User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 176

  1. #51
    Senior Member Valuable_Money's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    might as well burn me on the stake, I'm a witch. It's fine if you don't want to entertain the idea, but no need to act like little children. I think I hit some sort of intp nerve.
    I am entertaining the idea, infact, at the risk of giving oyu more trolling ammo I am quite a spiritual person and am not fond of atheism, especial militant atheism. But you have to look at the evidence(that your a troll)

    Exhibit A) This topics posted here as opposed to the pre-existing spirtuality/religion/philosophy board.

    Exhibit B)
    Quote Originally Posted by Feops View Post
    Well, I originally posted the "..." because I assumed you were trolling. But you've put effort into this.



    Evolution is the most consistent theory. Piecing together snippits of biological evidence that are tens of thousands of years old is quite a difficult puzzle.



    "Science" only appears to be a religion because it steps on the toes of "religion" when something is proven that contradicts what a religion has claimed. It is not itself a system of belief along with ethics and spiritualism, but simply what can be proven or theorized. Science does not have a stance, or position. Its conclusions are mutable if new evidence is brought forward to cause a reassessment.



    You should read up on Scientology.


    Looking at the spiritual growth site, I do have to admit that I find the stages listed there to be an intriguing logical twist on the typical progression. Though I don't agree with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Valuable_Money View Post
    I am almost 90% shure that he is taking all of this from some creationsit site or blog.

    What kind of person doesnt knwo of the church of scientology? I find it hard to believe that this person doesnt know of lord xenu and tom cruises eternal fight. Exhibit C that he is a troll.

    While the rest of the evidence is more circumstantial exhibit A is the best example. If you really wanted an inttelligent discussion oyu would of posted it in the propper board but instead you post in a sub forum you know to be full of atheists.
    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh? wgah'nagl fhtagn

  2. #52
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alwar View Post
    I got it from a testimony on a documentary about that Virginia school board that was trying to impose "intelligent design" (lol) into the curriculum. The case went to the supreme court and they had a biologist on there who testified that DNA could have disproven Darwin's theory but ended up making it stronger.

    Can't remember the name of the town, but it was PBS who produced the doc. One of Darwin's descendants was there covering the trial and wrote a book about it afterwards, the whole thing is hilarious.

    Yeah nothing tops the math, physics, engineering etc. Many go into them just so they don't have to deal with political nonsense.

    Don't you think it's ridiculous that Darwinism is in the curriculum in the first place? and not other views as well, considering that darwinism is just a theory, I'm sure it's fair to let other theories out for everyone's consideration. The simple fact is, that we DON'T KNOW how human life started, so to monopolize one idea is to lock up our freedom to think freely even when there are no facts to bring total closure.

  3. #53
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    Don't you think it's ridiculous that Darwinism is in the curriculum in the first place? and not other views as well, considering that darwinism is just a theory,
    If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this... "theory" as in "Theory of Evolution" or "Theory of Relativity" does not mean "idea" or "possibility". In scientific terms (as opposed to casual use), it means (more or less) "hypothesis that has repeatedly stood up to the challenges of observational tests." Darwinism *is* a theory... one that has been tested many times, in many ways, and has (so far) always stood up to scrutiny. There are no other scientifically supportable theories to explain speciation - none that have even a shred as much supporting evidence as Darwinian evolution. It's true that we don't know everything about the process - or how it played out historically - but not knowing *all* of the answers doesn't make what we *do* know false. Open to revision? Sure - if there's new evidence. But the new evidence that we do find tends to support the model - not detract from it. (a similar example is Newton's theories of motion not predicting exactly the motion of Mercury around the Sun... Einstein's refinements to Newton's work did explain it - but that didn't make Newton's conclusions wrong in the circumstances under which he made his observations).

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    I'm sure it's fair to let other theories out for everyone's consideration.
    Not in a science class, it's not. Science isn't a body of knowledge - it's a process of making judgments based on objective (as much as possible) observations and repeatable tests. When it comes to speciation, there isn't a significant body of evidence to either disprove evolution or to support any other model. It's a cliche, but it's not that dissimilar to stating that the "Flat Earth Theory" deserves equal time in science class to the "Round Earth Theory" because both are possible based on the view from your living room window.
    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    The simple fact is, that we DON'T KNOW how human life started, so to monopolize one idea is to lock up our freedom to think freely even when there are no facts to bring total closure.
    If you're looking for "total closure" on this or pretty much any other complex topic I'm afraid you're out of luck. There are a *LOT* of facts... that support the model of evolution. Does that mean that we shouldn't continue to look for data and refine the model? Of course not. Does it mean that it's *impossible* that the model is flawed? Of course not. But it is, by far and away, the best explanation that we have based on what we can observe.

