Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken
Options
Comments
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »
Smh so Darwin wasn't racist just because he made patronizing statements about black people?
It says he would be considered racists today, but in his time he was more considered "liberal" and was against slavery. I'm definitely not saying he was a friend to black people in anyway, but logically one born in 1800s would have the propaganda of the day influencing their ideology, but his ideology concerning race was more very liberal in his current day. So yes in 2016 he would be a racists concerning his vernacular and him trying to piece together natural selection regarding the human species. But he is not a historian and definitely not an archaeologists. Nor believed in eugenics or slavery. I keep things 100 and not on emotion, but straight to the meat of the situation in balance(Ma'at) way. -
Darwin wasn't a pseudo scientists though, his methodology was very powerful. You have to give credit where it is due, you may not agree with the model of his explanation on why species are so diverse, but you got to give credit. Pseudo means false. If you falsified saying your model is scientific and you can't show you came to this conclusion and your methodology is poor or nonexistent. Then you are using pseudoscience. Now, if you show you came to this conclusion and can defend your argument in the era that you are living in then, it's not pseudo. There are many scientific ideas that are not pseudo, but a lack of technology and certain ways of testing either expounded on it and shows that was not the whole picture. Science is using methodology to show the full picture of a puzzle and we get these tiny pieces trying to make the whole picture.
Theskepticsguide? Those are social skeptics who cherry pick studies
Here is a more ethical skeptic guide
https://theethicalskeptic.com/ -
Neophyte Wolfgang wrote: »Darwin wasn't a pseudo scientists though, his methodology was very powerful. You have to give credit where it is due, you may not agree with the model of his explanation on why species are so diverse, but you got to give credit. Pseudo means false. If you falsified saying your model is scientific and you can't show you came to this conclusion and your methodology is poor or nonexistent. Then you are using pseudoscience. Now, if you show you came to this conclusion and can defend your argument in the era that you are living in then, it's not pseudo. There are many scientific ideas that are not pseudo, but a lack of technology and certain ways of testing either expounded on it and shows that was not the whole picture. Science is using methodology to show the full picture of a puzzle and we get these tiny pieces trying to make the whole picture.
Theskepticsguide? Those are social skeptics who cherry pick studies
Here is a more ethical skeptic guide
https://theethicalskeptic.com/
Meh, I'll deal with the skeptics guide. Just read through it and everything. -
@Ajackson17 you aren't an honest skeptic though. You don't seek the truth. You just want to argue and deny the truth. An honest skeptic will search, look, ask, knock, prowl, and uncover every shred of evidence that they are investigating in order to make an accurate assessment about their qualms. And when every thing agrees the skeptic becomes a believer. The honest skeptic doesn't continue on in being a skeptic. Emphasis on HONEST skeptic.
Amen. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »@Ajackson17 you aren't an honest skeptic though. You don't seek the truth. You just want to argue and deny the truth. An honest skeptic will search, look, ask, knock, prowl, and uncover every shred of evidence that they are investigating in order to make an accurate assessment about their qualms. And when every thing agrees the skeptic becomes a believer. The honest skeptic doesn't continue on in being a skeptic. Emphasis on HONEST skeptic.
Amen.
If that's what you think then cool. I honestly don't care what people think and what are my intentions because not one person really knows my intentions but me. Even if I show evidence and can back up my points and some folks get emotional and clearly don't understand then it's not my fault. I have no agendas and I will continue to present facts and information. @DoUwant2go2Heaven -
Ajackson17 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »@Ajackson17 you aren't an honest skeptic though. You don't seek the truth. You just want to argue and deny the truth. An honest skeptic will search, look, ask, knock, prowl, and uncover every shred of evidence that they are investigating in order to make an accurate assessment about their qualms. And when every thing agrees the skeptic becomes a believer. The honest skeptic doesn't continue on in being a skeptic. Emphasis on HONEST skeptic.
Amen.
If that's what you think then cool. I honestly don't care what people think and what are my intentions because not one person really knows my intentions but me. Even if I show evidence and can back up my points and some folks get emotional and clearly don't understand then it's not my fault. I have no agendas and I will continue to present facts and information. @DoUwant2go2Heaven
Well stop being intellectually dishonest. You're not a skeptic. You are a scoffer. But guess what? Jesus still loves you. Better get on board the Ark before the door shuts and your left on the outside banging on the door. Amen. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »@Ajackson17 you aren't an honest skeptic though. You don't seek the truth. You just want to argue and deny the truth. An honest skeptic will search, look, ask, knock, prowl, and uncover every shred of evidence that they are investigating in order to make an accurate assessment about their qualms. And when every thing agrees the skeptic becomes a believer. The honest skeptic doesn't continue on in being a skeptic. Emphasis on HONEST skeptic.
