Ward was acting a bit childish at the end. But wake me up when intelligent design predicts anything of substance and value. Which flu strains will strike the US in the next flu season? Can intelligent design predict that at all? Nope. It's not falsifiable, it's constructed entirely from the ground up to cast the slightest sliver of doubt on evolution. Even if we were to concede that intelligent design was the true "theory", which it will never be. Where do we go from there?
ID is a HUGE argument from ignorance. Amazing. When Meyer says that 'Darwinism' isnt directed since there is no mind me is being illogical. Just because he and his religion can't understand how this can h appen without a skydaddy doesnt mean that the skydaddy is real.
Meyer acts like a child...getting mad at audience applause like he did is a joke.
Natural selection IS the 'director'...though using the term director or 'is directed' isnt how things work. Just because y ou dont understand it doesnt mean it isnt true and it doenst allow the insertion of God.
Anyway. It is a huge argument from ignorance and debating with creationists is useless...their faith blinds t heir reason.
@ThieleM Wow, you made up that I am taking the "god" position all on your own. Does making up another's position help you win arguments? Here's what I saw you say, "Natural selection IS the 'director: followed by, "though using the term director or 'is directed' isnt how things work." Surely you did not mean such a contradiction, or perhaps you have no idea that you just presented one.
I will break down what I said. Using the word 'director' implies an end goal...evolution doesnt have an end goal and noting is laid out in a manner that calls for a director like the ID proponents like to assert. Natural selection is the mechanism by which changes must pass. That is why I put the word 'director' in quotations....because is is not the best word to use to describe the actual process of natural selection.
@ThieleM Yeah we're having trouble understanding each other. I think I see what you mean now though. However, calling natural selection a "mechanism" infers that it is some sort of system set up. Perhaps we should call it the "random, chaotic, mindless chance thingie that made us all as advanced as we are today" thing. (I know, kinda wordy huh? lol
Mechanism has a different meanings depending on context. In the area of Natural selection mechanism doesnt mean 'moving parts' it means pressure. Scientific terms are hard to discuss since meanings change depending on contexts. Look at how many people dont understand that the word 'theory' means 'explation' in science.
@ThieleM You seem like an expert. Come to think of it, in science even that word has a different meaning. In science it would be a short bust of pressure, (like a fart). lol
The origin of life is explained by Abiogenesis, not Evolution. Meyer's comment that the test based on the conditions of the early earth are designed is quite true, but the identity of the designer(s) is/are known. Meyer then shifts his position when the fact is brought up that natural selection is a source of direction, saying that it is, but his definition of direction requires intelligence.
what Ward dose not under stand is that at the begining there was no infomation, RNA was just random. But if you roll 6 six sided dices enough you will get 1,2,3,4,5,6 at some point, was that design or just chance? At some point the random chance would have created some useful strings of RNA, those useful strings would have had a better chance at copying themselves and so life begins and it has not stopped since.
its actually quite simple, so is ward an idiot, or lying to support his beliefs?
i think youre mixing up the names. aside from that, you are making a claim that has no evidence to support it. no one knows what the original organic molecules/cells were much less what their RNA/DNA was like is. the principles behind what you say are valid, but when you look deeper into the issue you will find that the probability of such occurring randomly is unimaginably far from "probable"
You're right, science isn't decided by a debate, but it isn't decided by a majority vote either.
The reason they don't want to talk to ID proponents is because they sound too reasonable, so they instead do like I said and use their majority numbers to subdue the ID side by making teachers fear for their jobs, presenting half truths or just plain lying. But most agree on the lie and in the 21st century it's easy to sell to people who were brainwashed since kindergarten
@tchristian04 - I have only come to look at ID in the last 2 months. And keeping an open mind whilst investigating the 2 sides. I'm having a difficult time understanding what in ID fails to meet the requirements of a scientific proposition -- implied or alleged creationist ideology aside.
@lunabirdie I agree Ward is a horrible debator. However, Meyers first premise is logically refuted from the get go. Intelligence or an engineer is the product of evolution. He claims that the best explanation is what we understand about information and causes & effects & using humans as the example. If cellular life is the only life form then there isn't any concept of design nor a designer because humans don't exist. It is faulty to use the product for the premise of its origin.
@Fishqueen1972 to quote you..." If cellular life is the only life form then there isn't any concept of design nor a designer."....i wonder why ...aren't we a cellular life form? we use the product for the premise in other areas of science all the time...why not evolution?(macro that is) ..
@lunabirdie Meyers premise which he stated that science is supposed to use the best explanation of representation at the time. He was using the idea of intelligence. I was referring to single celled life. If the only life on the planet were simple life and we weren't here designing things then his premise fails because there aren't any humans. Get it?
@lunabirdie Sure its ok, but I was speaking about what is scientific evidence and what is not. I can't speak about whether or not a God exists, but if evolution is true and he exists then that is how he did it. I don't understand what the problem is.
@Fishqueen1972 ...i agree...science relies on, and is tested by natural means , with what we understand in the natural world. scientific philosophy is almost an oxymoron......because it brings mankind's thoughts of ( for example- the subject of origins) into what Natural science has accomplished and is continuing to accomplish. i believe philosophy is an important subject as well as naturalistic science......are you a naturalist?
@lunabirdie I guess so. It would depend on the context. Meyer will never accept Natural Selection because he believes it is impossible & he has some wishful thinking going on in his mind because he wants life to be intelligently designed. He even said that if a abiogenesis experiment brought about life from non-life then he would reject it. I don't think he is a good scientist.
@Fishqueen1972. Limited: It can only select from existing traits, and cannot create new traits;
* Rapid: It can adapt a species to new environmental conditions within a few generations;* Increases Specialization: Natural selection adapts organisms to particular environments or niches.
* Decreases Diversity: Traits disadvantageous in a particular environment (although potentially advantageous in another environment) are lost, leaving a less diverse gene pool narrowly suited to its environment.
@lunabirdie I disagree with these statements. Single celled algae has been observed to evolve into multiple celled algae. Traits can be copted for a new function instead of being lost. I don't understand people who assert impossibilities, but believe in the supernatural. That seems like a contradiction to me.
