PureX, a debate is just TALK, whether it is logical or illogical.
You are not testing any concept or claim with some debates.
And beside that, not everyone is logically astute.
Take "you" for example, my experiences with reading your comments, so far in "this thread" alone, haven't shown to...
it is not a gotcha question.
You were talking about natural sciences are not adequate for the tasks in regarding to the “origin”, whether it to be the origin of the universe or the origin of life.
Then it is fair to ask which of these philosophy you are talking about, as you were the one who...
so you want to give up empirical data for some doo-da philosophy.
But the question to you, becomes:
Which philosophy?
There is no one - “the philosophy“ - PureX.
There are hundreds of philosophies, and if go with particular sect, then there are thousands of sects. They are not the same, and...
In the last half dozen posts of yours, you seemed to turn everything around - whether it be your anti-science, anti-philosophy, antI-religion sentiments, but you seemed to focus on sciences - where left is right, up becomes down, right is wrong. The only thing that’s right to you, is your...
I think we all know that just about most humans speculate, they also think, don’t think, act, react, like, dislike, err, and so on.
The problems aren’t that people speculate, is when they don’t know if their speculations are true or false, or knowing what are probable or improbable, or can’t...
Wow
You are really something, PureX.
Not only have you being putting words in Valjean’s mouth, something which he didn’t say…hence, strawman. And, you are also trying to redefine words ad hoc to suit your whatever fantasy world you live in.
The word “chance”, is only something that are...
Your reply, highlighted in bold, don't logically make sense with the rest of quoted reply.
Who said anything about "chance" produces "nothing" or "variation" produces "nothing"?
@Valjean wrote:
Nothing here, indicated that Valjean was writing about "NOTHING". He didn't say anything about...
I am not being hard…I am being realistic.
@PureX has been hitting out at everyone who disagreed with him (or her), by throwing around “scientism” this or “dogma” that.
The only people I have seen using those words, are creationists, science illiterates and whatever else that PureX happened to...
The majority of people who followed the "Intelligent Design", are following the ID of Phillip E Johnson and Stephen C Meyer, who created this movement with the Discovery Institute, and co-wrote the manifesto Wedge Document, which hide their creationist agendas.
In the Discovery Institute’s...
I find it rather annoying that people who don’t understand how Natural Sciences work (eg testing a hypothesis, through acquiring evidence or through experiments, are always the ones quick to throw around words (most of the times, derogatorily), like with scientism or dogma, just because people...
Wow?!
That’s low.
So Hawking made some money, from some books he wrote and few other works.
He wasn’t trying to swindle people’s money, like YEC creationists like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, and Hovind is a convicted for tax frauds/evasion.
The both make money from their business ventures than...
is that mere ignorance, or sheer wilful refusal to recognise that the Biblical books - like the Genesis and Exodus aren’t as old as you believed to be?
Ignorance can be rectified by education. The later is just you deceiving yourself because of your biases…here, you cannot be helped.
Secular Humanism does posit for explanations of the natural world over the supernatural. but it isn’t just about naturalism.
It would also posit for human reasoning and logic, over religions that of divine reasoning and the “God did it” superstitions.
But it is just about naturalism over...
You are completely ignoring the facts that there are far older recorded myths than Genesis 1 & 2, from Egypt and Mesopotamia (from (3rd millennium BCE) Sumer to (7th-6th centuries BCE) Neo-Babylonian dynasty. And the 6th century Israelites/Jews were no more knowledgeable than the Mesopotamians...
Then that’s why the whole concept of God and creation, to be unfalsifiable. You don’t need, nor want, evidence and experiments.
What you would call people accepting religious belief, without evidence, without facts…it is called FAITH.
Faith is about a person’s personal “acceptance” or...
You are right about Evolution being “unified field theory”, @TagliatelliMonster .
It also unified the 5 different mechanisms into a single theory. The 5 mechanisms:
Natural Selection
Mutations
Gene Flow
Genetic Drift
Genetic Hitchhiking
Instead of having 5 different theories for each...
Then you don’t understand what it mean by “falsifiable”.
Sorry.
There is nothing “partial” about God being “unfalsifiable“.
A model of explanations/predictions is only “falsifiable“, when the evidence are “observable” and “testable”.
Being “observable“ or “testable” mean have the abilities...
Methodological Naturalism is indeed a philosophy, but it provide how scientists should proceed to acquire answers and possible solutions, through Scientific Method.
How one formulate a hypothesis, and then test the hypothesis (“test” through observations, eg experiments, empirical evidence &...