beecee

That's a good question and I believe the answer is patently obvious. No, that's simply rubbish and incorrect and half of the reasons why your other baseless claims have been rejected and threads closed. I'm hazy now to actually count how many reputable links I gave to support the fact that as usual, you are simply posting unsubstantiated, philosophically inspired nonsense. The scientific methodology exists...The theory of evolution is as certain as any scientific theory can be...Those are what mainstream science is all about. Not your pretentious, contentious, philosophical inspired unsupported nonsense, instead of having the intestinal fortitude to admit your errors. The religious person also is well known for consistent derision of science and scientific methodology, including evolution, as a supposed means of retribution for science having pushed any religiously inspired claim or need of a creator, into near oblivion. And that is quite correct, despite your obvious attempts and now confession in your religious person quote. Science is based on evidence..that is the basis of the scientific methodology, that wish you are trying to wish into mythical status but obviously failed.

I would suggest you review his past threads. He most certainly has/did make invalid scientific claims, but they are off topic here. I'm neither upset or in any other way angry at Reg's claims and his poor philosophical take on science. This is after all just a science forum and his claims here in time will be lost in cyber space never to be heard of again! That doesn't mean that I should not point out the most basic areas of false claims, erroneous judgements, continued claims of no agenda, and poor philosophical opinions that he is plastering this forum with. You question my understanding of what he says? My criticism is first and foremost directed at some of his fanciful conclusions. One prominent criticism of mine is his continued accusations against most on this forum, and the making of absolute statements, when it is he making those absolute statements. eg: He seems now to have backed away somewhat in his claim that science is the search for truth and reality, when it has been pointed out to him that this is not always the case.

Actually SR as far as I know, was readily accepted, despite the fact that it appeared at first glance to be counter intuitive. GR was observationally evidenced in 1919. The confidence you have in your hypothetical, is nothing more then wishful thinking. They most certainly did not support the claim you are making in this thread.

Science is knowledge and/or the pursuit thereof. I have certainly seen confusion, and mostly based on invalid scientific claims from yourself actually. I have found that most people I have come across that see the need to discuss truth, will inevitable have some form of ID agenda. The scientific discipline has as its foundations the scientific methodology. That essentially means that this truth is not the goal of science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge Not really......One accepts a proposition/theeory based on observational and experimental evidence that supports it. The truth is nether here nor there. Rubbish. The beauty of the scientific method is that it can be modified, changed, added to, or invalidated as new observations are obtained. This simple basic premise is something you keep ignoring in your many threads. But no one has ever said that that I am aware of.....This hairy fairy truth is not the object...If it happens to be hit upon accidentley, all well and good. But you seem to have come around to scientific thinking as dictated by the scientific method [the bit I highlighted] Why could'nt you just openly admit that? That is simply rubbish once again......This once again highlights the facts of how you twist, misinterpret, place your own meanings on words, and indulge in obtuseness when confronted with evidence to the contrary. And then you scream victim when someone alludes to the probability that you have an agenda? Evolution is as close to being fact as we can hope...We have tremendous amount of knowledge re astronomy, cosmology etc, aided by modern technological advancements, as well as the particle zoo. In fact at least in my opinion, what makes our knowledge so great is how the principal theories covering these disciplines, the BB, SR/GR and our particle zoo, seem to all fit snugly together like a jig saw puzzle. But of course that does not mean more knowledge is not to be found...We still have only seen the tip of the iceberg...DE, DM, are two areas that we have barely any knowledge of at this time. So my question to you is why are you so afraid of knowledge and science in general?

Absent for a couple of days and look what happens!! Congrats!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe The Universe is only seen to be accelerating in its expansion rate over larger scales.....Over smaller scales [our local group of galaxies and even beyond] gravity overcomes the expansion rate.

By and large I agree with you, but the problem is not with the greater majority of philosophers, it is your misinterpretation/s of scientific theories and models and the application of the scientific methodology, along with other things. I find as most other members here do, that your own lack of knowledge of science is far greater then the reputable Krauss, and Dawkins and there attitude towards philosophy which is more or less directed at those minority of philosophers that seem to make the most noise and the least sense. PS: The quote you have attributed to me and which you are rather backward in commenting on was........."While Reg is certainly and obviously practising his philosophy he has learnt, he also just as certainly made some monumental scientific gaffs. And that primarily is why he has had such a big problem. I also am in a period of much to do with little time to do it in". [with a correction of a typographical error on ref] That of course is 100% factual.