    Anyway, I think I've said my bit .
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #54
    Senior Member Valuable_Money's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this... "theory" as in "Theory of Evolution" or "Theory of Relativity" does not mean "idea" or "possibility". In scientific terms (as opposed to casual use), it means (more or less) "hypothesis that has repeatedly stood up to the challenges of observational tests." Darwinism *is* a theory... one that has been tested many times, in many ways, and has (so far) always stood up to scrutiny. There are no other scientifically supportable theories to explain speciation - none that have even a shred as much supporting evidence as Darwinian evolution. It's true that we don't know everything about the process - or how it played out historically - but not knowing *all* of the answers doesn't make what we *do* know false. Open to revision? Sure - if there's new evidence. But the new evidence that we do find tends to support the model - not detract from it. (a similar example is Newton's theories of motion not predicting exactly the motion of Mercury around the Sun... Einstein's refinements to Newton's work did explain it - but that didn't make Newton's conclusions wrong in the circumstances under which he made his observations).


    Not in a science class, it's not. Science isn't a body of knowledge - it's a process of making judgments based on objective (as much as possible) observations and repeatable tests. When it comes to speciation, there isn't a significant body of evidence to either disprove evolution or to support any other model. It's a cliche, but it's not that dissimilar to stating that the "Flat Earth Theory" deserves equal time in science class to the "Round Earth Theory" because both are possible based on the view from your living room window.

    If you're looking for "total closure" on this or pretty much any other complex topic I'm afraid you're out of luck. There are a *LOT* of facts... that support the model of evolution. Does that mean that we shouldn't continue to look for data and refine the model? Of course not. Does it mean that it's *impossible* that the model is flawed? Of course not. But it is, by far and away, the best explanation that we have based on what we can observe.

    Anyway, I think I've said my bit .

    HOW AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO RELIZES THIS IS A TROLL? Somebody move this spirituality and philosophy.
    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh? wgah'nagl fhtagn

  5. #55
    Senior Member SecantSquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valuable_Money View Post
    HOW AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO RELIZES THIS IS A TROLL? Somebody move this spirituality and philosophy.
    you aren't the only one, i agree, and i've said it. though at first i thought this was a joke, coming from a "fellow INTJ"
    When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it.
    - Bernard Bailey
    It is bad luck to be superstitious.
    - Andrew W. Mathis

    sp/sx/so

  6. #56
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    (a similar example is Newton's theories of motion not predicting exactly the motion of Mercury around the Sun... Einstein's refinements to Newton's work did explain it - but that didn't make Newton's conclusions wrong in the circumstances under which he made his observations.
    Nice example, thank you. There's definitely a big difference in torpedoing/undermining a theory vs refining a theory to better accommodate new information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valuable_Money View Post
    HOW AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO RELIZES THIS IS A TROLL? Somebody move this spirituality and philosophy.
    Quote Originally Posted by SecantSquared View Post
    you aren't the only one, i agree, and i've said it. though at first i thought this was a joke, coming from a "fellow INTJ"
    Actually, I think the OP is sincere in their beliefs, and you're doing exactly what you are supposed to be doing by challenging the ideas with counter-examples and facts that you believe supports better conclusions.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #57
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this... "theory" as in "Theory of Evolution" or "Theory of Relativity" does not mean "idea" or "possibility". In scientific terms (as opposed to casual use), it means (more or less) "hypothesis that has repeatedly stood up to the challenges of observational tests." Darwinism *is* a theory... one that has been tested many times, in many ways, and has (so far) always stood up to scrutiny. There are no other scientifically supportable theories to explain speciation - none that have even a shred as much supporting evidence as Darwinian evolution. It's true that we don't know everything about the process - or how it played out historically - but not knowing *all* of the answers doesn't make what we *do* know false. Open to revision? Sure - if there's new evidence. But the new evidence that we do find tends to support the model - not detract from it. (a similar example is Newton's theories of motion not predicting exactly the motion of Mercury around the Sun... Einstein's refinements to Newton's work did explain it - but that didn't make Newton's conclusions wrong in the circumstances under which he made his observations).


    Not in a science class, it's not. Science isn't a body of knowledge - it's a process of making judgments based on objective (as much as possible) observations and repeatable tests. When it comes to speciation, there isn't a significant body of evidence to either disprove evolution or to support any other model. It's a cliche, but it's not that dissimilar to stating that the "Flat Earth Theory" deserves equal time in science class to the "Round Earth Theory" because both are possible based on the view from your living room window.

