"Anti-science Bills in the South"

[Shadow Wolf]

Just how do you think your brain works?

What makes that funny, is you say "social science is evidence," is social sciences do not really such answer such things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The well indoctrinated never change because they can never see through their indoctrination.

So you do see your problem. For the well indoctrinated a lack of valid evidence is not seen as a problem. Have you found any valid evidence that supports your beliefs yet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not funny? To the contrary, it's funny that you do not get that atheists, even atheist neurologists, are usually wrong. I've always known that about you. And recently, you admitted that you have nothing on your brain.

And yet you are the one that is always shown to be wrong here. How do you explain that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not funny? To the contrary, it's funny that you do not get that atheists, even atheist neurologists, are usually wrong.

Well, you're usually wrong, so what kind of blanket generalizations can we draw from that?

I've always known that about you. And recently, you admitted that you have nothing on your brain.

Atheist neurologists! Now that's funny. Brains look the same, regardless of the religious belief of the person looking at them.


You should know why creationism isn't science by now. You've already acknowledged that it's not scientific when you've admitted that there's no test for the supernatural. The rest is just a waste of everyone's time.

 

[james bond]

Wrong again, i joined RF on 3 march 2017. Whereas you joined in 2013. And as to the strawman of knowing more, i seriously doubt that.

The clue is in the title "social science" it is debatable whether social science is actually a science because of the makeup of its included subject matter. Although some aspects are studied under scientific conditions.

Without consciousness i would be a lump of inert matter. Consciousness implies life. I would have though that if you knew a little of social science you would understand that.

And then you go into strawman mode, totally irrelevant to the discussion.

BTW, i spent my working life modelling 3D environments, unless you know what you are talking about, don't

No it is not in front of my nose, what i see has a perfectly valid explanation with no godmagic involved.

Whoa is me. My bad. I'm wrong, but it's with your length of time here. What if I was perfect though? Then, I would not be wrong. You're wrong about the strawman as it's an argument that can be quickly settled ha ha. Since I have been here longer, then you should be the one to look up my claims about RF. Go fetch, Padwan.

Since you worked in 3D, then let's us know about your findings. Our brains see in 2D. Did it give you the necessary level of consciousness.

 

[james bond]

And yet you are the one that is always shown to be wrong here. How do you explain that?

And yet, I'm not the one following you all over the place on RF. It's you who is the one FOLLOWING me everywhere on these topics. You're creepy.

 

[james bond]

Well, you're usually wrong, so what kind of blanket generalizations can we draw from that?


Atheist neurologists! Now that's funny. Brains look the same, regardless of the religious belief of the person looking at them.


You should know why creationism isn't science by now. You've already acknowledged that it's not scientific when you've admitted that there's no test for the supernatural. The rest is just a waste of everyone's time.

And yet, you know nothing and continue to ask dumb questions. That's called boring AF. Why don't you actually learn something useful, so we can ask you questions?

 

[james bond]

Consciousness is a complex topic today, e.g. property dualism or state consciousness, and it involves multiple theories. It takes critical thinking to examine these theories. What it boils down to is atheist see critical thinking being applied to consciousness, but they aren't able to apply it to themselves. Thus, they seek explanations from one such as myself who, at least, understand that it's a complex subject and involves multiple theories. I have become a somewhat de facto authority on Christianity here. Yet, this critical thinking does not only imply questioning authority and commonly held views, but your own views, as well. Thus, it becomes a tiresome exercise to discuss matters with someone who cannot explain their own views in a critical manner and be asked questions of while they only take pot shots at one trying to express their views.

 

[james bond]

ChristineM brought up 3D modeling which I am interested in, specifically 2D to 3D modeling and shapes. Why not give her a stage to explain her experience and knowledge about this topic?

 

[james bond]

What makes that funny, is you say "social science is evidence," is social sciences do not really such answer such things.

I don't know if it provides all the answers, but it helps people and that's what counts in my book. We get into the psychology/psychiatry vs neurology (today's atheist side*) here on RF. Or metaphysical vs physical, too. Or did you just conveniently miss that in order to criticize "social science is evidence?"

* - Actually, neurology helps the Christian side, too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet, I'm not the one following you all over the place on RF. It's you who is the one FOLLOWING me everywhere on these topics. You're creepy.

I hardly "follow you". I post mostly on the various science verses Bible myths topics. You support myths, I support reality. We are bound to be on different sides. You are giving yourself far too much credit.

 

[ChristineM]

Whoa is me. My bad. I'm wrong, but it's with your length of time here. What if I was perfect though? Then, I would not be wrong. You're wrong about the strawman as it's an argument that can be quickly settled ha ha. Since I have been here longer, then you should be the one to look up my claims about RF. Go fetch, Padwan.

Since you worked in 3D, then let's us know about your findings. Our brains see in 2D. Did it give you the necessary level of consciousness.

Now you are just being silly, you make the claim, it os ip to you to prove your claim.

Our eyes (2 usually) provide a stereoscopic which our brain combines to simulate 3 dimensions. The depth perception ot provides is an evolved trait that aided hunting.

And what has this to do with your original faulty contention that creation science is valid? Your wildly diverting from your original claim is the reason for the strawman

 

[ChristineM]

ChristineM brought up 3D modeling which I am interested in, specifically 2D to 3D modeling and shapes. Why not give her a stage to explain her experience and knowledge about this topic?