Amen.
If that's what you think then cool. I honestly don't care what people think and what are my intentions because not one person really knows my intentions but me. Even if I show evidence and can back up my points and some folks get emotional and clearly don't understand then it's not my fault. I have no agendas and I will continue to present facts and information. @DoUwant2go2Heaven
Well stop being intellectually dishonest. You're not a skeptic. You are a scoffer. But guess what? Jesus still loves you. Better get on board the Ark before the door shuts and your left on the outside banging on the door. Amen.
See, how did I know this would lead to Christian dialogue? I have never seen a human who was put on a cross, stabbed in a vital area and ? pierced, beaten, dehydrated, no medical treatment and died then resurrected days later. I do not believe in that without evidence of a multiple humans and well tested studies on this. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »@Ajackson17 you aren't an honest skeptic though. You don't seek the truth. You just want to argue and deny the truth. An honest skeptic will search, look, ask, knock, prowl, and uncover every shred of evidence that they are investigating in order to make an accurate assessment about their qualms. And when every thing agrees the skeptic becomes a believer. The honest skeptic doesn't continue on in being a skeptic. Emphasis on HONEST skeptic.
Amen.
If that's what you think then cool. I honestly don't care what people think and what are my intentions because not one person really knows my intentions but me. Even if I show evidence and can back up my points and some folks get emotional and clearly don't understand then it's not my fault. I have no agendas and I will continue to present facts and information. @DoUwant2go2Heaven
Well stop being intellectually dishonest. You're not a skeptic. You are a scoffer. But guess what? Jesus still loves you. Better get on board the Ark before the door shuts and your left on the outside banging on the door. Amen.
See, how did I know this would lead to Christian dialogue? I have never seen a human who was put on a cross, stabbed in a vital area and ? pierced, beaten, dehydrated, no medical treatment and died then resurrected days later. I do not believe in that without evidence of a multiple humans and well tested studies on this.
1. This is a conversation about truth.
2. Truth is absolute.
3. The truth was seen alive after the crucifixion by over 500 people at once.
4. History confirms His existence in secular written records. Even the calendar you use tells you this.
5. To deny Him takes more faith than it does than to believe in Him.
6. And that type of faith I do not have.
7. I have a sure foundation to stand on. It's as solid as a ROCK! Hallelujah! And I shall never be moved. Amen.
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »@Ajackson17 you aren't an honest skeptic though. You don't seek the truth. You just want to argue and deny the truth. An honest skeptic will search, look, ask, knock, prowl, and uncover every shred of evidence that they are investigating in order to make an accurate assessment about their qualms. And when every thing agrees the skeptic becomes a believer. The honest skeptic doesn't continue on in being a skeptic. Emphasis on HONEST skeptic.
Amen.
If that's what you think then cool. I honestly don't care what people think and what are my intentions because not one person really knows my intentions but me. Even if I show evidence and can back up my points and some folks get emotional and clearly don't understand then it's not my fault. I have no agendas and I will continue to present facts and information. @DoUwant2go2Heaven
Well stop being intellectually dishonest. You're not a skeptic. You are a scoffer. But guess what? Jesus still loves you. Better get on board the Ark before the door shuts and your left on the outside banging on the door. Amen.
See, how did I know this would lead to Christian dialogue? I have never seen a human who was put on a cross, stabbed in a vital area and ? pierced, beaten, dehydrated, no medical treatment and died then resurrected days later. I do not believe in that without evidence of a multiple humans and well tested studies on this.
1. This is a conversation about truth.
2. Truth is absolute.
3. The truth was seen alive after the crucifixion by over 500 people at once.
4. History confirms His existence in secular written records. Even the calendar you use tells you this.
5. To deny Him takes more faith than it does than to believe in Him.
6. And that type of faith I do not have.
7. I have a sure foundation to stand on. It's as solid as a ROCK! Hallelujah! And I shall never be moved. Amen.
I'm not getting into this, do you have a document written around Jesus time, not the oldest copy from a hundred years ago, but a document from his era? If not then leave me alone about this. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »DoUwant2go2Heaven wrote: »@Ajackson17 you aren't an honest skeptic though. You don't seek the truth. You just want to argue and deny the truth. An honest skeptic will search, look, ask, knock, prowl, and uncover every shred of evidence that they are investigating in order to make an accurate assessment about their qualms. And when every thing agrees the skeptic becomes a believer. The honest skeptic doesn't continue on in being a skeptic. Emphasis on HONEST skeptic.