While ref is certainly and obviously practising his philosophy he has learnt, he also just as certainly made some monumental scientific gaffs. And that primarily is why he has had such a big problem. I also am in a period of much to do with little time to do it in.

Along with all the other articles and papers that have been linked to in this thread invalidating any concept of natural selection and perfection[as opposed to the isolated out of context quotes offered by Reg] this one is also interesting and shows the misinterpretation of what Darwin was to have said.. https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/unidentifiedflyingobject/discussion-perfection-origin-species A Discussion of the Word “Perfect”Its Role in Origin of the SpeciesIn the conclusion of On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin makes a statement that is of critical importance for an analysis of his thinking. “As natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being,” he says, “all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection” (397). That which is “good” is easily definable in a Darwinian sense: something is good if it allows a being reproductive advantages over other beings in the same environment, whether they are of the same or of another species. That which is “perfect,” however, is much more difficult to define. Origin of Species is a work that subsequently helped give birth to the modern, non-essentialist thought process of most biological thinkers, but its modern significance only complicates the issue of Darwin himself. What kind of thinker was he? Darwin’s usage of the concept of perfection helps illuminate his struggle to interpret his enormous quantity of empirical data about evolution and natural selection.According to the Oxford English Dictionary, perfection is characterized by “a state of complete excellence; free from any imperfection or defect of quality; that cannot be improved upon.” Its origin (the word from which it has evolved) is the Latin term “perficio,” which can be literally translated as “a finishing.” If all beings are progressing toward perfection, the very use of the words “progressing” and “perfection” implies that at some point in time evolution will no longer be necessary, a suggestion that is extremely essentialist in nature. Is Darwin an essentialist thinker?When Darwin first talks of natural selection, he asserts, “No country can be named in which all the native inhabitants are now so perfectly adapted to each other and to the physical conditions under which they live, that none of them could anyhow be improved” (145). Certainly he does not believe that any current species is perfect, but he frequently cites a kind of relativistic perfection. “How have all those exquisite adaptations of one part of the organisation to another part, and to the conditions of life, and of one distinct organic being to another being, been perfected?” (132) he asks. He provides his answer in an explanation of the symbiotic relationship between flowers and bees when he says, “ I can understand how a flower and a bee might slowly become, either simultaneously or one after the other, modified and adapted in the most perfect manner to each other, by the continued preservation of individuals presenting mutual and slightly favourable deviations of structure.” (153)The kind of perfection that Darwin sees in nature is a kind of temporary, fluctuating perfection that exists between different beings and between beings and their environment. When Darwin discusses the role of geographic isolation in modifying island species, he claims that “new places in the polity of each island will have to be filled up by modifications of the old inhabitants; and time will be allowed for the varieties in each to become well modified and perfected” (161). In other words, after environments shift, it is necessary that beings find a new state of relative perfection. Darwin continues this line of thought when he suggests, “in the general economy of any land, the more widely and perfectly the animals and plants are diversified for different habits of life, so will a greater number of individuals be capable of there supporting themselves. (167). Darwin summarizes his vision of perfection in natural selection in the conclusion to Origin of Species, where he writes:As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates; so that we need feel no surprise at the inhabitants of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to have been specially created and adapted for that country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land. Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness...The wonder indeed is, on the theory of natural selection, that more cases of the want of absolute perfection have not been observed. (387) The phrase “absolute perfection” is intriguing in this context. After specifically describing adaptation as “only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates,” he implies that there is a form that is most perfect. Perhaps Darwin and his naturalist contemporaries can be seen as a variety or a subspecies of thinkers, who provide a missing link between their essentialist ancestors and their existentialist descendents. And this interesting rebuttal to the notion/fairy tale being proposed in this thread.......... http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S165.htm Alfred Russel Wallace: The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man (S165: 1869/1870) Editor Charles H. Smith's Note: This essay is the final chapter of the collection Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, published in 1870. It represents a "further development of a few sentences at the end of an article on 'Geological Time and the Origin of Species'" (i.e., S146). Original pagination indicated within double brackets. To link directly to this page, connect with: http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S165.htm extract: "Mr. Darwin himself has taken care to [[p. 334]]impress upon us, that "natural selection" has no power to produce absolute perfection but only relative perfection, no power to advance any being much beyond his fellow beings, but only just so much beyond them as to enable it to survive them in the struggle for existence".

Deny it till the cows come home, the fats are that we have no evidence of such.

My weak argument as you so wrongly claim, is simply social advancement and recognition as opposed to your own offensive outlook. Over simplifying of course is interpreted as you lacking any argument to the contrary.

