Theme: Science

  • See The Following Walk Through History:

    Origins

    David Reich’s “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past”

    The First Dark Age

    ( Nothing Written Yet – The Late paleolithic collapse )

    The Indo European Expansion

    JP Mallory’s “In Search of the Indo-Europeans” David Anthony’s “The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World” Karen Armstrong’s “The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions”, “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence”

    The Second Dark Age

    Eric Cline’s “1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed”

    The Third Enlightenment

    ( … )

    The Third Dark Age

    Arthur Herman’s “The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization” Catherine Nixey’s “The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World” Charles Freeman’s “The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason”

    The Fourth Enlightenment

    ( … The Empirical Revolution … ) ( … The Scientific Revolution … ) ( … The technological  Revolution … )

    The Fourth Dark Age

    (Marx, freud, Derrida …. the third  revolt by eastern  mysticism against european reason)

    The History of Warfare

    Victor Davis Hanson’s “The Other Greeks”, “ The Western Way of War”, “The Soul of Battle”, “Carnage and Culture”, “The Father of Us All”, John Keegan’s “The History of Warfare”,  Martin Van Crevld’s “The Culture of War” William Lind’s “4th Generation Warfare Handbook” -Cheers

  • On Intelligent Design: I Support Truthful Speech

    On Intelligent Design: I Support Truthful Speech https://ift.tt/30Hk5z6


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 15:18:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165282284246839297

  • On Intelligent Design: I Support Truthful Speech

    —“Are you saying you support darwanism over Christianity or intelligent design?”—Mark E. Haney

    1 – I cannot falsify evolution, and every single evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations. 2 – The five rules of christianity are,logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically) the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christians are wealthier than competing cults. 3 – Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time. I cannot falsify that statement – it’s a physical and logical impossibility. As to what I ‘Support’: I support truthful speech. Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to. I can only testify to that which is: … – categorically consistent … – logically consistent … – empirically(observably) consistent … – operationally consistent … – rationally consistent … – reciprocally consistent where it is: … – parsimonious … – scope consistent … – and fully accounted … – within stated limits and where … – due diligence has been demonstrated, and where … – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs. I cannot testify to anything other than. 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism Christianity survives under natural law as does all literature under natural law, in that the parables advocate natural law, despite being stated in language and grammar of myth, instead of the language and grammar of Testimony (law). Deliver faith and obedience to any gods compatible with natural law. Deliver Truth, Duty, and Reciprocity to mankind because Truth, Duty, and Reciprocity ARE the natural law.

    —“The point is, you don’t have to believe in anything supernatural to understand why natural law works. In fact, it hinders you. But as long as we both believe in the natural law, regardless of where it comes from, we can still be allies. I have to have faith in that law to deliver but that’s all. You believe whatever you want but in reality, evolution is the most intelligent design possible.”—Martin Štěpán

  • On Intelligent Design: I Support Truthful Speech

    —“Are you saying you support darwanism over Christianity or intelligent design?”—Mark E. Haney

    1 – I cannot falsify evolution, and every single evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations. 2 – The five rules of christianity are,logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically) the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christians are wealthier than competing cults. 3 – Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time. I cannot falsify that statement – it’s a physical and logical impossibility. As to what I ‘Support’: I support truthful speech. Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to. I can only testify to that which is: … – categorically consistent … – logically consistent … – empirically(observably) consistent … – operationally consistent … – rationally consistent … – reciprocally consistent where it is: … – parsimonious … – scope consistent … – and fully accounted … – within stated limits and where … – due diligence has been demonstrated, and where … – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs. I cannot testify to anything other than. 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism Christianity survives under natural law as does all literature under natural law, in that the parables advocate natural law, despite being stated in language and grammar of myth, instead of the language and grammar of Testimony (law). Deliver faith and obedience to any gods compatible with natural law. Deliver Truth, Duty, and Reciprocity to mankind because Truth, Duty, and Reciprocity ARE the natural law.

    —“The point is, you don’t have to believe in anything supernatural to understand why natural law works. In fact, it hinders you. But as long as we both believe in the natural law, regardless of where it comes from, we can still be allies. I have to have faith in that law to deliver but that’s all. You believe whatever you want but in reality, evolution is the most intelligent design possible.”—Martin Štěpán

  • Mark E. Haney are you saying you support darwanism over Christianity or intellig

    Mark E. Haney are you saying you support darwanism over Christianity or intelligent design?

    1 – I cannot falsify evolution and every single evidence from the fundamental structure of the… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=453761418554087&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 06:47:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165153584645844992

  • That’s nonsense. Every single advance we make in genetics only supports darwin’s

    That’s nonsense. Every single advance we make in genetics only supports darwin’s initial observations. Last year nature vs nurture fell. Right now we are ending indifference between genders and races. The postmodern attempt to create a pseudoscientific cult is coming to an end.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 03:40:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165106483136290817

    Reply addressees: @RufusTFireflyJr @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165031742547419142


    IN REPLY TO:

    @RufusTFireflyJr

    @clairlemon Surprising to hear you say that, Claire. Perhaps spending too much time on twitter has made you beholden to your own orthodoxies. Gelerneter is a skeptic, and Darwinism has, uh, evolved from being a theory to being a an academic cult with tribes, rites and heresies.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165031742547419142

  • You aren’t stupid – on the other hand, *belief* in something out of faith, and *

    You aren’t stupid – on the other hand, *belief* in something out of faith, and *arguing* against science with sophism, innumeracy, and pseudoscience is somewhere between stupid and unethical. There is a difference. One does not justify faith. One practices it. One argues science.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 03:38:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165106042059022337

    Reply addressees: @Coolish_Breeze @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165039194210799617


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165039194210799617

  • Don’t be silly. This tripe has been running around intelligent design circles of

    Don’t be silly. This tripe has been running around intelligent design circles of late, and it is the worst bit of sophistry and innumeracy.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 03:35:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165105199482114048

    Reply addressees: @ThirtyTyrants @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165031435125874695


    IN REPLY TO:

    @ThirtyTyrants

    @clairlemon You should read the article. Your snarky tweet doesn’t make you seem intelligent, just uninformed.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165031435125874695

  • “More evidence that mathematicians can be stupid, too”–Claire Lehmann @clairlem

    —“More evidence that mathematicians can be stupid, too”–Claire Lehmann @clairlemon

    ….”(Renowned Yale Computer Science Prof Leaves Darwinism | The Stream David Gelernter recently… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=453700835226812&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 03:27:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165103219573481475

  • RT @clairlemon: More evidence that mathematicians can be stupid, too

    RT @clairlemon: More evidence that mathematicians can be stupid, too https://stream.org/renowned-yale-computer-science-prof-leaves-darwinism/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 03:23:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165102383858429957