RCali

You keep saying it hasn't been proven, but that doesn't make the proof that proves it has been proven go away, and prove your point of there being no proof. You can find out all you need by typing "theory of evolution" on any search engine and following with a press of "Enter" in your keyboard. I heard google.com is pretty good.

Wrong, I corrected you in your ignorance of the terms "theory" and "law". You decided to not continue that and spew irrational sentences out as it would do anything to continue the conversation.

Not an argument.

You ignored what I posted, countering what you would call an argument. Why would anyone continue to argue against you?

Utopian, it goes back to the simple question: do you expect so little of mankind, that unless we are coerced and forced to do something by ugly, evil doers we will just wither away, hungry and scared and die?

Finally, you share a glimpse of your past with us. Do continue.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation andexperimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[6] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative) From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in thephilosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1] Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. Also from wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

Why do we need to read more of his work, if what we read was already based on nothing but bias? Funnily, what you, who're defending this man, or his work, or both, yourselves seem to be suffering greatly from bias. You are yet to provide a solid argument. After his summary is commented you say "read his book". Once I read a full chapter and some backgroud of his life you still say: read more AND that we're wrong. Well, that's not much of a case, not only since you're not actually saying anything to defend him, but avoid confrontation and that he's very obvious in his writing, and I've quoted it. Phrases like those cannot possibly be taken out of context. I even quoted one of his phrases which he follows with "this is not really true" and, after that, he proceeds to say the same thing... Over and over... And over again...

Yeah, man. You know what, we should totally get together and plot. You know, enslave some and rule over others with total control. Who even cares about that "morality" thing. They're just words.

Bradley, you're a very inteligent person, but for whatever it may be worth, it's not helping in this situation. You're very avoidant of giving responsability to your father. Yes, you've given him some on how your past went, but not enough. He chose your mother, who did you harm. He didn't just choose her once to meet, or twice to kiss, or three times to have sex. He chose her hundreds of times throughout his life, and, eventually, created you with her. He must have known, even if he chose to ignore the nature of that person, for reasons that do not matter to this conversation. You also show a lot of guilt not only to yourself, as you tried to deflect, but towards others. Maybe it's not obvious to you, but, I assure you, to anyone else whom your words reach, it's as clear as a bright Summer's day. Your high IQ may be clouding your thought process. Could you be dismissing possibilities because you thought of them once and assumed them wrong? I've done this in the past, extensivelly. The idea behind sharing the video was to see how you would think you could substitute the drug with this exercise. The idea of the exercise, basically, is to vocalize and dance your sorrow and anger away. I have no idea how it could work for you, but I sure know how screaming and punching and vibrating through beating my feet on the ground makes me feel. Utterly and completely free. Hope I haven't missed anything I'd like to have said.

I'm as triggered as revolvers in cowboy movies right now.

«From Middle French inflammable, from Medieval Latin inflammabilis, from Latin inflammare ‎(“to set on fire”), from in ‎(“in, on”) + flamma ‎(“flame”).» That doesn't seem like a good comparison to be made, Lars. And to add, in my language, Portuguese, we use the "in" before flammable always. There's no "flammable" by itself.

I'm sorry, but I can't see it. When does he show he needs parents to be blame free in this "Religion of Peace" topic? I saw only a discussion among you two failling, since there was difficulty with definitions being understood.

I'm triggered. This word only results from the source of error, as it's a double negative. Ir- implying a negative, or "not" and -less implying "without". You've just said «Not without regard for", which, in fact, could still have your sentence follow logic. Regardless of this, it's still an error, and not a recognized word for any study who respects etymology.

33% proficient in reading??? What the heck have the kids been put up to there?

What makes you think you don't have the capacity to reach him, or that he's too hard to reach with reason? He seems like a smart man, with the words he has shared with us here, and is seeking knowledge and to repair his emotional state. All things lead that he is in fact easy to reach. And I do use the term "easy" without any temporal attachment, but simply as a possibility, and likelihood that he will devote much work into achieving what he was predisposed to become.

Bradley, I still see incredible amounts of guilt in every post you're making here. Would you watch the following video, and tell me your opinion?

I can relate to this. I think you had a typo right after this quote, though, so I won't speak of the rest, since, besides this, doesn't provide sound arguments against masturbation or porn. OK, I've heard all of this before, as you may have deducted. But, as I'm sure you can understand, your experience isn't empiricism, and it was this latter which I was looking for, in my question. I've had encounters with websites close if not exactly how you related here, and what they describe is dubious at best. I, for one, can't relate to anything you described changing in your life, or any of the problems you had before.

Very interesting. Thank you.

I see not only that, but a lot of guilt in his words. It's OK, and admirable to be thankful for the good cause that FDR is, but I see an extreme lack of self commendation on your part for what you've done. You credit only FDR's work. What about yours? It surely was fun for you, some, or many, or perhaps even most of the time. But it's very likely that many times, it was pure work and sacrifice of enjoyment that kept you listening to the show, or reading, the books, or whatever may be. Why don't you credit yourself for the work you've done studying all that you have thus far? You say you made many excuses and blamed others for your situation... You still are. You're not taking responsability for your newly acquired knowledge. I'm sorry that you were forced to take drugs, for whatever reason may have been. It wasn't at all fair for you. Do you understand that, regarding the marijuana, drugs aren't, or aren't your main problem? You're doing that because of an underlying problem. There was something that has lead you to take those drugs, as a way to enhance your mood, not letting you slide into depression. Have you considered that pot could not at all be your problem? I won't comment on the final part of this quote, as I trust you have the required inteligence to see your own bullshit. I'll comment, though, if requested. For the rest of your post, I'll refer to my first comment. There's so much guilt in what you say. I can only guess how this relates to your past. Do share if you're interested in having such a conversation. And know that you spreading the message of peace and logic bears much heavier than whatever money you could provide for this team. They are good men who would have the world improve before their houses.

Sorry, but how is gold a deflationary currency? I can't see that it would disappear (losing it by dropping on the ground, or some other way) faster than it would mined and made part of the economy, and thus, inflated. Please, enlighten me.

The only fascinating theme on these statements is the past of the character who presented them, and how the past has helped him be lead to such a present as he was in. The statements themselves were hardly inteligent or based on evidence, and were overflowing with contempt. Easy is it to find even Freud commenting on how unscientific his book is, and the according response of the author on how little he cared for evidence. I assume the author thought himself such a genius that he couldn't possible wrong in any of his thoughts, and, no mistake to be made about my opinion, his inteligence was certainly very high. But even the smartest man, or being, is prone to error and waste of resources if he thinks himself too great to fail. And this certainly was his case, as if you read about his suicide, and events shortly before, he had said something along the lines of surely doing it, but not before completing his work. One can only assume he thought it of such great importance that his life could surely be over, for nothing else would ever come close to such great deeds he would have already accomplished. In essence, a greatly troubled man, both from without and within. He must have faced great repression from his peers, and somehow, faced both no confidence in himself, and far too much. This is what I conclude with what I've read. I'm sure to complete reading of his book in the future, for nothing but study of his character.

Alas, irony insues in one who is quick to confirm the falacy of the earlier ironic character. You say I evade, but you evade yourself half of what I've written, claiming I did not what I exactly did.

What could a scientifically illiterate person take from this? Evolution is faster than previously thought?

Could you please list them? I would love to read Jim Penman's book, as it was made obvious how it does study this subject, but, alas, I can't afford much. Pointing somewhere with research on the subject would also be helpful.