@Fishqueen1972 ....it's still algae....it had the genetic code 'Already'......to develop into multi-celled algae....algae begets algae....bacteria begets bacteria.
@lunabirdie That good because an evolutionist would agree with you. I don't think you have all the information of the different hypothesis out there. They don't think that today's bacteria evolved into us through random mutation and natural selection. The fact is though there are different species of bacteria and mutation has happens which would change their classification into a different species.
@Fishqueen1972 ..meyer just defines it differently(natural selection)..i believe he is a scientist as far as good....good? ..what is good, mediocre, bad, ..science is ever growing.testing. and learning ...as for abiogenesis-,, -this will never happen(this is my opinion) ..when or if it does, i'm in ..you got me ..i'll join the flock..i really just think we can live life and get along with separate world views....i'm a supernaturalist, you're a naturalist..this is o.k. with me...,epistemology?
@lunabirdie Naturalistic Science is the study of natural forces and figuring out a natural explanation. That is what it is. If he disagrees with the premise then he shouldn't be one. Some scientists of the past have retreated into the god of the gaps and he is doing the same thing. There are even Christians who agree with me. I don't think naturalism and supernaturalism is necessarily mutually exclusive.
@Fishqueen1972 " I don't think naturalism and supernaturalism Are necessarily mutually exclusive."....Really ?...then look at the definitions of each ...then you'll know .
@lunabirdie There are many definitions of naturalism and given the fact that Dr. Collins who is a Christian also believes in the undirected forces of nature. If someone describes themselves as a supernaturalist then it is to ambiguous because that could mean many things. For someone who believes everything that happens is based on supernatural forces then that reminds me of a matrix or a more simple analogy, a cartoon. That just doesn't map with reality for me.
@lunabirdie And you do realize that even if abiogensesis never occurs in a lab doesn't mean it didn't happen. It could just be we are to ignorant to replicate it.
No. The question is, was he using the word "race" in the nineteenth century as we use it today? If you read the book, you will clearly see that it is not used in the same context.
The context of how Darwin used the word "race" is how we would use the word "variety". It denotes variations in a population that could be selected upon such as shorter legs, faster, thicker coat, bigger claws etc. Race is not as used in the context of human "races". The Origin of Species rarely even refers to humans at all.
Evolution has made serious advancements since Darwin, so as an evolutionist I can answer I'll answer you're question: No.
The questions you have to ask yourself if you are a bible believer is should you be Racist like your god? After all, God did condone the Holocaust by not intervening, and the Jews did kill Christ; it was also God's will that Ham's descendants be cursed into slavery, hence the African slave trade, and all those verses about slaves obeying their masters.
2:27 What? Now thats funny. Look, I dint know what to think about the design argument but this guy Ward is being completely taken apart. Where are all the Dawkins loving apologist.
[1] Atheism is a world view that makes truth claims about supernatural things outside the realm of science ("there is no god", this is in contrast to agnosticism), I have no problem calling it a religion.
[2] In an atheistic world view, ritual based on superstition is the only real basis for morality (right and wrong are because they just are!)
[3] a heretic is someone who denies the orthodox doctrine, I deny macro-evolution, so I'm an atheist heretic =)
I as an atheist dont believe right and wrong are because they just are!.. I believe that through the history of evolution an attitude like; "dont kill your friends" has shown to give the organism a higher chance of surviving because it were dependent on having "friends". Therefore we have evolved into having a bad feeling about killing our friends.
Saying right and wrong have no *objective* basis is equivalent to saying there is no right and wrong at all. If we are free to disregard our notions of right and wrong (there's no consequences, it's only socially unacceptable if you get caught), it makes no difference.
In years to come, my offspring may just evolve the instinct that rape is totally fine. If nature selects for it, then why not?
I sincerely hope no-one actually believes this deep down.
Its not a matter of getting caught or not- its a matter of having a mechanism in your brain that gives you a bad feeling when doing something immoral or not. For example a psychopath has this part of his/her brain malfunctioning, therefore he/she will not have a bad feeling when doing something "immoral" even if the person is a believer. and if nature selects for it then yes, rape will not seem immoral to our off-spring. But if its someday a reality, the one being raped will feel okay about it.
Then do you feel that we should stop punishing rapists? I mean, they've obviously undergone a change in development so that they don't feel bad enough not to rape someone...
Why is their idea of what's ok and good any less correct than mine? Why shouldn't they be punishing me for *not* raping people?
If the rapist admits his/her mistake and regrets his/her actions I believe education/discipline/treatment and the like. If the rapist on the other hand do not show any sign of regret and has no mental illnesses he/she should be punished... But still i don't believe in mindless destructive punishment like "isolation" or "long-term prison".. I think it would be better if the rapist was sent to some sort of a really hard and discipline-orientated military-like school---
INteresting comment on the information part. curious every possible combination of nucleotides codes for something so any combination can make something. In created code you do not see the same thing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"I'm not being paid anything?" guy is such a jerk. Obvious Meyer is a smart guy, and he's NOT denying evolution. He knows the world is millions of years old. Religious people don't, but they're not scientists. There is an obvious difference between religious people denying scientific fact and Meyer, who is actually a scientist and not trying to deny anything.
meyer is not a scientist and denies simple biology science: namely: ALL of the papers explaining evolution. can't you tell he can't even explain what he is opposing?
Meyer is not a biologist and clearly presents no evidence to support any of his claims - a gross mistake by someone who claims to have studied history of science.
Meyers is a denialist for denying the extensive phossil record, he denies that genes account for diversity, he denies that evolution explains every single living being upon this planet (or any other, in fact).
he fails miserably in trying to use misquotes to support his lunacy. He fails miserably in trying to prove gaps.
with the debunking by PZ Meyers - who is a biology professor.
The Meyers geologist is completly discredit by the scientific community - heck even i can hear and read what he thinks and understand all the quackery he writes...
ffs... to deny evolution is like denying that aids/hiv exists...
I love how Ward covers his B.Sing by saying we have MILLIONS of YEARS *SMILE* what a dumbass. So he even admits the high IMPROBABILITY Of what he is proposing as well as the fact that this all need to be coordinated quite delicately. $100 million for this testing. Thats some serious prep to let something random happen. hahhaa
umm it is actually quite necessary to evaluate characeter because if you do and see that the person lacks integrity, the very integrity of their arguments is also compromised my friends. It has NOTHING to do with maturity. Nice try with the bait 'n' switch tho.
