We are in an endless duration of constant change where the only thing that doesn't change is that change occurs because energy, matter and time are always present
You are retarded, fact of that matter is that if you fry bacon naked then you have greater risk of exposing your skin to being burned. Not scientific at all, just a fact that you subject more of your body surface to potentially being burned than you would with clothes on little boy.
We are in an endless duration of constant change where the only thing that doesn't change is that change occurs because energy, matter and time are always present
We are in an endless duration of constant change where the only thing that doesn't change is that change occurs because energy, matter and time are always present
We are in an endless duration of constant change where the only thing that doesn't change is that change occurs because energy, matter and time are always present
OK I need to eat and prepare for something, I'll come back and sort through the rest of the useless drivel later ...
We are in an endless duration of constant change where the only thing that doesn't change is that change occurs because energy, matter and time are always present
Mott the Hoople (01-29-2020)
Sure you witless, scientifically illiterate boob.
If I drop an object it will accelerate towards the center of the Earth at the rate of 9.806 m/s/s. This is an empirical observation which has been repeatedly verified independently via experimentation and has an extremely high probability of being correct and would thus be classified as a "scientific fact".
Now please spare me your illiterate ranting on how you believe in something that is other than science.
You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!
Hermes Thoth (01-29-2020)
I just can't figure out this crazy guy's angle.
That they have. Circular arguments have been used as a proof for hundreds and even thousands of years also. Such use is a fallacy known as the circular argument fallacy.
Religions are all based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. A circular argument can neither be proved True or False. A proof of any circular argument is a fallacy, including your claim that religion is a 'proof'.
No. It is based on circular arguments. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.
There are two popular theories for how life came to Earth: the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Abiogenesis.
The Theory of Creation states that life came here through the actions of some kind of intelligence. Nothing about the theory states that the intelligence must be a god or gods. For all we know, we might be the results of a horrible lab accident and they dumped it on Earth to get rid of it.
The Theory of Abiogenesis states that life originated here through a series of random unspecified events. Oddly enough, NOTHING about that theory precludes a god, gods, or aliens that may have produced the conditions of randomization. The random events may be of the type randR, randN, or randU. We simply don't know.
No, philosophy created the word 'truth', and actually defined its meaning. Philosophy also defines the word 'real' and 'reality'. Logic, however, defines the word True and the word False.
Definitions of these words is by philosophical reasoning. They are not lies. They are reasoning. Nothing about that reasoning requires any god or gods, or even the use of a circular argument.
Hope he survives! I assume he does, considering your next predicate.
I suggest 'Bottles of Beer on the Wall'.
Such a proof is a circular argument fallacy. Attempting to use that fallacy as a proof of the opposite circular argument is also a fallacy.
It is not possible to prove the existence of any god, gods, or demons. It is not possible to prove there is no god, gods, or demons.
Proof by Identity. We agree on this point.
YALIF.
Science isn't a 'process', a 'method', or a 'procedure'. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories.
The formalization of a theory of science into a closed system such as mathematics creates an equation. This equation is called a 'law'. If a theory is falsified, the 'law' goes with it.
Computers are the result of engineering, not science.
Computers are the result of engineering, not science.
Phenomenology has no politics. It is a branch of philosophy concerned with how the world is perceived. It defines words like 'real', 'reality', and 'truth'. It also helps to define 'science' and 'religion', though it does not define them by itself.
Where does this come from? I never brought up definitions of gender. Since you want to go there for some reason, fine.
It is generally understood that males have something like a penis, and females have something like a vagina, depending on the species you discussing. Some species do not require a mate of any kind. They simply self reproduce. Others have no gender in the traditional sense, since they have BOTH male and female parts, yet still require another of their species to mate with.
I assume you are speaking of human beings. Yes, males have penises, at least in most cases (there are such things as birth defects, where no or defective reproductive organs occur. This can sometimes be fixed with surgery (as long as there is SOMETHING the surgeon can work with!). The same thing can happen with females. Surgical corrections to female organs is much more difficult.
It is not what a person feels. Gender does, however, govern how the hip is constructed, how the placement of body fat occurs, the placement (or loss of!) hair, the development pattern of the breasts (yes, males develop them too, they just don't provide milk). It also has been shown to govern strengths and weaknesses in various though processes. Males tend to be able to concentrate on single tasks quite deeply, but are weak at handling multiple tasks. Females, on the other hand, tend to be better at handling multiple tasks, but are weak at concentrating on any one task (great for watching children going every which way!).
I do not subscribe to gender by how one 'feels'. I am actually a very conservative conservative. I am a constitutionalist. My view of the self mutilation that liberals do to themselves by what they 'feel' only destroys their ability to reproduce. A horrible sacrifice for vanity.
Bookmarks