Amen.
If that's what you think then cool. I honestly don't care what people think and what are my intentions because not one person really knows my intentions but me. Even if I show evidence and can back up my points and some folks get emotional and clearly don't understand then it's not my fault. I have no agendas and I will continue to present facts and information. @DoUwant2go2Heaven
Well stop being intellectually dishonest. You're not a skeptic. You are a scoffer. But guess what? Jesus still loves you. Better get on board the Ark before the door shuts and your left on the outside banging on the door. Amen.
See, how did I know this would lead to Christian dialogue? I have never seen a human who was put on a cross, stabbed in a vital area and ? pierced, beaten, dehydrated, no medical treatment and died then resurrected days later. I do not believe in that without evidence of a multiple humans and well tested studies on this.
1. This is a conversation about truth.
2. Truth is absolute.
3. The truth was seen alive after the crucifixion by over 500 people at once.
4. History confirms His existence in secular written records. Even the calendar you use tells you this.
5. To deny Him takes more faith than it does than to believe in Him.
6. And that type of faith I do not have.
7. I have a sure foundation to stand on. It's as solid as a ROCK! Hallelujah! And I shall never be moved. Amen.
I'm not getting into this, do you have a document written around Jesus time, not the oldest copy from a hundred years ago, but a document from his era? If not then leave me alone about this.
1. John Rylands Fragment of the book of John is 1900 years old!
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls are over 2000 years old!
3. Josephus, Tacticus, Thallus and many other secular sources have written records about Yeshua that date to the 1st century.
Will you be an honest skeptic and investigate these things if you truly want to understand the truth and have it set you free my friend? -
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
Jesus existed if he was what he said he was you have to decide for yourself but pretty much most scholars it now admit that he did exist -
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
Jesus existed if he was what he said he was you have to decide for yourself but pretty much most scholars it now admit that he did exist
Excellent article. The evidence is as concrete as the pavement we walk on. Praise the LORD that the wise still seek Him. ? bless you my friend. Amen. -
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
Jesus existed if he was what he said he was you have to decide for yourself but pretty much most scholars it now admit that he did exist
I was reading a recent article where, here is one two years old. I'll find the other one it was on iflscience.com
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.c6dc64e672c1 -
Now I remember why I stopped coming to this thread. It stopped being funny/intellectual discourse. Last 12 pages of ? telling each other how not smart the others are.
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
Jesus existed if he was what he said he was you have to decide for yourself but pretty much most scholars it now admit that he did exist
I was reading a recent article where, here is one two years old. I'll find the other one it was on iflscience.com
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.c6dc64e672c1
dog that's a blog post and they guy who wrote it is not a PHD or at least a professor or degree holder in any field related to the topic.... FIND THAT OTHER ARTICLE because this one does not cut it
and alot of the objections that are presented in that article are addressed in the link i posted. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
Jesus existed if he was what he said he was you have to decide for yourself but pretty much most scholars it now admit that he did exist
I was reading a recent article where, here is one two years old. I'll find the other one it was on iflscience.com
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.c6dc64e672c1
dog that's a blog post and they guy who wrote it is not a PHD or at least a professor or degree holder in any field related to the topic.... FIND THAT OTHER ARTICLE because this one does not cut it
and alot of the objections that are presented in that article are addressed in the link i posted.
Yes he is in religion and he is a pH.d student in religion. What are you talking about. He holds a master's degree.
Lataster passed his Master of Arts (Research), undertaken in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, with Distinction,[6] and has published two academic articles[6] as well as popular journalism pieces (see below). -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/
Jesus existed if he was what he said he was you have to decide for yourself but pretty much most scholars it now admit that he did exist
I was reading a recent article where, here is one two years old. I'll find the other one it was on iflscience.com
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?utm_term=.c6dc64e672c1
dog that's a blog post and they guy who wrote it is not a PHD or at least a professor or degree holder in any field related to the topic.... FIND THAT OTHER ARTICLE because this one does not cut it
and alot of the objections that are presented in that article are addressed in the link i posted.
Yes he is in religion and he is a pH.d student in religion. What are you talking about. He holds a master's degree.
Lataster passed his Master of Arts (Research), undertaken in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, with Distinction,[6] and has published two academic articles[6] as well as popular journalism pieces (see below).