You have yet to show how in relation to this thread, that this perfection you imagine, has anything to do with natural selection and evolution, and what selected quotes you have posted, have been countered with other more reputable links.. My admitted ignorance in philosophy does not prevent me from sorting the wheat from the chaff, in the silly claim of yours re perfection and natural selection. And also others here have actually noted ignorance, or simply being obtuse on your part, more then once.

Do you have some reputable, professional evidence to support that? Or are you just going to continue to claim it willy nilly.

No, you are explaining away all possible explanations due to the fact that you have this ID of some sort, agenda and the bias associated with it..

Yet, spacetime is warped, curved, bent, twisted and altered to wave shapes in the presence of mass. Something need not be observable to exist. Do you observe a magnetic field?, Nope, you just see its effects, just as we see the effects of the geometry of spacetime in the presence of mass, and what we refer to as gravity. But I don't expect you to comment on that obviously, as you are unable to explain. But yet again, we see the usual load of rhetorical analogies that in no way support this deep underlying truth you keep claiming exists. As yet, you have fooled no one into accepting your invalid claim.

How do you know there are no other possibilities? [1] the mind playing tricks...[2] The light/atmosphere playing tricks...[3] a lucid dream..[4] Hard-wired in mythical thinking due to childhood brain washing. https://www.verywellmind.com/ways-your-brain-plays-tricks-on-you-2795042 https://www.quora.com/Why-does-our-mind-play-tricks-on-us-at-all https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jodie-rogers/perception-how-your-mind-_b_12615584.html

So those that supported the terrible and unjust cruelty during the Inquisition were honourable, because it was the culture, and religion acceptable at that time?

And for you to say that something is supernatural simply because you cannot explain, and are ignorant of other possibilities, is rather gullible and silly in the extreme.

Not true. The mind is a wonderful thing, but can and does play tricks on people. The light and atmospheric disturbances and conditions also are contributors. Check out all the nonsensical claims of Alien controlled UFO's....95% can be explained by the conditions mentioned among others not mentioned. The remaining 5% are just that...unexplained. When you can legitimately rule out all scientific causes then you may have an unexplained event...still not actual evidence of anything supernatural.

You believe that? But anyway, you have avoided the questions.

That's certainly not any universal or magical creator truth that you appear to be pushing. The reality of space and time within the confines of GR are not any indication of any deeeeep truth or mystical reality. It simply is as is. Science does not necessarily seek any truth or reality, particularly any mythical supernatural reality. Perhaps if you came clean re your own beliefs, we maybe able to diagnose why your philosophy of life appears anything but logical, based on the illogical conclusions you have reached.

Please explain to me how another person's delusions, illusions, dreams, imaginations, experiences are evidence for anything other then delusions, illusions, dreams, imaginations and experiences? Please explain to me how any personal experience that maybe unexplained, is evident of anything supernatural.

Again, every discipline has its dissenters and mavericks, the fact remains though, that science is not necessarily the search for any truth or reality, and as yet you have not showed that claim to be invalid...you can't the evidence supporting it, is observable everyday. Answer...the obvious answer that applies to near all your threads. You are being obtuse. The truth and reality that you speak of is not the universal truth and reality that you originally claim exists and as yet have not shown it.

I have watched many science docos, where I observe simplified versions "slightly wrong" and yet still enjoyed them overall. But yes, exactly what I'm trying to say. Not a bad suggestion in actual fact.

Again despite your obvious "smoke and mirror" tricks, playing the victim card, and pretentious attempts at humour, the fact remains as fact...Science is not necessarily the search for any truth or reality, which you have yet even attempted to explain, just like the obvious agenda that is reflected in your illogical, anti science posts. If by chance it happens to hit upon that, then all well and good. Happily enough I'm inclined to agree with you. I mean I would never ask you the question of what sort of philosopher you believe Reg is, but I would suggest a read through all his threads that have been closed, and the others, and see for your self, the crazy, illogical claims made under the name of philosophy. And please be aware, that my approach to philosophy and philosophers, has softened somewhat after an interesting debate with yourself in another thread a while back. By the way, I prefer Laurence Krauss' argument to the Menken quote. Probably yes to both, but does that change the fact that science is not necessarily the search for truth and/or reality? Or that even any person searching for this truth or reality, know exactly what they are searching for? [which in my opinion is near always reflected in some ID concept, despite the denial and hiding in the closet].I mean as I have tried to tell Reg, in any discipline we will always have mavericks and outsiders for whatever reasons, best known to themselves. Well at least I'm confident that you are reading my posts, as well as it seems, stealing my lines.