Then u should really evaluate Stephen C Meyer's character, the way he tries to evade the law by hiding creationism under the guise of intelligent design. Constantly lies(first there are NO per reviewed ID paper, the only ONE was reviewed by Sternberg who was also an intelligent design advocate).
He saw wade incapable of correcting him on facts and he made used of it.
He is also on one hand says he dunno who the designer was, and on other interview he say it was obvious it was God.
He'd violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". By trying to promote a creationist agenda in public school.
And he try to hide this fact under the guise of "Intelligent Design".
lol...as if science was a question of "belief"... don't ever mix science with surpestition.
you might believe that the earth is flat, but the fact it isn't. the same thing happens with evolution. Inside a science class room the facts will be taught, but if you still prefer to believe the earth is 6k years old and a big giant crab made the universe just don't write it at the finals.... and keep it to you.
But if one contends that empirical observation is the only or best way to perform science, that leads to the question: "is that statement itself empirically testable?"
The answer is, NO, it is not. It is arbitrary, but unavoidable, because we need a starting point. But it still remains a philosophical contradiction.
You do know that by empirical i mean direct observation of the mathmatical model or visual observation of the phenomena.
There is no other way to perceive reality. You have 5 senses and a brain to interpret what they perceive.
So yes, the empirical observation is empirically testable. You don't have more than 5 senses and your brain is limited by those senses in terms of reality caption.
I don't care what YOU mean, I care what the scientific community means. And this is not ME saying this - this is the classic dilemma of science - look into the Philosophy of History.
I didn't say the "empirical observation is not testable."
A statement such as THIS is not testable:
"Empirical observation is the best or only reliable way to perform science."
There is no way to empirically test this statement.
I trough an apple at F=m.a, it will fall at y metres of me, just by measuring the force of thrust and the weight of the apple.
I could say it was god doing it. But as my senses don't perceive god. god does not exist. pure and simple.
I performed science by predicting where the apple would fall, and accumulated the knowledge by applying the scientific community evaluation of the theory.
is there a better way to evaluate the world than using science? no
And you do care what i mean. As individuals form the scientific community. And any one outside the core of experts can propose a theory and debate it with peers. If you make sense and no reffutal can be made Empirically. Your hypothesis pass the test.
but this is not even the important thing here...
i don't need the scientific consensus to know that creationism is wrong... i just need to understand basic sciences to disprove it.
creationism is not a science even. its surpestition
(and i ad the why: because reality phenoma is perceived by senses, the compilation - and ofc a little more than that - of those perceptions make what we call science, puting it very simply..)
By definition reality can be defined as what is perceived. Therefore what we perceive is a direct contact with a reality or the models of it. The empirical observation of such phenomena is in itself the only test you need. As when you observe a phenomena you don't observe 90% or 100%. You just see what you have and interpret it. The test you ask for is done by applying senses. Therefore the empirical study of reality is in fact the objective of science.
you might insist in claiming that "is not", but to try reffute with a negation you need a support for it. A simple negation is a persistense of nothing of value....
care to explain your definition of reality and empiricism.
Science have no opinion on the "metaphysics" it is not the role of science to do that. We test and analyses the observable "reality".
It is not the role of, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering to answer philosophical question which is subjective. Only objective questions for practical reasons.
Are u saying that science should now have a subjective "opinion" on philosophical issues? Whats the merit of doing so? I'd say no simply because it is irrelevant.
you really should have read about the axioms of reality jackblair... or empiricism...
Nonmaterial forces fall in a concept of surpestition, faith, belief. It means that they only exist inside a concept of imagination, not of reality. Therefore nothing can measure it, because those "forces" are in fact non-existent. They only "exist" as long as your belief in them persists. It means that in practical terms nonmaterial forces are..... nothing.
For example the limitation of what exists is as big as our limitation of understandings. When you speak about those limitations you determine what are the dimensions of those limits. for example: shape, sides, color, so on, limit the concept of anything that exists.
Those "forces" you speak of because they can't be defined by physical dimensions, they are dependent in one sole brain imagination. It means, that has no physical of way of defining limits. it means it does not exist.
in fact science is the best tool/way to explain what we perceive. AS its explanations of reality can be replicated by any mind in the world.
This concept of reality being not dependent upon the observer is very important. As it means that nonmaterial forces can't exist as they fall to the determination of only one mind - making any concept of nonmaterial force equal to nothing that can be perceived by others.
nonmaterial = opposite of material. As material is in reality and nonmaterial its not. All nonmaterial things do not exist. That's what nonmaterial means in scientific terms. Science actually explains what there isn't there. SHOUTING loud when nonsense is being said.
science can determine what exists. because if not, who could? who could provide the proof its existence with a replicable method? in order for it to be real and perceived by all?
You are trying to argue hypothetically that the there might be "things" that can't be perceived or explained by using science.
As this "things" break the empirically perceived laws of physics. they don't exist everytime their use can't explain what is empirically perceived. this is me refering to the phylosophy of the axioms of reality discussed by many phylosophers in history
But ID in school is. ID advocates like the Discovery Institute who try to bring ID into public school is advocating something illegal, and wrong, thats all im saying.
Advocating something illegal is different as committing the illegal act itself, i recognize that.
you keep proving my point: you are shouting surpestition. You keep not understanding how nonmaterial things could only be imagined by one individual and not perceived or be equal in terms of image and dimensions to other observers...
axoms of reality jack...
science gives you methods than can explain phenomena by the use of methods that can be used by all and allow perception of the phenomena equally by all
Now, I want you to refute every one of these points that you made. You can do it. A person with critical thinking skills can refute his own arguments.
