27 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayHaven’t you noticed that sometimes the “herd” is thinking outside the box!?
You are always telling to think with the herd and now you are telling
me to think outside of the box, just no pleasing you. 🙂
Kelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outside_the_box
Extract:
“…The idea of thinking outside the box is that unconventional problem solving could be used to solve problems where conventional thinking could fail. The encouragement of thinking outside the box, however, has possibly become so popular that thinking inside the box is starting to become more unconventional. This kind of "going against the grain means going with the grain" mentality causes a paradox in that there may be no such thing as conventionality when unconventionality becomes convention….”
I think you need to “outside the box” in the sense that you need to stop thinking in the old laypeople’s terms (“old” in the sense that this is how the laypeople used to think before there was any science).
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton🙂 I think you have left sound reasoning in the name of science some
Haven’t you noticed that sometimes the “herd” is thinking outside the box!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outside_the_box
Extract:
“…The idea of thinking outside the box is that unconventional problem solving could be used to solve problems where conventional thinking could fail. The encouragement of thinking outside the box, however, has pos ...[text shortened]... “old” in the sense that this is how the laypeople used to think before there was any science).
times too, when you adopt things like straight line circles, or intentless
design processes.
Kelly
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThink as you like, but use your intelligence. The creation idea of yours, and all other in your herd are not intelligent. Go do some learning about your subjects, and you will gain some credibility.
You are always telling to think with the herd and now you are telling
me to think outside of the box, just no pleasing you. 🙂
Kelly
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf credibility were a concern of mine here do you think I'd argue with
Think as you like, but use your intelligence. The creation idea of yours, and all other in your herd are not intelligent. Go do some learning about your subjects, and you will gain some credibility.
you and all the others I do here? I'm happy in my own skin, I do not
need you to approve of my beliefs, and I am not incline to think less
of you because you disagree with mine either. I can and do feel
content to agree to disagree without turning a disagreement into
some personal attack on someone’s intelligence or their belief system.
Kelly
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayPoiunt to Kelly Jay! Glad to see you back in true form. 🙂
If credibility were a concern of mine here do you think I'd argue with
you and all the others I do here? I'm happy in my own skin, I do not
need you to approve of my beliefs, and I am not incline to think less
of you because you disagree with mine either. I can and do feel
content to agree to disagree without turning a disagreement into
some personal attack on someone’s intelligence or their belief system.
Kelly
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf someone 'believed' that 2+2=5 in decimal mathematics and went to all
I can and do feel content to agree to disagree without turning a disagreement into some personal attack on someone’s intelligence or their belief system.
lengths to demonstrate its veracity, and considered the evidence to the contrary
to be 'opinion' or 'faith,' wouldn't you say such a system was foolish, and the
adherents to such a system were equally foolish?
Nemesio
29 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you don't mind that people think of you as having no credibility, it's fine for me. But this is Science Forum.
If credibility were a concern of mine here do you think I'd argue with
you and all the others I do here?
If you fiddle around in the Spiritual Forum, where Young Earthers, who believe that people and dinosaurs lived side by side, perhaps even eating eachother, then it would be alright with me. Because there it's all about beliefs, and not science.
I like you being aware that you have no credibility here in Science Forum?
(And, yeah, I know you don't care...)
29 Nov 08
SO anyway.... Memory...
We as humans would find it hard to do without memory because we've evolved to use it as part of our way of life. We are born as babies, totally dependent on learning to provide us with our life skills.
Having said that, there are plenty of things you could do without memory. You certainly wouldn't die. You'd be able to breathe and walk around. You wouldn't know who or what anything was but you'd be able to eat if people gave you food. Sure.... quality of life wouldn't be great but then you wouldn't know that anyway.
There areplenty of animals however that are born fully grown that don't learn from their parents and have innate abilitys for coping with their environments.
29 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI would correct this by saying that KJ has "some" credibility, not "none".
If you don't mind that people think of you as having no credibility, it's fine for me. But this is Science Forum.
