
•. One is the principle of rational economy: complications should pay their own way, as it were.
•. They should not be introduced save when actually needed ("Occam’s Razor").
✦. Overreaching
•. An aspect of cognitive economy is that one should not take on more than one can afford —"to bite off more than one can chew," as the saying goes.
✦. Fallacy
•. Not only must substantive considerations used to support philosophical contentions be acceptable in themselves, but the line of reasoning that proceeds from them must not be fallacious.
✦. Trivial Pursuit: Misemphasis
Now, in your defense, science has not always been correct. When I went to school, the "atom" was the smallest particle. Since that time, science has discovered a half-dozen, or so, leptons (an electron being one) and a like number of quarks (a charm being just one); and we can't forget the discovery of the bosons (and the ever-popular photon being one). Science has a self-correcting mechanism. Just like the struggle to prove that gravity can bend light took 100 years, is just one of those self-correcting actions.
I see you were in the Marine Corps. Using the displacement formula we can calculate the position ((x,y) coordinates) of an artillery projectile at any given time. This is science:
Several decades ago, I was attending the classes at the Defense Computer Institute (National Defense University) and one of my instructors was Rear Admiral (Navy Captain then) Grace Hopper. She worked on the first computers that set-up the firing tables for WWII Naval Gun Fire. All of that is a series of successive approximations that we still use today (including the USMC). When I left Baghdad, they were using this same family of computations in a computer to detect the launch of 122 Rockets (including the point of origin) at the US Embassy. It was not all that dissimilar to the counter-mortar radar in overwatch in Da Nang when I was there. Same type of technology made possible through the use of imaginary numbers and computational programs that used successive approximations. YES! There is some guesswork, but it is not approaching Implausibility or Stretching Credibility.
Most Respectfully,
R
Am I now? You, not me tried to tell me how NOT following the bible makes me immoral. You not me are trying to justify the death penalty for stuff that by todays and (hopefully your) standard is minor by stating that "oh it's not what always happened." It is YOU not me that denies what it's the Bible simply because it doesn't fit your narrative. The ten commandments consist of things like no adultery, paganism, respecting your elders etc.etc.. The Bible proper cited the punishment, SEVERE punishment for breaking those rules. Yet somehow you have the audacity to bring up morality to ME.
