(December 28, 2019 at 2:25 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote:

(December 28, 2019 at 2:06 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: When god created life on earth, is that considered macro creation or micro creation?

That would be considered creation. And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be? (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

Why are you assuming there is a default? And, on what evidence have you determined that default to be god? How did god design and create DNA, Yukon? Or, are you just going to continue to ignore the question?

(December 28, 2019 at 3:05 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: The only person here who is insinuating notions of absolute certainty and absolute truth is you.

Take a second Look at Gae's original statement, which you gave a kudos to:

"...it's pointless to argue against facts, correct?"

If I'm the one insinuating notions of absolute certainty and absolute truth, why would Gae consider it pointless to argue against facts?

Quote:Take a second Look at Gae's original statement, which you gave a kudos to:

"...it's pointless to argue against facts, correct?"

If I'm the one insinuating notions of absolute certainty and absolute truth, why would Gae consider it pointless to argue against facts?

Because it is for right now these are the facts they are not in serious dispute among the majority of people who understand them .If some fact down he line changes that i's irrelevant to what is he case now .You don't get to dismiss the facts now on some off chance  something will come along to challenge them later.

---

(December 28, 2019 at 3:11 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(December 28, 2019 at 2:25 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: That would be considered creation. And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be? (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

Why are you assuming there is a default? And, on what evidence have you determined that default to be god? How did god design and create DNA, Yukon? Or, are you just going to continue to ignore the question?

Love how he keeps propping up that flawed  probability argument

(December 28, 2019 at 3:15 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 28, 2019 at 3:05 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: The only person here who is insinuating notions of absolute certainty and absolute truth is you.

Take a second Look at Gae's original statement, which you gave a kudos to:

"...it's pointless to argue against facts, correct?"

If I'm the one insinuating notions of absolute certainty and absolute truth, why would Gae consider it pointless to argue against facts?

Because those are the facts as they currently stand, lol. When you overturn evolution by natural selection as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth with your own well evidenced ‘theory of creation’, then, and ONLY then will you have successfully argued against the facts. I’ll wait.

And, in case you don’t realize this, attempting to poke holes in one explanation does nothing to prop up any particular alternative. If you want to make the case that a god is responsible for life on earth, then you have to actually foster a positive case for that explanation.

(December 28, 2019 at 3:29 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Because it is for right now these are the facts they are not in serious dispute among the majority of people who understand them .If some fact down he line changes that i's irrelevant to what is he case now .You don't get to dismiss the facts now on some off chance  something will come along to challenge them later.

Translation: Don't question and let others decide the facts for you lol. Have I summarised your stance appropriately?

---

(December 28, 2019 at 3:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’ll wait.

Sums up a lot of people's participation in science.

(December 28, 2019 at 3:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 28, 2019 at 3:29 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Because it is for right now these are the facts they are not in serious dispute among the majority of people who understand them .If some fact down he line changes that i's irrelevant to what is he case now .You don't get to dismiss the facts now on some off chance  something will come along to challenge them later.

Translation: Don't question and let others decide the facts for you lol. Have I summarised your stance appropriately?

---

(December 28, 2019 at 3:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’ll wait.

Sums up a lot of people's participation in science.

So, you have no argument or evidence for creation then? I guess I’ll stick with the current best explanation until something more accurate comes along. If you’re here to save souls, you’re doing a terrible job.

(December 28, 2019 at 3:58 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: So, you have no argument or evidence for creation then? I guess I’ll stick with the current best explanation until something more accurate comes along. If you’re here to save souls, you’re doing a terrible job.

Strawman.

(December 28, 2019 at 3:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 28, 2019 at 3:29 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Because it is for right now these are the facts they are not in serious dispute among the majority of people who understand them .If some fact down he line changes that i's irrelevant to what is he case now .You don't get to dismiss the facts now on some off chance  something will come along to challenge them later.

Translation: Don't question and let others decide the facts for you lol. Have I summarised your stance appropriately?

---

(December 28, 2019 at 3:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’ll wait.

Sums up a lot of people's participation in science.

No you have not .My point was you don't get to deny facts as the are now because you believe on some distant day on some distant date that fact will magically disappear .Which is actually what i said above and sounds nothing like your response .

As for waiting .Nothing wrong with that .

(December 28, 2019 at 1:24 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 28, 2019 at 1:00 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Breezy, is biology in the curriculum for psychologists where you live?

Depends on what aspect of psychology you are specialising in; every student in my school graduating from psychology needs to take a course on the biological aspects of behavior at the very least.

Psychology is a very invasive field, meaning it requires interdisciplinary knowledge of other branches in order to be studied coherently. An introductory course on perception, for example (also required by my school), begins with a physical analysis of light, followed by the chemical interactions in photoreceptor, followed by a neurological understanding of the pathways in the brain, until finally you're able to tackle the psychological aspects of perception.

That isn't always the case for other fields of science. I recently took a course on human cognition which was mandatory for me but an elective for neuroscience students. As the semester went on I started to notice that the psychology students could understand what the neuroscience students were saying, but that neuroscience students were very unfamiliar with what psychology students where saying. The curiosity eventually got to me and I asked the class/professor about it. It turns out that yes, neuroscience gets taught to psychologists in varying degrees, but not a lot of psychology is taught to neuroscientists.

I've since noticed that's it's a hierarchy thing. A chemists doesn't need to know much beyond chemistry. A biologist learns chemistry when learning biology. A neuroscientist learns chemistry and biology when leaning neuroscience. And a psychologist learns all of the below in varying degrees when learning psychology.

It's all very interesting how fields are built on one another.

Edit: I just looked up the curriculum and yes, it looks like Biology is a prerequisite for psych students at my school; I probably didn't notice because I had already taken biology before transferring to psychology. Its also worth noting that if you take a course on evolutionary psychology you're simultaneously learning evolutionarily biology.

Well, I suppose you and my catholic sister psychologist, would have lots to talk about. Basic biology wouldn't allow a mind to consider the quest for knowledge. Mayhap, our recently developed ape brains need to talk about other brains. Assurance is that in any atheist forum on the internets, there will be them, that need to be confirmed as gods. if only gods could be nothing but a super ego. The archetype of we ants in a bigass universe for witch we found only roughly 1%, we only scratched the surace.

You claim that god himself came here to this cold craddle of life, to deliver an ambiguous message via death.

I feel sorry for you. I live to help people.

LFC:
I'll wait.

Eezy Breezy:
Sums up a lot of people's participation in science.

Science needs not anyone's participation. The science of something is the science of it. Plain and simple. Now you can distort and twist the interpretation to fit into that pretty little fantasy of yours. "Science" is merely the language of natural processes translated for humans to understand. Of course, mistranslations can, and will occur. But the science itself is never wrong.