Peter, you should know of good bar, it appears you were at at one before this debate...geeez brother lay off the cough syrup.
tally2312 2 months ago
We all know that as an actual scientific tool, it is completely useless
IllegalAmigo07 2 months ago
Ward was acting a bit childish at the end. But wake me up when intelligent design predicts anything of substance and value. Which flu strains will strike the US in the next flu season? Can intelligent design predict that at all? Nope. It's not falsifiable, it's constructed entirely from the ground up to cast the slightest sliver of doubt on evolution. Even if we were to concede that intelligent design was the true "theory", which it will never be. Where do we go from there?
IllegalAmigo07 2 months ago
Atheists are weak. Very weak indeed.
Seigu007 4 months ago
Ward got pwned! its 2011 still no life.
philackey 4 months ago
Ward was clearly intimidated. Meyer too brainy.
M131669 4 months ago
Dr. Ward is such a douche,what an embarrassing debate for him
Voltar143 5 months ago
Peter Ward simply comes off as intellectually dishonest in all of this. He just does his peers a great disservice by his behavior.
mgundy 7 months ago
Peter Ward please stfu
TheBloodPardon 10 months ago
darwin didnt give a crap about society lol...to say hes racist is ignorant beyond belief...u have completely missed the point
noobadoc 1 year ago
Wow, Ward is such an ignorant pig who loves his own voice. Always talks over everone with his erroneous comments.
MrBDM13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Intelligent Design will destroy the myth of EVOLUTION.
algadykhalifa 1 year ago
ID is a HUGE argument from ignorance. Amazing. When Meyer says that 'Darwinism' isnt directed since there is no mind me is being illogical. Just because he and his religion can't understand how this can h appen without a skydaddy doesnt mean that the skydaddy is real.
Meyer acts like a child...getting mad at audience applause like he did is a joke.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM I'm not sure what you tried to say, but Darwinism is not directed adaptations. If it is, how is it you suppose it is directed?
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Natural selection IS the 'director'...though using the term director or 'is directed' isnt how things work. Just because y ou dont understand it doesnt mean it isnt true and it doenst allow the insertion of God.
Anyway. It is a huge argument from ignorance and debating with creationists is useless...their faith blinds t heir reason.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM Wow, you made up that I am taking the "god" position all on your own. Does making up another's position help you win arguments? Here's what I saw you say, "Natural selection IS the 'director: followed by, "though using the term director or 'is directed' isnt how things work." Surely you did not mean such a contradiction, or perhaps you have no idea that you just presented one.
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
I didnt address your stance on the matter.
I will break down what I said. Using the word 'director' implies an end goal...evolution doesnt have an end goal and noting is laid out in a manner that calls for a director like the ID proponents like to assert. Natural selection is the mechanism by which changes must pass. That is why I put the word 'director' in quotations....because is is not the best word to use to describe the actual process of natural selection.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM Yeah we're having trouble understanding each other. I think I see what you mean now though. However, calling natural selection a "mechanism" infers that it is some sort of system set up. Perhaps we should call it the "random, chaotic, mindless chance thingie that made us all as advanced as we are today" thing. (I know, kinda wordy huh? lol
gcnengineer 1 year ago
@gcnengineer
Kinda.
Mechanism has a different meanings depending on context. In the area of Natural selection mechanism doesnt mean 'moving parts' it means pressure. Scientific terms are hard to discuss since meanings change depending on contexts. Look at how many people dont understand that the word 'theory' means 'explation' in science.
ThieleM 1 year ago
@ThieleM You seem like an expert. Come to think of it, in science even that word has a different meaning. In science it would be a short bust of pressure, (like a fart). lol
gcnengineer 1 year ago
Ward loses this debate because he doesn't have enough theological background to ask the tried and true questions that would dismantle Mayer...
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
Ward is a total dork!
copernicanideas 1 year ago
The origin of life is explained by Abiogenesis, not Evolution. Meyer's comment that the test based on the conditions of the early earth are designed is quite true, but the identity of the designer(s) is/are known. Meyer then shifts his position when the fact is brought up that natural selection is a source of direction, saying that it is, but his definition of direction requires intelligence.
topdogtomiii 1 year ago
How to promote Intelligent design
Take a deadly virus and try to convince
people about irreducible complexity
in order to promote a God of mercy.
jipersson 1 year ago
How to start life:
1.soap
2.water
3.terrarium
4.any number of years ending in "illion"
So simple. At least now I don't have to think about the problem anymore.
CogitorsWisdom 2 years ago
Why make it so complex?
How to start life:
1. Divine magic.
Wow. Suddenly the creationist viewpoint seems very appealing.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
what Ward dose not under stand is that at the begining there was no infomation, RNA was just random. But if you roll 6 six sided dices enough you will get 1,2,3,4,5,6 at some point, was that design or just chance? At some point the random chance would have created some useful strings of RNA, those useful strings would have had a better chance at copying themselves and so life begins and it has not stopped since.
its actually quite simple, so is ward an idiot, or lying to support his beliefs?
fireflygirl246 2 years ago
i think youre mixing up the names. aside from that, you are making a claim that has no evidence to support it. no one knows what the original organic molecules/cells were much less what their RNA/DNA was like is. the principles behind what you say are valid, but when you look deeper into the issue you will find that the probability of such occurring randomly is unimaginably far from "probable"
glabblegill 2 years ago
ward is an idiot.
dmn22 2 years ago
Wow, what a compelling argument.
johnnyone9 2 years ago
This wasn't even a fair debate. Peter Ward doesn't deserve to be in the same room as Stephen Meyer.
Much respect to Mr. Meyer!!!!!!!!
geedup415 2 years ago
@geedup415 He's quite good at talking, yes. That probably prevents a lot of people from seeing through his bullshit.
TheSeventhSon 2 years ago
Comment removed
glabblegill 2 years ago
Ward is showing his desperation with his continual childish distractions/interruptions and shout-outs to his buddies to help him gang up on Meyer
tchristian04 2 years ago 16
I sense that too, LOL!!!!!!!
geedup415 2 years ago
Science isn't decided by some debate. You just don't sit around and talk and the one with the most charisma wins. The Dover trial confirmed that.
There is a reason why most scientist don't want to talk to ID proponents any more.
Fragenzeichenplatte 2 years ago
You're right, science isn't decided by a debate, but it isn't decided by a majority vote either.