    If you're looking for "total closure" on this or pretty much any other complex topic I'm afraid you're out of luck. There are a *LOT* of facts... that support the model of evolution. Does that mean that we shouldn't continue to look for data and refine the model? Of course not. Does it mean that it's *impossible* that the model is flawed? Of course not. But it is, by far and away, the best explanation that we have based on what we can observe.

    Anyway, I think I've said my bit .
    "Science isn't a body of knowledge - it's a process of making judgments based on objective (as much as possible) observations and repeatable tests"

    So you can't eliminate bias? Quantum physics double slit?

    "by far and away, the best explanation that we have based on what we can observe"
    That kind of thinking is why the flat earth theory was developed in the first place, and was the popular view.
    As far as they can see it was flat.

  8. #58
    THIS bitch stringstheory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    1
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    That kind of thinking is why the flat earth theory was developed in the first place, and was the popular view.
    Yes, and then once new evidence came along the theory was no longer consistent with the evidence we had and was abandoned. What's your point? That's how science works, it makes no claims that it gets it right the first time. That's why they are called theories, because even though they hold up to the facts we have now, in the future we may find evidence to the contrary.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Introverted Feeling (46.7)
    Extraverted Intuition (45.7)
    Introverted Intuition (37.5)
    Introverted Thinking(26.5)
    Extraverted Feeling (25.4)
    Extraverted Thinking (22.1)
    Extraverted Sensing (19.5)
    Introverted Sensing (17.0)



  9. #59
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stringstheory View Post
    Yes, and then once new evidence came along the theory was no longer consistent with the evidence we had and was abandoned. What's your point? That's how science works, it makes no claims that it gets it right the first time. That's why they are called theories, because even though they hold up to the facts we have now, in the future we may find evidence to the contrary.
    My point is, he can't put himself in the position of, could my current belief be like the flat earth earth theory? Is there something else? Because obviously we are missing something here if it's not a fact.
    He basically said, it's the popular view and I'm satisfied with that even if it's not totally proven, just like a flat earth theorist would behave.

    In my opinion theory of evolution is kind of like this, it's just really popular but still not a fact and anyone who thinks otherwise is considered crazy without any real thoughtful consideration of the possiblity.

  10. #60
    THIS bitch stringstheory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    1
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    My point is, he can't put himself in the position of, could my current belief be like the flat earth earth theory? Is there something else? Because obviously we are missing something here if it's not a fact.
    He basically said, it's the popular view and I'm satisfied with that even if it's not totally proven, just like a flat earth theorist would behave.
    While I see what you are saying and I believe it's important to keep in mind, I think people (such as myself) who place a lot of weight into science already do. Because we are human we don't know the answers to the big questions, we try and figure them out and one of the big things about science is that we should be open to new research and findings.

    There is always the possibility we're missing something, but keep in mind there's also the possibility that we are not. While we can never be 100% for sure how right we are (if at all), we can't say for sure how wrong we are either (if at all). And due to that chance of being wrong, even if it's only 0.000001%, that's why it always will be theory, it's just the closest we have to fact using these methods. And if the evidence continues to show that our current theories hold up, what else are we to assume it as until new evidence throws a wrench in it all?

    Evolutionary Theory isn't like the prom queen, it isn't "popular" just because. It's not accepted BECAUSE it is popular, it's accepted because that it's the idea with the most scientific research and findings on it's side. To dismiss it as the "popular view" is to imply that there isn't really any weight behind it, which is simply not true.

    In contrast, if theories do not hold up to the scientific method we base our fields of science off of, then what business does it have in a science classroom? None. That's the point of having those standards in the first place, and those ideas belong in another classroom.

    Sorry for the big edit, I was inspired
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Introverted Feeling (46.7)
    Extraverted Intuition (45.7)
    Introverted Intuition (37.5)
    Introverted Thinking(26.5)
    Extraverted Feeling (25.4)
    Extraverted Thinking (22.1)
    Extraverted Sensing (19.5)
    Introverted Sensing (17.0)



Similar Threads

  1. Sensing/iNtuiting Game: Perceiving Differences
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 05:30 PM
  2. Bible Toys Invade Wal-Mart
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 12:53 AM
  3. RIAA and investigatory processes
    By rivercrow in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 04:55 PM
  4. Intuitive memory...
    By The Ü™ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 08:43 PM
  5. Do Sensors read faster than iNtuitives?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 03:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO