A problem of Gradualism and the Survival of the Fittest within Evolutionary Theory.

[HMS_Beagle]

It may come as a shock to you, but some regard science as overrated speculation about the nature of reality, that often fails to deliver the goods. You may also be shocked to know there are better ways to know reality other than science, through correct philosophy and theology.

JM

Why don't you practice what you preach and get rid of all the things science has provided you? Start with your computer, and the clothes you wear, and the food you eat. Then when you get ill don't go to a doctor, just read a philosophy magazine. You don't want everyone to think you're a big sniveling hypocrite now do you?

[JohnMartin]

Why don't you practice what you preach and get rid of all the things science has provided you? Start with your computer, and the clothes you wear, and the food you eat. Then when you get ill don't go to a doctor, just read a philosophy magazine. You don't want everyone to think you're a big sniveling hypocrite now do you?

One example of major science failure is the theory of evolution with its assumed materialism, empiricism, mechancist foundations to understanding biological life. As these are all false foundations of TE, TE is never a theory that is of benefit to man, yet the academy pushes it as though it is real. Whatever science is true is to be embraced. Such is not so with the claim that plants have senses.

JM

[Tassman]

The activity of the brain is only an indicator of the life of the body. The body and the brain are owned by Peter as the first subject and not the brain. The brain is only one of many organs of the body owned by the person. The person is that being which is incommunicable. The notion of the person is discussed on the - Some Thomistic Concepts Introduced and Discussed thread. JM

Who or what is this “Peter” that exists separate from his brain and “owns” it as though it is a possession? Biology does not support this dualistic notion and I will trust modern science over and above a medieval Christian philosopher with an agenda.

[HMS_Beagle]

One example of major science failure is the theory of evolution with its assumed materialism, empiricism, mechancist foundations to understanding biological life. As these are all false foundations of TE, TE is never a theory that is of benefit to man, yet the academy pushes it as though it is real. Whatever science is true is to be embraced. Such is not so with the claim that plants have senses.

JM

So you are a big headed hypocrite. Enjoy science when it makes you feel good, reject science when you don't understand it. Then wonder why no one takes your hypocritical blithering seriously.

[Tassman]

One example of major science failure is the theory of evolution with its assumed materialism, empiricism, mechancist foundations to understanding biological life.

These are its strengths, not failures.

As these are all false foundations of TE, TE is never a theory that is of benefit to man, yet the academy pushes it as though it is real. Whatever science is true is to be embraced. Such is not so with the claim that plants have senses. JM

No, they're not "false foundations". The Evolutionary evidence lies in the linking together of verified facts from several different disciplines - e.g. from the fossil record, cladistic analysis (i.e. analysing the evolutionary relationships between groups to construct their family trees) and most recently genomics. When all these independent lines of evidence all point to the same answer, we can feel perfectly justified in considering it settled science.

[rogue06]

So you are a big headed hypocrite. Enjoy science when it makes you feel good, reject science when you don't understand it. Then wonder why no one takes your hypocritical blithering seriously.

I kinda figured that he was more of a pin-headed hypocrite.

[JohnMartin]

So you are a big headed hypocrite. Enjoy science when it makes you feel good, reject science when you don't understand it. Then wonder why no one takes your hypocritical blithering seriously.

I reject science when science has already been refuted by other means of knowledge.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Who or what is this “Peter” that exists separate from his brain and “owns” it as though it is a possession? Biology does not support this dualistic notion and I will trust modern science over and above a medieval Christian philosopher with an agenda.

The answers are found in the Some Thomistic Concepts Introduced and Discussed thread.

JM

[JohnMartin]

These are its strengths, not failures.



No, they're not "false foundations". The Evolutionary evidence lies in the linking together of verified facts from several different disciplines - e.g. from the fossil record, cladistic analysis (i.e. analysing the evolutionary relationships between groups to construct their family trees) and most recently genomics. When all these independent lines of evidence all point to the same answer, we can feel perfectly justified in considering it settled science.

The rejection of a creation event and a supernatural creator are assumed to be false and materialist naturalism is assumed to be true as the foundation of TE.

JM

[Tassman]

The rejection of a creation event and a supernatural creator are assumed to be false and materialist naturalism is assumed to be true as the foundation of TE. JM

Evolution is "assumed" to be true because it is supported by several converging lines of evidence.

[JohnMartin]

Evolution is "assumed" to be true because it is supported by several converging lines of evidence.

The assumption is false for there is no evidence for a false theory.

JM

[tabibito]

The assumption is false for there is no evidence for a false theory deity.

JM

Yup: same criteria, different side of the fence.

[Roy]

Just to confuse things: Souls could be somehow composed of dark matter and have mass, but not be detectable by any other means and not behave as matter in any other way.

One observation: dark matter is not detectable by any other means mainly because it is a long way away in space. I'm sure that if I had some dark matter on my desk I'd be able to detect it by touching it. If souls were dark matter we'd have investigated both them and it by now.

[Roy]

No!

Peter's brain IS Peter. No brain, no Peter.

Please stop providing JM with ammunition.

[Tassman]

Originally Posted by Roy

Please stop providing JM with ammunition.

ANY alternative view is ammunition when it comes to JM, given that his "assertions are fact".