The reason they don't want to talk to ID proponents is because they sound too reasonable, so they instead do like I said and use their majority numbers to subdue the ID side by making teachers fear for their jobs, presenting half truths or just plain lying. But most agree on the lie and in the 21st century it's easy to sell to people who were brainwashed since kindergarten
tchristian04 2 years ago
Are you talking about the ID side or the scientists? ;)
Fragenzeichenplatte 2 years ago
@tchristian04 - I have only come to look at ID in the last 2 months. And keeping an open mind whilst investigating the 2 sides. I'm having a difficult time understanding what in ID fails to meet the requirements of a scientific proposition -- implied or alleged creationist ideology aside.
mhearstify 2 years ago
@tchristian04 you would do the same if you where debating a Bigfoot believer.
pandorachild 6 months ago
Meyer comes across well. Ward comes across as a bit of a jerk who doesn't understand the issues.
viewfromcrowhill 2 years ago 2
GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE.
levonet33 2 years ago 2
GOD IS THE UNIVERSE
TheGameJedi 2 years ago
@levonet33 Wow, I never thought about it this way! What a profound argument!
Matismatt 1 year ago
@levonet33
Exactly! The great god DAIZAN!!
Accept him or not... he ultimately doesn't give a shit.
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
@levonet33
Prove it
ThieleM 1 year ago
Darwinist type in ''Ota Benga'' and lets see how r u gonna justify it.
alsananick 2 years ago
Ward got fucking Hammered !!!!!!!!
lunabirdie 2 years ago 13
@lunabirdie I agree Ward is a horrible debator. However, Meyers first premise is logically refuted from the get go. Intelligence or an engineer is the product of evolution. He claims that the best explanation is what we understand about information and causes & effects & using humans as the example. If cellular life is the only life form then there isn't any concept of design nor a designer because humans don't exist. It is faulty to use the product for the premise of its origin.
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 to quote you..." If cellular life is the only life form then there isn't any concept of design nor a designer."....i wonder why ...aren't we a cellular life form? we use the product for the premise in other areas of science all the time...why not evolution?(macro that is) ..
lunabirdie 10 months ago
@lunabirdie Meyers premise which he stated that science is supposed to use the best explanation of representation at the time. He was using the idea of intelligence. I was referring to single celled life. If the only life on the planet were simple life and we weren't here designing things then his premise fails because there aren't any humans. Get it?
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...so we have different world views ..that's ok
lunabirdie 10 months ago
@lunabirdie Sure its ok, but I was speaking about what is scientific evidence and what is not. I can't speak about whether or not a God exists, but if evolution is true and he exists then that is how he did it. I don't understand what the problem is.
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ...i agree...science relies on, and is tested by natural means , with what we understand in the natural world. scientific philosophy is almost an oxymoron......because it brings mankind's thoughts of ( for example- the subject of origins) into what Natural science has accomplished and is continuing to accomplish. i believe philosophy is an important subject as well as naturalistic science......are you a naturalist?
lunabirdie 10 months ago
@lunabirdie I guess so. It would depend on the context. Meyer will never accept Natural Selection because he believes it is impossible & he has some wishful thinking going on in his mind because he wants life to be intelligently designed. He even said that if a abiogenesis experiment brought about life from non-life then he would reject it. I don't think he is a good scientist.
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
@Fishqueen1972. Limited: It can only select from existing traits, and cannot create new traits;
* Rapid: It can adapt a species to new environmental conditions within a few generations;* Increases Specialization: Natural selection adapts organisms to particular environments or niches.
* Decreases Diversity: Traits disadvantageous in a particular environment (although potentially advantageous in another environment) are lost, leaving a less diverse gene pool narrowly suited to its environment.
lunabirdie 10 months ago
@lunabirdie I disagree with these statements. Single celled algae has been observed to evolve into multiple celled algae. Traits can be copted for a new function instead of being lost. I don't understand people who assert impossibilities, but believe in the supernatural. That seems like a contradiction to me.
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ....it's still algae....it had the genetic code 'Already'......to develop into multi-celled algae....algae begets algae....bacteria begets bacteria.
lunabirdie 10 months ago
@lunabirdie That good because an evolutionist would agree with you. I don't think you have all the information of the different hypothesis out there. They don't think that today's bacteria evolved into us through random mutation and natural selection. The fact is though there are different species of bacteria and mutation has happens which would change their classification into a different species.
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 ..meyer just defines it differently(natural selection)..i believe he is a scientist as far as good....good? ..what is good, mediocre, bad, ..science is ever growing.testing. and learning ...as for abiogenesis-,, -this will never happen(this is my opinion) ..when or if it does, i'm in ..you got me ..i'll join the flock..i really just think we can live life and get along with separate world views....i'm a supernaturalist, you're a naturalist..this is o.k. with me...,epistemology?
lunabirdie 10 months ago
@lunabirdie Naturalistic Science is the study of natural forces and figuring out a natural explanation. That is what it is. If he disagrees with the premise then he shouldn't be one. Some scientists of the past have retreated into the god of the gaps and he is doing the same thing. There are even Christians who agree with me. I don't think naturalism and supernaturalism is necessarily mutually exclusive.
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fishqueen1972 " I don't think naturalism and supernaturalism Are necessarily mutually exclusive."....Really ?...then look at the definitions of each ...then you'll know .
lunabirdie 10 months ago
@lunabirdie There are many definitions of naturalism and given the fact that Dr. Collins who is a Christian also believes in the undirected forces of nature. If someone describes themselves as a supernaturalist then it is to ambiguous because that could mean many things. For someone who believes everything that happens is based on supernatural forces then that reminds me of a matrix or a more simple analogy, a cartoon. That just doesn't map with reality for me.
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
@lunabirdie And you do realize that even if abiogensesis never occurs in a lab doesn't mean it didn't happen. It could just be we are to ignorant to replicate it.
Fishqueen1972 10 months ago
Full title of Darwin's book: ''The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life''
The question you have to ask yourself if you are a Darwinist is ''Am I Racist?''
alsananick 2 years ago
No. The question is, was he using the word "race" in the nineteenth century as we use it today? If you read the book, you will clearly see that it is not used in the same context.
djarm67 2 years ago
ok. you tell me please.what does he mean by favored race?
alsananick 2 years ago
The context of how Darwin used the word "race" is how we would use the word "variety". It denotes variations in a population that could be selected upon such as shorter legs, faster, thicker coat, bigger claws etc. Race is not as used in the context of human "races". The Origin of Species rarely even refers to humans at all.
djarm67 2 years ago 3
The human race. He was not referring to ethnicity.