If you fiddle around in the Spiritual Forum, where Young Earthers, who believe that people and dinosaurs lived side by side, perhaps even eating eachother, then it would be alright with me. Because there it's all about beliefs, and not sci ...[text shortened]... that you have no credibility here in Science Forum?
(And, yeah, I know you don't care...)
Since I find some of his points more than credible, and I participate in this forum, I believe this constitutes a mathematical proof that you, sir, have erred.😛
29 Nov 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydI settle with low credibility. None is perhaps too low, even for him.
I would correct this by saying that KJ has "some" credibility, not "none".
Since I find some of his points more than credible, and I participate in this forum, I believe this constitutes a mathematical proof that you, sir, have erred.😛
Dinos coexist with men? Credible? Well... 🙂
30 Nov 08
Originally posted by NemesioYea, if you were offering anything like that sure, but you don't, you
If someone 'believed' that 2+2=5 in decimal mathematics and went to all
lengths to demonstrate its veracity, and considered the evidence to the contrary
to be 'opinion' or 'faith,' wouldn't you say such a system was foolish, and the
adherents to such a system were equally foolish?
Nemesio
give me your opinion over some of my objects and call your opnion
truth. Still, again, do I insult you while we disagree? You have corrected
me when I let my temper get the better of me and I insult others,
yet for you the standard is insult, because we disagree?
Kelly
30 Nov 08
4 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasSo what, science form, stick with science and quit bringing up my
If you don't mind that people think of you as having no credibility, it's fine for me. But this is Science Forum.
If you fiddle around in the Spiritual Forum, where Young Earthers, who believe that people and dinosaurs lived side by side, perhaps even eating eachother, then it would be alright with me. Because there it's all about beliefs, and not sci ...[text shortened]... that you have no credibility here in Science Forum?
(And, yeah, I know you don't care...)
religion as a support for your science! I don't bring my religion into this
place nearly as much as you do, Your whole complaint with almost
everything anyone says to anyone not just you is to bad mouth
their faith, instead of sticking to the topic. You make more personal
assults than points of interest, that is almost the full body of all
you ever do here as nearly as I can tell. Not agreeing with you on
any point in science does not make me or anyone else, anti-science
it is simply a disagreement on points of discussion. You are quite
sharp when you actually use that brain of yours for something other
than insults, but still I bet half of your posts have the words,
"anti-science" in them, because you cannot seem to engage your
brain beyond that.
Kelly
30 Nov 08
Originally posted by KellyJayBut your belief on creation *is* based on your religion. Every time you deny evolution and science, you do it of religious reasons.
So what, science form, stick with science and quit bringing up my
religion as a support for your science! I don't bring my religion into this
place nearly as much as you do, Your whole complaint with almost
everything anyone says to anyone not just you is to bad mouth
their faith, instead of sticking to the topic. You make more personal
assults than po ...[text shortened]... s,
"anti-science" in them, because you cannot seem to engage your
brain beyond that.
Kelly
So bring your anti-evolutionary, and anti-science, argumentation to the Spiritual Forum, where it belongs.
30 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI have issues with evolutionary thought, because it doesn't add up in
But your belief on creation *is* based on your religion. Every time you deny evolution and science, you do it of religious reasons.
So bring your anti-evolutionary, and anti-science, argumentation to the Spiritual Forum, where it belongs.
my opinion to reality as I see it. I don't have an issue with science
I have an issue with what you accept as truth, the foundation to those
things you use to base all your other beliefs on.
Kelly
30 Nov 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes, my belief on creation is based upon the Bible, and is faith based.
But your belief on creation *is* based on your religion. Every time you deny evolution and science, you do it of religious reasons.
So bring your anti-evolutionary, and anti-science, argumentation to the Spiritual Forum, where it belongs.
I do not; however, bring up the Bible as a means to deny what you call
sound science, I question those things that people bring that are
based upon beliefs that lay the foundation of their views for their
own world views.
Kelly