Phd student is not a PHD and okay i was wrong he does has a degree but his own professors don't agree with his total misrepresentation of the various text. -
If you have to argue the existence of your ? then he doesn't exist or isn't very good at being ? .
-
Having a degree is not the end all be all of knowledge
-
Meh, I'll deal with the skeptics guide. Just read through it and everything.
You did not read through that website. You're a skeptic, which means you're a pseudo intellectual. You never question any mainstream theories, you have the most basic grasp of science, statistics and critical thinking. Real Skeptics are skeptical about everything including "mainstream theories"
I am skeptical of ? outside of the Universe. Skeptical of Jesus existing,Skeptical of patenting of GMO seeds, skeptical of goverement, skeptical of Vaccines (neutral on this)
I question and research topics of my interest and question EVERYTHING. All I have are my experiences
Methodical Cynicism – a method of cultivating ignorance through corruption of the process which regulates our social and scientific understanding. The exploitation of denial mandating a personal belief set while at the same time tendering an affectation of science.
Provisional Knowledge – the contrivance of a series of purposed provisional arguments, into a stack of probable explanations wherein we ignore the increasing unlikelihood of our conclusions and simply consider the stack of plurality to be plausible; and eventually by Neuhaus’s Law, rendering any other idea proscribed.
Ignorance – the action of blinding one’s self to an eschewed reality through a satiating and insulating culture and lexicon
I am a critically thinking "Atheist" not a dogmatic "skeptic" You have a lot of cognitive bias.
I don't believe in ? or Jesus, but I have had experiences and ancedotes that can not be explained by dogmatic materialistic reductionist science. Pre-Cog Dreams, ESP....having these experiences in no way is related to a concept of ? or has me believing in a creator.
-
Here is recorded audio of what they talked about at the meeting
https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2016/11/evolutionary-biology/ -
Neophyte Wolfgang wrote: »Having a degree is not the end all be all of knowledge
No but a high enough degree does indicate that you know a lot about your subject.... degrees and the academic process sets standards this is a good thing but can be a bad they but they are necessary. -
Maybe more so 20 years ago depending on the degree and career. A lot of been outsourced to the internetNo but a high enough degree does indicate that you know a lot about your subject.... degrees and the academic process sets standards this is a good thing but can be a bad they but they are necessary. -
Interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson by Jason Tucker and Jason VandenBeukel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you give us a brief background of your academic career and your interests?
For the first two years of my undergraduate degree I studied Political Science and English Literature. I was very interested in politics, but what I was learning in economics and political science was just not correct. There was too much emphasis placed on the idea that economic interests were the prime motivators for human beings, and that was not obvious to me at all. I was spending a lot of time thinking about the Cold War, and the Cold War was not primarily an economic issue. So I started taking psychology, and I was interested in clinical psychology. I did my PhD under Dr. Robert Pihl, and I worked on drug abuse, alcoholism, and aggression – there was a heavy biological emphasis. I did my post-doc with Dr. Pihl, and Maurice Dongier. Then I taught at Harvard for six years, and I’ve been at the University of Toronto ever since then.
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/ -
Neophyte Wolfgang wrote: »Meh, I'll deal with the skeptics guide. Just read through it and everything.
You did not read through that website. You're a skeptic, which means you're a pseudo intellectual. You never question any mainstream theories, you have the most basic grasp of science, statistics and critical thinking. Real Skeptics are skeptical about everything including "mainstream theories"
I am skeptical of ? outside of the Universe. Skeptical of Jesus existing,Skeptical of patenting of GMO seeds, skeptical of goverement, skeptical of Vaccines (neutral on this)
I question and research topics of my interest and question EVERYTHING. All I have are my experiences
Methodical Cynicism – a method of cultivating ignorance through corruption of the process which regulates our social and scientific understanding. The exploitation of denial mandating a personal belief set while at the same time tendering an affectation of science.
Provisional Knowledge – the contrivance of a series of purposed provisional arguments, into a stack of probable explanations wherein we ignore the increasing unlikelihood of our conclusions and simply consider the stack of plurality to be plausible; and eventually by Neuhaus’s Law, rendering any other idea proscribed.
Ignorance – the action of blinding one’s self to an eschewed reality through a satiating and insulating culture and lexicon
I am a critically thinking "Atheist" not a dogmatic "skeptic" You have a lot of cognitive bias.
I don't believe in ? or Jesus, but I have had experiences and ancedotes that can not be explained by dogmatic materialistic reductionist science. Pre-Cog Dreams, ESP....having these experiences in no way is related to a concept of ? or has me believing in a creator.
Cool ? bro.
