You do seem to like your big and grandios words. Same you do not always hit the mark with them.
Stick to science. Your philosophical knowledge sucks.
EPISTEMOLOGICALLY definition: 1. in a way that relates to the part of philosophy that is about the study of how we know things
You have of idea what I know or how I know them.
Richard
Bless your unknowing heart Richard.
As you ‘know’ that my philosophical knowledge sucks, I’m surprised (I lie : ) that you don’t know how replete philosophy is with ‘grandios’ (sic) words.
Keep thinking that way, it makes my life so much easier.
There is a term for using that sort of words, but i won’t say it here.
Suffice it to say it is not necessary to us big words when little ones are more than adequate.
I am sure we will cross swords again. Beware of small lads with slings.
Richard
Less than a gnat with no enzymes Richard.
I think most people are familiar with horses and donkeys, and most people also accept they share a common ancestor. However, we are also aware that offspring of horses and donkeys are usually sterile, with all males being sterile (as far as I know) and only 1 in thousands of females being fertile. This is a pretty obvious reproductive barrier that exists between two populations that share common ancestry.
Why don’t you admit that there is no dispute about evolution and give credence to our criticisms of your arguments?
When asked for evidence you aren’t able to supply any, so what else are we supposed to conclude?
We already accept that there is more than the scientific view. For example, there are a whole host of Flat Earthers that have adopted a non-scientific view for the shape of the Earth. When you realize why you reject the Flat Earth non-scientific view you may begin to understand why we reject your non-scientific views.
You don’t criticise my arguments, you criticise me.
That you can’t see beyond your scientific method.
And ignore anything else.
No, that is not accepting anything. You deny them all. IOW you do not accept they there can be another view than your own.
You have built you walls of Jericho, but I am not Joshua.
Richard
Why does it always have to be about you?
You aren’t criticizing my arguments, you are criticizing me.
I deny your non-scientific arguments for the same reason you deny the non-scientific arguments from Flat Eathers.
I am still not playing this game of yours.
See you around
Richard
What is to see beyond it?
What is being ignored?
Why ask me? I’m ignorant remember?
Richard
Of the fact that your knowing isn’t, true. But you’re consistent, you offer no alternative to evolution, or to science in the round. In whatever other areas apart from bits of evolution you don’t like.
What about that sort of grammar?
No point in answering, if you don’t bleive a word I say.
Richard
@Apistos isn’t the only person reading. You could answer for the benefit of others.
Everyone reading this and other threads you have posted in can see that you are frequently asked for evidence, for information, or simply to be told what you claim to know - and whether you provide it.
He feels it. That’s it. As it is with all of us. First. Without exception. [But unlike everyone else, he can’t express it.]
Totally alien concepts in the way that you mean. Conceptually familiar to the writers through the ancient Greeks. Metaphorically closer to the C20th in Heraclitus and Parmenides. Not until we get to Newton well over two thousand years after Genesis (aside, is there Bereshit in the Hebrew woods?) was written would those terms have any modern resonance. Which can’t be projected back down the telescope.
You don;t beleive me either, so you are jst being…
What evidence would you like to prove that there is more than the scientific view? Or that science ignores certain views, perspective or even evidence?
As far as I am concerned it is just a fact of life. The fact that scientists do not seem to see it is a bit bewildering really Oh yes it comes under common sense, which happens to be one of the things we are talking about!
Why can you not see that you are asking for things that do not exist? As in evidence that qualifies as scientific. How can I show you something you either cannot or refuse to see?
Again, common sense!
If you want scientific proof of the criticisms of evolution you won’t find it, because they are not scientific criticisms! (well, not all of them)
In the same vein, I cannot show you that your understanding of a concept, or principle is flawed, because all I get is “Prove it!” It doesn’t work like that, at least outside the laboratory.
So we go back to the insult dance that i am trrying to avoid.
If you wish to take offence at the idea that the scientific view gives you blinkers there is nothng I can do about it. It is what it is. Likewise, if you take offence when I claim that there are other ways of looking at the evidence than the scientific view, the same thing applies.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.