Actually you brought up the 3d strawman, i simply told you why you were wasting your time and why.

However if you want a fairly simple program that allows you to model 3d objects on a computer "Blender" is a good starting point and it's free. It will run on windows but may not be intuitive to a windows user because it was originally written for Linux.

2d, i don't think you can beat "gimp" for free image manipulation software, again a port from linux and again free.

I suggest you download from the official sites to avoid malicious installers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And yet, you know nothing and continue to ask dumb questions. That's called boring AF. Why don't you actually learn something useful, so we can ask you questions?

I can see why forcing you to answer a question you refuse to answer in order to clarify what you're talking about would be boring to you. I even understand why you project your shortcomings onto others in regards to the nonsense you keep repeating as though it's fact.

What I don't understand is why you think your juvenile attempts at insults are something to be proud of.

 

[james bond]

Now you are just being silly, you make the claim, it os ip to you to prove your claim.

Our eyes (2 usually) provide a stereoscopic which our brain combines to simulate 3 dimensions. The depth perception ot provides is an evolved trait that aided hunting.

And what has this to do with your original faulty contention that creation science is valid? Your wildly diverting from your original claim is the reason for the strawman

>>CM: Our eyes (2 usually) provide a stereoscopic which our brain combines to simulate 3 dimensions. The depth perception ot provides is an evolved trait that aided hunting.<<

I said the same, but you added two more words and it makes all the difference in the world.

Ha ha. Evolved trait. That's good. It's the type of thing I would expect from atheist science. How did this happen to evolve? How did it even happen? We should be flatlanders.

By flatlanders, I am referring to the following. Watching the first few minutes should explain:

The difference is all creatures, not just humans, were born with it. It's not something that evolved. Amoeba and paramecium recognize spatial differences, yes?

 

[james bond]

I can see why forcing you to answer a question you refuse to answer in order to clarify what you're talking about would be boring to you. I even understand why you project your shortcomings onto others in regards to the nonsense you keep repeating as though it's fact.

What I don't understand is why you think your juvenile attempts at insults are something to be proud of.

I'm going down to your level. Why do I have to answer your questions about nothing? I will gladly answer questions about something because that is what I know. To me, you are either too lazy to find out what nothing means and how it works or does not work by yourself. You let others do your work. You admitted as much by refusing to write Stephen Hawking. If not, watch his youtube channel or read a few of his books like I did. Then maybe you could say something interesting and we would know what you are talking about. For example, go re-read your last post. No one, including me, knows what you are talking about. Why don't you explain what you mean, so we all can judge for ourselves what you are saying?

 

[ChristineM]

>>CM: Our eyes (2 usually) provide a stereoscopic which our brain combines to simulate 3 dimensions. The depth perception ot provides is an evolved trait that aided hunting.<<

I said the same, but you added two more words and it makes all the difference in the world.

Ha ha. Evolved trait. That's good. It's the type of thing I would expect from atheist science. How did this happen to evolve? How did it even happen? We should be flatlanders.

By flatlanders, I am referring to the following. Watching the first few minutes should explain:

The difference is all creatures, not just humans, were born with it. It's not something that evolved. Amoeba and paramecium recognize spatial differences, yes?

Woohoo we agree on something.

Your deliberate ignorance is not in question, the mechanism of evolution has be explained to you often.

Nope, not watching the vid, if you can't be bothered explaining then why should i bother watching?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, amoeba and paramecium evolve and are used to study evolution.

 

[corynski]

Everything from Climategate and cooling/stable temperatures, to past global warming and ice ages, to climate scientists getting stuck in the growing ice in Antarctica, says it's all liberal politics. Yeah, maybe 50/50 but that says nothing about the cause or our ability to predict the changes. For that, we need to look to the Sun, not wealth concentration via carbon footprint taxes and the like. Liberals following charlatans like Al Gore is as great a paradigm of irrationality as women defending Islam.

I can only suggest you read Guy McPherson and Paul Beckwith who both present the scientific arguments with evidence, and judge for yourself. Yes, they suggest we have but maybe 10 more years of exponential growth in both population and in carbon and methane production before the major food crops are the victims of shifting climate. You'll see, but I won't as I'll be 'out of this world' since I'm 80 years old now........ Best wishes to all......

 

[metis]

You'll see, but I won't as I'll be 'out of this world' since I'm 80 years old now

WOW! I didn't know that there's someone ol-- er, I mean more mature-- than I. I feel like such an infant at 72. Where's my rattle? Oh sorry, those are my bones.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I 'm going down to your level. Why do I have to answer your questions about nothing? I will gladly answer questions about something because that is what I know. To me, you are either too lazy to find out what nothing means and how it works or does not work by yourself. You let others do your work. You admitted as much by refusing to write Stephen Hawking. If not, watch his youtube channel or read a few of his books like I did. Then maybe you could say something interesting and we would know what you are talking about. For example, go re-read your last post.

Because you're the one making claims about nothing. God forbid you should have to clarify your position! There is nobody but you to ask about clarification of your argument(s). You are not Stephen Hawking.

I would say the lazy person would be the one that refuses to fully explain their position and instead relies on attempted insults.

Do you want to clarify what your position is, or not?


My level? That's funny. Please point out anywhere where I've attempted to insult you.

No one, including me, knows what you are talking about. Why don't you explain what you mean, so we all can judge for ourselves what you are saying?

Actually it appears that everybody else seems to know exactly what I’m talking about.