TheNamesBettyNyahhh 2 years ago
Darwinist?
Evolution has made serious advancements since Darwin, so as an evolutionist I can answer I'll answer you're question: No.
The questions you have to ask yourself if you are a bible believer is should you be Racist like your god? After all, God did condone the Holocaust by not intervening, and the Jews did kill Christ; it was also God's will that Ham's descendants be cursed into slavery, hence the African slave trade, and all those verses about slaves obeying their masters.
thecrashingfalcon 2 years ago
@alsananick Hitler derived much of his thinking on Darwinism. I like to call Darwinists, "Hitlers."
Well not really, but the comparison in ideologies is very similar
kjrock2 5 days ago
2:27 What? Now thats funny. Look, I dint know what to think about the design argument but this guy Ward is being completely taken apart. Where are all the Dawkins loving apologist.
TodaysThought 2 years ago
What on earth is wrong with ward? he is not able to talk decently. he is a hooter.
wandp7782 2 years ago
Is Stephen Meyer saying we are gods if we can make life?
stefansv 2 years ago
He's stating the obvious: if we can make life, we are intelligent designers of it.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
[1] Atheism is a world view that makes truth claims about supernatural things outside the realm of science ("there is no god", this is in contrast to agnosticism), I have no problem calling it a religion.
[2] In an atheistic world view, ritual based on superstition is the only real basis for morality (right and wrong are because they just are!)
[3] a heretic is someone who denies the orthodox doctrine, I deny macro-evolution, so I'm an atheist heretic =)
etc.
fatalglory777 2 years ago
I as an atheist dont believe right and wrong are because they just are!.. I believe that through the history of evolution an attitude like; "dont kill your friends" has shown to give the organism a higher chance of surviving because it were dependent on having "friends". Therefore we have evolved into having a bad feeling about killing our friends.
LuckyChatt 2 years ago
Saying right and wrong have no *objective* basis is equivalent to saying there is no right and wrong at all. If we are free to disregard our notions of right and wrong (there's no consequences, it's only socially unacceptable if you get caught), it makes no difference.
In years to come, my offspring may just evolve the instinct that rape is totally fine. If nature selects for it, then why not?
I sincerely hope no-one actually believes this deep down.
fatalglory777 2 years ago
Its not a matter of getting caught or not- its a matter of having a mechanism in your brain that gives you a bad feeling when doing something immoral or not. For example a psychopath has this part of his/her brain malfunctioning, therefore he/she will not have a bad feeling when doing something "immoral" even if the person is a believer. and if nature selects for it then yes, rape will not seem immoral to our off-spring. But if its someday a reality, the one being raped will feel okay about it.
LuckyChatt 2 years ago
Then do you feel that we should stop punishing rapists? I mean, they've obviously undergone a change in development so that they don't feel bad enough not to rape someone...
Why is their idea of what's ok and good any less correct than mine? Why shouldn't they be punishing me for *not* raping people?
fatalglory777 2 years ago
If the rapist admits his/her mistake and regrets his/her actions I believe education/discipline/treatment and the like. If the rapist on the other hand do not show any sign of regret and has no mental illnesses he/she should be punished... But still i don't believe in mindless destructive punishment like "isolation" or "long-term prison".. I think it would be better if the rapist was sent to some sort of a really hard and discipline-orientated military-like school---
LuckyChatt 2 years ago
INteresting comment on the information part. curious every possible combination of nucleotides codes for something so any combination can make something. In created code you do not see the same thing.
snakeguy76 2 years ago
The crucial element: sky daddy.
Chemicalogic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Peter should stop with the drugs before a debate
Nades129 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I'm not being paid anything?" guy is such a jerk. Obvious Meyer is a smart guy, and he's NOT denying evolution. He knows the world is millions of years old. Religious people don't, but they're not scientists. There is an obvious difference between religious people denying scientific fact and Meyer, who is actually a scientist and not trying to deny anything.
Loew01 3 years ago
meyer is not a scientist and denies simple biology science: namely: ALL of the papers explaining evolution. can't you tell he can't even explain what he is opposing?
transtlantic 2 years ago 4
Meyer is trained in geology. His major field of study is the Philosophy and History of Science. He's eminently qualified to discuss this.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Meyer is not a biologist and clearly presents no evidence to support any of his claims - a gross mistake by someone who claims to have studied history of science.
Meyers is a denialist for denying the extensive phossil record, he denies that genes account for diversity, he denies that evolution explains every single living being upon this planet (or any other, in fact).
he fails miserably in trying to use misquotes to support his lunacy. He fails miserably in trying to prove gaps.
transtlantic 2 years ago 2
You haven't read anything he has written, obviously.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
i have.
with the debunking by PZ Meyers - who is a biology professor.
The Meyers geologist is completly discredit by the scientific community - heck even i can hear and read what he thinks and understand all the quackery he writes...
ffs... to deny evolution is like denying that aids/hiv exists...
transtlantic 2 years ago
Meyer hasn't denied evolution.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
the simple empirical observation of bacteria resisting antibiotics in a petri dish reffute anything that a creationist claims.
jackblair - get an education
transtlantic 2 years ago 3
Yeah, not so much. That is "change over time."
JackBlair2 2 years ago
He actually said he believe in god in another part of the debate...
So he is religious by definition.
JRBendixen 2 years ago 4
So an evolutionist MUST be an atheist?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it did happen.
JackBlair2 3 years ago
"Just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it did happen."
-Thats why we rely on evidences. It does not mean we are 100% right, but science allow us to get close, a ballpark picture if you will.
