Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[Techne]

Which of course leads me back to "show me a scientifically valid test or move it to PD"

Note that at no point did I say that any such tests actually existed. In fact I'm fairly certain that I expressed my subjective opinion to the contrary when I said "I can't think of anything that could come remotely close to testing that."

Now there is no need to discuss this further as far as I can see. Not in the science section anyway.

Your subjective opinion. Neither here nor there I am afraid.

 

[porchrat]

Your subjective opinion. Neither here nor there I am afraid.

Everyone's opinion is subjective I am afraid. You asked me for mine and I gave it.

Seriously I don't know why you insist on continuing this. You yourself hold to the idea that this stuff isn't testable in any scientific sense and yet you seem determined to argue now for the sake of arguing. Metaphysics and philosophy don't belong in the science section.

If you have some scientifically valid studies you would like to share that is a different matter. If not then I once again request that you move this stuff to PD. I don't think I am being unreasonable. If you think I am being unreasonable then by all means explain yourself. If not then we are in agreement and there is no reason to continue a pointless argument.

 

[Unhappy1]

You yourself hold to the idea that this stuff isn't testable in any scientific sense and yet you seem determined to argue now for the sake of arguing. Metaphysics and philosophy

Oh he enjoys doing that, he will argue about something that he agrees with just so that he can argue.

 

[DJ...]

Of course, but this just begs the question, "whether or not this is philosophy and metaphysics" we are discussing, especially the part about claims about reality and purpose. Got any opinions? Otherwise your protests and complaints are, like you say "neither here nor there".

This has sweet fsckall to do with evidence against evolution. Being banned from PD doesn't afford you the right to drag your bullschit throughout the rest of the forum. I asked nicely already in this thread. Now fsck off...

 

[porchrat]

This has sweet fsckall to do with evidence against evolution. Being banned from PD doesn't afford you the right to drag your bullschit throughout the rest of the forum. I asked nicely already in this thread. Now fsck off...

Techne is banned from PD? Surely not.

 

[DJ...]

Techne is banned from PD? Surely not.

In this guise at least. All of his other nicks have been banned outright from the forum.

But that is neither here nor there. It is up to the mods to take care of now. I have reported the posts because I cannot stand this crap in natural sciences...

 

[rwenzori]

Seriously guys.

Techne and rwenzori take a step back and look at what you guys are typing. Be honest now. Does this stuff really belong in Natural Sciences or do you think maybe you should start a new thread in PD?

PD of course, but you do realise that Techne is not allowed to post in PD? I can't think why LOL.

 

[Techne]

Everyone's opinion is subjective I am afraid. You asked me for mine and I gave it.

Seriously I don't know why you insist on continuing this. You yourself hold to the idea that this stuff isn't testable in any scientific sense and yet you seem determined to argue now for the sake of arguing. Metaphysics and philosophy don't belong in the science section.

If you have some scientifically valid studies you would like to share that is a different matter. If not then I once again request that you move this stuff to PD. I don't think I am being unreasonable. If you think I am being unreasonable then by all means explain yourself. If not then we are in agreement and there is no reason to continue a pointless argument.

Thanks for your subjective opinion, but on the matter of whether "purpose is empirically testable or not" and whether talk of purpose belings in the science section or not, it is a bit worthless. Which kind of makes your "Metaphysics and philosophy don't belong in the science section." comment worthless since you don't even know which statements are or are not empirically testable or not and which statements are philosophical and/or metaphysical. You need to be a bit more firm here chap.

rwenzori is hell-bent on arguing that purpose/teleology is an empirical issue, your subjective opinion which is neither here nor there won't change much. You complain too much, you need to have more constructive input .

 

[Techne]

In this guise at least. All of his other nicks have been banned outright from the forum.

Wow, what a dishonest statement! This is uncalled for really. No need to get personal thank you.

 

[porchrat]

In this guise at least. All of his other nicks have been banned outright from the forum.

But that is neither here nor there. It is up to the mods to take care of now. I have reported the posts because I cannot stand this crap in natural sciences...

