Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[accelafine]

That question is so stupid that even AI doesn't acknowledge it

Well, it's Dube's question, essentially. I don't even believe it can be asked: but Dube seems to...

No. It was your question.

[Immanuel Can]

That question is so stupid that even AI doesn't acknowledge it

Well, it's Dube's question, essentially. I don't even believe it can be asked: but Dube seems to...

Because if all accounts involving a first mating pair are false, then something different must be true; and that automatically raises the question of what that "something different" could possibly be.

Sexual reproduction offers an example of my critique of BM's hard determinism. Children inherit thousands of genes from their parents-- some from the father some from the mother. The distribution of this inheritance may indeed be "predetermined" by natural forces. Some sperm swim faster. Once the ovum is fertilized, natural forces may affect which genes come from the father and which from the mother.

Okay, right...but why "predetermined"? Why don't we just say "produced"? Why give the Determinists a free win they haven't earned? Do they have a way of knowing that only one particular sperm can possibly arrive at an egg, and that it had to be this one? How do they know why this particular one did? They don't.

In this case, as in many others, determinism or non-determinism is utterly irrelevant.

Indeed so.

I don't know of any current psychological or sociological theory that holds that nature and nurture are not BOTH involved in the production of personal decisions, or that has evidence to show that either is predetermined. Both also take for granted that will plays a role in how nature and nurture are combined and responded to. So there's nothing in that package that provides any basis for preferring Determinism over free will.

[Immanuel Can]

That question is so stupid that even AI doesn't acknowledge it

Well, it's Dube's question, essentially. I don't even believe it can be asked: but Dube seems to...

No. It was your question.

...on the basis of Dube's claim. And neither you nor he have an answer. And neither does AI, you say...

Interesting. So Dube's beliefs are based on nothing other than that Dube doesn't like the idea of a first mating pair.

[accelafine]

Well, it's Dube's question, essentially. I don't even believe it can be asked: but Dube seems to...

No. It was your question.

...on the basis of Dube's claim. And neither you nor he have an answer. And neither does AI, you say...

Interesting. So Dube's beliefs are based on nothing other than that Dube doesn't like the idea of a first mating pair.

Don't try to gaslight me you disingenuous ****.

[accelafine]

It's such a moronic and nonsensical 'question' that it's difficult to even know how to phrase it so it makes sense to AI. AI just assumes it means 'first monogamous human mating couple'. Like asking it 'which was the first mammal that was half reptile?'

[accelafine]

Which was the first banana that understood that it needed to fit the human hand?

[Immanuel Can]

No. It was your question.

...on the basis of Dube's claim. And neither you nor he have an answer. And neither does AI, you say...

Interesting. So Dube's beliefs are based on nothing other than that Dube doesn't like the idea of a first mating pair.

Don't try to gaslight me you disingenuous ****.

I'm not. You can see it from the earlier conversation. Dube actually proposed something that Dube can't even explain...nor can you...nor can AI.

Kind of amusing, that.

The feeling of vertigo you're experiencing is not "gaslighting," but the realization that all along you've been believing something that doesn't even make sense, maybe.

[accelafine]

It's your 'question' that makes no sense. You're welcome.

[Immanuel Can]

It's your 'question' that makes no sense. You're welcome.

Hmmm...maybe you're having a hard time understanding what Dube's claim means...

I understand that feeling.

[accelafine]

Atla made a very good point regarding determinism and digital technology like smart phones, computers and the internet. This was conveniently ignored. I wonder why

[accelafine]

It would seem that the likes of IC and his gaggle of horrors believe that 'free will' is something that can be switched on and off, depending on the 'importance' of the decision to be made

[Dubious]

...on the basis of Dube's claim. And neither you nor he have an answer. And neither does AI, you say...

Interesting. So Dube's beliefs are based on nothing other than that Dube doesn't like the idea of a first mating pair.

Don't try to gaslight me you disingenuous ****.

I'm not. You can see it from the earlier conversation. Dube actually proposed something that Dube can't even explain...nor can you...nor can AI.

Kind of amusing, that.

Pray, what was it that Dube proposed that he couldn't explain? Now be precise, don't lie and don't distort...but in your case, that may be asking too much!

What I find amusing, pathetic rather, are the idiots who believe that our so-called first parents were seduced by a taking snake who first seduced Eve who then seduced Adam which pissed-off god no end. Poor fellow, after all his efforts to provide us with a comfy home forever! One must voluntarily condemn oneself to certain insanity to believe anything so outrageously stupid which you've proven to perfections is indeed possible.

[Age]

Sorry...can't see the connection. How can you have a human race with no original mating pair of humans to produce them? By asexual reproduction, like an amoeba? The question's ridiculous.

It seems you're saying evolution is ridiculous...

I'm just asking what your theory is. How did the human race get started without sexual reproduction? I've never heard at theory like that, and I'd find it intriguing to hear it spun out.

LOL Are you REALLY suggesting, here, that the claimed first two human beings REALLY DID COME FROM A 'man' in 'the sky'?

And then, and ONLY THEN, the so-called 'human race' began?

If no, then what are you REALLY suggesting, here, EXACTLY?

[Age]

...on the basis of Dube's claim. And neither you nor he have an answer. And neither does AI, you say...

Interesting. So Dube's beliefs are based on nothing other than that Dube doesn't like the idea of a first mating pair.

Don't try to gaslight me you disingenuous ****.

I'm not. You can see it from the earlier conversation. Dube actually proposed something that Dube can't even explain...nor can you...nor can AI.

Kind of amusing, that.

The feeling of vertigo you're experiencing is not "gaslighting," but the realization that all along you've been believing something that doesn't even make sense, maybe.

LOL 'This' coming from the one who BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that A "man" CREATED the WHOLE Universe, and then a so-called 'mating pair' of human beings, all while NEVER EXPLAINING a SINGLE thing about HOW ANY or ALL of this could even be A LOGICAL POSSIBILITY, let ALONE AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSIBILITY.

LOL "immanuel can" does not just PROPOSE some thing that "immanuel can" can NOT explain, "immanuel can", LAUGHABLY, ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY BELIEVES what it can NOT even BEGIN TO EXPLAIN.

As "immanuel can" WILL, AGAIN, PROVE, ABSOLUTELY, True, FOR me.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't try to gaslight me you disingenuous ****.

I'm not. You can see it from the earlier conversation. Dube actually proposed something that Dube can't even explain...nor can you...nor can AI.

Kind of amusing, that.

Pray, what was it that Dube proposed that he couldn't explain?

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 4:24 pm
One must clearly be careful how one feeds information to those whose comprehension is below idiot. So I'll make this as simple as possible.

Adam & Eve and all such depictions of the first mating couple = false


Yes, I understand you fully.

But what is the TRUE story, according to you? Since there was, according to you, no "first mating couple," what was there, in its place? What do you believe instead of that?

It can't be Evolutionism, because Evolutionism would proceed by sexual reproduction. And therefore, there WOULD have to be some "first mating couple," even if you didn't know what their names were. But you insist there was none. You say "all such depictions" are false. So whatever brand of Evolutionism you say you believe in, this would guarantee that it was not based on sexual reproduction.

So how did it operate? By mitosis?