Those aren't just fancy terms.. they are ways to define things, as used in the scientific community... I can explain what they mean, if you like, but I assume that people are capable of looking something up if it's not easily understood.
They mean nothing beyond what I said. In science, they only hold a seperate meaning when you quantify (limit) the terms (electricity, motion, 4 moles, 8 joules etc.). The term "biochemical" on its own describes everything. Simply because of the word "chemistry" in there.
What doesn't count as chemistry? In reference to my previous post; If the Christian god exists, he would be studied chemically. Anything that exists can be studied chemically.
I'm not going to spend my time writing out fifteen paragraphs to try to explain all the things that a biochemical process can be. I used the term to begin with because it's all encompassing and I would rather not go into explanation of neurons, dendrites, serotonin, etc or to explain the way that DNA and RNA behaves. It took me 4 years to get my biochemistry degree. I'd rather not spend 4 more trying to write a random post on a forum to explain little things that, if someone is interested, they can easily look up. I'm just putting my opinion out there.
You could explain the processes I already know. It wouldn't answer the question though.
E.g. This is how the brain functions, DNA, RNA, Neurons etc.
After all that, the question "is it random or determined?" is still there. What is it about that explanation you'd give, that makes "life" random or determined? What is it about the nature of DNA that makes you think it is random?
It doesn't need to be that complex an explanation either. Simply "when you cut of someones head, they die", is that random or determined? A molecule exists, is that random or determined?
You are right.. I don't want to debate it. I'm just stating how I see the issue. You are welcome to disagree, but when you start using words like "fancy" or "vague", it rubs me a little wrong
Right.
You are implying something, without saying it outright. I'd rather you just say "I disagree and this is why" rather than attacking how I constructed what I wanted to say. That's a little nit picky to go after the way its' said rather than what is actually said. I might be more willing to debate, if that were the way it was approached.
I've said exactly what I meant, saying it all outright. Basically I'm pointing out that you and others haven't answered the question.
What I said before clearly shows that I don't disagree (I can't disagree with something so vague). It's not about the way it's said, it's about what is said.
Oh, and it's rude to come in and say "your posts and most others have no sensible meaning".
So what debate etiquette should I follow?
It's a common statement made in philosophy. Happens a lot.
You've just pointed out everyone else's inconsistencies, in your opinion.
What's you point? (I did actually make some positive statement in my first post)
If I don't have a particular opinion, and see flaws in other's opinions, I will still take part in a debate, rather than ignore the flaws.
I find putting "in my opinion" a redundant statement in a debate or throughout all situations, but it is there after everything I say or do.