PD of course, but you do realise that Techne is not allowed to post in PD? I can't think why LOL.

Honestly didn't know Techne had been banned from PD. Didn't even know mods could ban someone from one particular subforum. I just thought he had been ignoring PD lately.

 

[DJ...]

Wow, what a dishonest statement! This is uncalled for really. No need to get personal thank you.

telephrony, I was around for your first incarnation on this forum. I witnessed its demise. I was around for all of the subsequent ones. There is nothing untrue about that statement. I still recall you playing dumb when this nick was outed - that was very precious, chap.

Now there is no problem with the evolution-related posts which you have directed swa's way, but your ADD kicks in and you're off on an intentionality-tangent quicker than you can say "teleororororororogical"...

 

[porchrat]

Thanks for your subjective opinion, but on the matter of whether "purpose is empirically testable or not" and whether talk of purpose belings in the science section or not, it is a bit worthless. Which kind of makes your "Metaphysics and philosophy don't belong in the science section." comment worthless since you don't even know which statements are or are not empirically testable or not and which statements are philosophical and/or metaphysical. You need to be a bit more firm here chap.

rwenzori is hell-bent on arguing that purpose/teleology is an empirical issue, your subjective opinion which is neither here nor there won't change much. You complain too much, you need to have more constructive input .

So your response looks to be "yes both rwenzori and I (and indeed you) are of the opinion that this discussion doesn't belong here but fsck that I am going to discuss it here anyway".

Wow. In that case I share DJ...'s sentiment: fsck off.

 

[Techne]

telephrony, I was around for your first incarnation on this forum. I witnessed its demise. I was around for all of the subsequent ones. There is nothing untrue about that statement. I still recall you playing dumb when this nick was outed - that was very precious, chap.

You are simply confused then. Your tinfoil hat must be in over drive.
My first incarnation on this forum "fearisgood" simply changed to "teleological", which in turn changed to "phrony", which in turn changed to Techne. All of them are still active, none of them where banned. It was a simple name change. I am using the present one. Last time I checked there is nothing wrong with changing monikers.

 

[Techne]

So your response looks to be "yes both rwenzori and I (and indeed you) are of the opinion that this discussion doesn't belong here but fsck that I am going to discuss it here anyway".

No, that is not my response, that is just you not getting what I am saying. No need to get all emotional.

 

[DJ...]

You are simply confused then. Your tinfoil hat must be in over drive.

This has nothing to do with the topic. Let's get back to it. Leave your philosophical twaddle for other forums that still allow you to post...

 

[porchrat]

No, that is not my response, that is just you not getting what I am saying. No need to get all emotional.

If that isn't what you are saying then you are just trying to create yet another discussion that isn't about science in the science section.

DJ..'s choice of words is proving more and more apt by the moment.

Your words are also pretty apt here: "Come on chap, you know better than that..."

Now please. Stop this.

 

[Techne]

This has nothing to do with the topic. Let's get back to it. Leave your philosophical twaddle for other forums that still allow you to post...

Yes, don't get personal please, there is no need for it and as you rightly stated, off topic.

As to the discussion about purpose/teleology being empirically testable, I apologise. It is not well-suited for this particular thread. The aim was to establish that the claims that "there is no purpose" and "everything just is" are not empirically testable statements but philosophical and/or metaphysical statements. I wish you would support this as I think you may agree, such statements are empirically unscientific.

Time to move along...

 

[DJ...]

You are simply confused then. Your tinfoil hat must be in over drive.
My first incarnation on this forum "fearisgood" simply changed to "teleological", which in turn changed to "phrony", which in turn changed to Techne. All of them are still active, none of them where banned. It was a simple name change. I am using the present one. Last time I checked there is nothing wrong with changing monikers.

You have been both temp and perma-banned from these forums. Anyone who's been around PD for a few years knows this. Stop trying to bullschit people now and get back to the topic at hand, or kindly remove yourself from the discussion...

 

[DJ...]

Time to move along...

Agreed. Goodbye...

 

[Techne]

Agreed. Goodbye...

Cheers chap, your apology for getting personal is accepted before you even apologized .