ChemEBeaver 2 years ago 2
The science community now says Borax Soap..WTH!!!..
ytany84 3 years ago
I love how Ward covers his B.Sing by saying we have MILLIONS of YEARS *SMILE* what a dumbass. So he even admits the high IMPROBABILITY Of what he is proposing as well as the fact that this all need to be coordinated quite delicately. $100 million for this testing. Thats some serious prep to let something random happen. hahhaa
Trojanman21c 3 years ago
Attacking character is rather immature in a science argument.
ponyboy316 3 years ago
umm it is actually quite necessary to evaluate characeter because if you do and see that the person lacks integrity, the very integrity of their arguments is also compromised my friends. It has NOTHING to do with maturity. Nice try with the bait 'n' switch tho.
Trojanman21c 3 years ago
Then u should really evaluate Stephen C Meyer's character, the way he tries to evade the law by hiding creationism under the guise of intelligent design. Constantly lies(first there are NO per reviewed ID paper, the only ONE was reviewed by Sternberg who was also an intelligent design advocate).
He saw wade incapable of correcting him on facts and he made used of it.
He is also on one hand says he dunno who the designer was, and on other interview he say it was obvious it was God.
wildreams 3 years ago 3
He tries to "evade the law." WTF? What law did he break?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
He'd violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". By trying to promote a creationist agenda in public school.
And he try to hide this fact under the guise of "Intelligent Design".
wildreams 2 years ago
He's not a lawmaker. Trying to promote something is not illegal.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
When u try to teach it in school or get it taught in public schools, u are having trouble with the law.
wildreams 2 years ago
jackblair do you have any evidence at all to prove creationism? no, there is none.
why? because its surpestition, clear as that.
go back to highschool, they teach basic biology there
get real
transtlantic 2 years ago
I have not advocated "creationism."
JackBlair2 2 years ago
so what you do advocate.
i hope its evolution. anything else is surpestition
transtlantic 2 years ago
I advocate nothing, except following the evidence wherever it may lead. If that means taking metaphysical considerations into account, then so be it.
Why the inquisition/interrogation?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
do you care to explain how methaphysical "considerations" explain any event that happens in the universe?
you do know what methaphysical means? don't you? it equals to fantasy
transtlantic 2 years ago
I said I follow the evidence wherever it may lead.
Sorry if you don't like it. Now stop telling people what to believe.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
lol...as if science was a question of "belief"... don't ever mix science with surpestition.
you might believe that the earth is flat, but the fact it isn't. the same thing happens with evolution. Inside a science class room the facts will be taught, but if you still prefer to believe the earth is 6k years old and a big giant crab made the universe just don't write it at the finals.... and keep it to you.
transtlantic 2 years ago
It is a belief system.
There is a grand metaphysical assumption at the core of science.
It can't be helped; we need to have a starting place.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
where is that "methaphysical" assumption?
do you have any idea what is the scientific method? look at the words: scientific plus method
empirical observations have nothing to do with methaphysics. nothing. the first is about reality, the later is about surpestition.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Of course I do. Please describe it to me, and I will show you the glaring contradiction.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
why post all of the explanation here.
is there so many things to it, that you believe it has so many things to contradict?
just explain please where is the wrongness in the empirical observation of facts
this is gonna be interesting...
transtlantic 2 years ago
There is no "wrongness" in it.
But if one contends that empirical observation is the only or best way to perform science, that leads to the question: "is that statement itself empirically testable?"
The answer is, NO, it is not. It is arbitrary, but unavoidable, because we need a starting point. But it still remains a philosophical contradiction.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
uhm....
You do know that by empirical i mean direct observation of the mathmatical model or visual observation of the phenomena.
There is no other way to perceive reality. You have 5 senses and a brain to interpret what they perceive.
So yes, the empirical observation is empirically testable. You don't have more than 5 senses and your brain is limited by those senses in terms of reality caption.
There is no philosophical contradiction anywhere
transtlantic 2 years ago
I don't care what YOU mean, I care what the scientific community means. And this is not ME saying this - this is the classic dilemma of science - look into the Philosophy of History.
I didn't say the "empirical observation is not testable."
A statement such as THIS is not testable:
"Empirical observation is the best or only reliable way to perform science."
There is no way to empirically test this statement.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
I trough an apple at F=m.a, it will fall at y metres of me, just by measuring the force of thrust and the weight of the apple.
I could say it was god doing it. But as my senses don't perceive god. god does not exist. pure and simple.
I performed science by predicting where the apple would fall, and accumulated the knowledge by applying the scientific community evaluation of the theory.
is there a better way to evaluate the world than using science? no
transtlantic 2 years ago
And you do care what i mean. As individuals form the scientific community. And any one outside the core of experts can propose a theory and debate it with peers. If you make sense and no reffutal can be made Empirically. Your hypothesis pass the test.
but this is not even the important thing here...
i don't need the scientific consensus to know that creationism is wrong... i just need to understand basic sciences to disprove it.
creationism is not a science even. its surpestition
transtlantic 2 years ago
I haven't been trying to convince you of anything.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
i never said you were.
But you also are not making a point. As i clearly explain. you are wrong.
There is only one way to study reality phenomena: science.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"There is only one way to study reality phenomena: science."
That statement is not empirically testable.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
why is it not empirically testable?
picking up a logic like yours, i can just say:
My statement is empirically testable.
(and i ad the why: because reality phenoma is perceived by senses, the compilation - and ofc a little more than that - of those perceptions make what we call science, puting it very simply..)
go read the axioms of reality, google it
transtlantic 2 years ago
i am simply astonished how we are in fact discussing what is real or not....
the search for that definition eventually will lead to the empiricism and then the phylosophy of the scientific method...
shall i remind you that the first western scientists called themselfs: Natural phylosophers...
transtlantic 2 years ago
By definition reality can be defined as what is perceived. Therefore what we perceive is a direct contact with a reality or the models of it. The empirical observation of such phenomena is in itself the only test you need. As when you observe a phenomena you don't observe 90% or 100%. You just see what you have and interpret it. The test you ask for is done by applying senses. Therefore the empirical study of reality is in fact the objective of science.
transtlantic 2 years ago
you might insist in claiming that "is not", but to try reffute with a negation you need a support for it. A simple negation is a persistense of nothing of value....
care to explain your definition of reality and empiricism.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Science have no opinion on the "metaphysics" it is not the role of science to do that. We test and analyses the observable "reality".
It is not the role of, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering to answer philosophical question which is subjective. Only objective questions for practical reasons.
Are u saying that science should now have a subjective "opinion" on philosophical issues? Whats the merit of doing so? I'd say no simply because it is irrelevant.
wildreams 2 years ago
"It is not the role of, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering to answer philosophical question which is subjective."
True. So science cannot determine that there are or are not nonmaterial forces at work.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Science can determine what IS. What IS not, does not exist, therefore nonmaterial forces is a surperstition based idea.
There are only physical phenomena in the universe. That obey a set of physical laws.
as i said: you keep mentioning a "force" that does not exist and therefore you are talking about fantasy, not reality.
go read about the axioms of reality jackblair
you keep being wrong in all accounts
transtlantic 2 years ago 2
Science cannot determine that there are NO nonmaterial forces or agencies at work. Science, therefore, must remain silent on such issues.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
you really should have read about the axioms of reality jackblair... or empiricism...
Nonmaterial forces fall in a concept of surpestition, faith, belief. It means that they only exist inside a concept of imagination, not of reality. Therefore nothing can measure it, because those "forces" are in fact non-existent. They only "exist" as long as your belief in them persists. It means that in practical terms nonmaterial forces are..... nothing.
transtlantic 2 years ago
For example the limitation of what exists is as big as our limitation of understandings. When you speak about those limitations you determine what are the dimensions of those limits. for example: shape, sides, color, so on, limit the concept of anything that exists.
Those "forces" you speak of because they can't be defined by physical dimensions, they are dependent in one sole brain imagination. It means, that has no physical of way of defining limits. it means it does not exist.
transtlantic 2 years ago
in fact science is the best tool/way to explain what we perceive. AS its explanations of reality can be replicated by any mind in the world.
This concept of reality being not dependent upon the observer is very important. As it means that nonmaterial forces can't exist as they fall to the determination of only one mind - making any concept of nonmaterial force equal to nothing that can be perceived by others.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"it means that nonmaterial forces can't exist"???
Science cannot describe "nonmaterial forces." Therefore, science is SILENT on them.
That is different than saying they do not exist. Science cannot make that determination.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
axioms of reality jack...
nonmaterial = opposite of material. As material is in reality and nonmaterial its not. All nonmaterial things do not exist. That's what nonmaterial means in scientific terms. Science actually explains what there isn't there. SHOUTING loud when nonsense is being said.
science can determine what exists. because if not, who could? who could provide the proof its existence with a replicable method? in order for it to be real and perceived by all?
transtlantic 2 years ago
HE wouldn't be violating the law. It is not illegal to ADVOCATE anything.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
to push for nonsense to be taught in schools, mainly: to try push for religion to be taught at a science class is illegal.
i know he is trying to do it slowly, but thankfully scientists won't let him keep spreading nonsense.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Why do you worship scientists so much?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
"worship"???
lol
i "worship" knowledge, not quackery
transtlantic 2 years ago
No, it is not illegal to PUSH for anything.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
"No, it is not illegal to PUSH for anything."
lol
so "pushing" to sell snake oil in a pharmacy is ok? lol
or to "push" for heroin to sold at your local store? lol
transtlantic 2 years ago
He is pushing for something illegal this is a fact.
wildreams 2 years ago
He is not engaging in an illegal act.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
You are trying to argue hypothetically that the there might be "things" that can't be perceived or explained by using science.
As this "things" break the empirically perceived laws of physics. they don't exist everytime their use can't explain what is empirically perceived. this is me refering to the phylosophy of the axioms of reality discussed by many phylosophers in history
transtlantic 2 years ago
No he isn't.
But ID in school is. ID advocates like the Discovery Institute who try to bring ID into public school is advocating something illegal, and wrong, thats all im saying.
Advocating something illegal is different as committing the illegal act itself, i recognize that.
wildreams 2 years ago
Isn't advocating atheism in schools just as wrong?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
atheism is not a religion
transtlantic 2 years ago 2
It sure resembles one.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Comment removed
transtlantic 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol, how?
atheism is the opposite of belief in something supernatural...
theism= surpestition
atheism = no surpestition...
i knew you were mixing concepts...
transtlantic 2 years ago 2
But atheism has its own rituals, holy writings, saints, heretics, demons, holy sites, etc.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
No, ahteism is the negation of religion.
No rituals based upon surpestition.
No holy writings, just writings that do not appeal to surpestition.
No saints, miracles are fantasy...
No heretics, just criminals, ignorants and deniers of evidence
No demons, this is fantasy.
No holy sites, what? what holy sites?
etc...
transtlantic 2 years ago
ummm no its not an any way
Gearhead142 2 years ago
It resembles one.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
no it is not its a stand on only 1 question that is "is there a god?" no.... it is not and if u think it does u are mistaken
Gearhead142 2 years ago
Is this conclusion empirically testable?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
empirical observation: you are trying to make a comparison to religion, when there is no such possible thing.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Observation of what?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Why did you remove this?:
"No, ahteism is the negation of religion.
No rituals based upon surpestition.
No holy writings, just writings that do not appeal to surpestition.
No saints, miracles are fantasy...
No heretics, just criminals, ignorants and deniers of evidence
No demons, this is fantasy.
No holy sites, what? what holy sites?
etc..." [all sic]
JackBlair2 2 years ago
you keep proving my point: you are shouting surpestition. You keep not understanding how nonmaterial things could only be imagined by one individual and not perceived or be equal in terms of image and dimensions to other observers...
axoms of reality jack...
science gives you methods than can explain phenomena by the use of methods that can be used by all and allow perception of the phenomena equally by all
simple
transtlantic 2 years ago
Sorry, science does not dictate the terms of discussion within metaphysics.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
you are right... as methaphysics are a mental debate of imaginary things....
sure science (which studies reality) has nothing to do about what does not exist. therefore being the best "tool" to understand what is.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Now, I want you to refute every one of these points that you made. You can do it. A person with critical thinking skills can refute his own arguments.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Comment removed
transtlantic 2 years ago
a person with critical thinking understands about the axioms of reality and what is empiricism.
keep holding your surpestition jack, if you lose it you might get smarter......
transtlantic 2 years ago