facts of evolution

[eFestivals]

Because I don't feel like it, mainly.

so you - the self-proclaimed academic - would rather continue along pushing out wrong shit than do the five minutes research to discover beyond all doubt that you're utterly wrong.

I've got to say, such academic prowess is mightily impressive.

And you wonder why your writings are becoming a comedy project.

[worm]

so you - the self-proclaimed academic - would rather continue along pushing out wrong shit than do the five minutes research to discover beyond all doubt that you're utterly wrong.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

You go on about academia all the time Holmes. I couldn't give a toss about it.

really? You seem to have forgotten how insulted you were to not be considered an academic, and then spent your time insisting that you were.

They're not the actions of someone that doesn't give a toss - I'm sure there's some philosophy that could demonstrate that to you.

Much like your site.

..... you'd like to think so, eh? Shame the facts prove very much otherwise. It's not chance that eFestivals is the world's leading festivals website. Are you the world's leading philosopher?

This is not an academic forum.

yeah, I know. And it doesn't take any genius to realise why you post your idiocy here and not on an academic forum.

We're back to Monty Python again aren't we? "Run away, run away" from anything that exposes you as the charlatan you are.

[worm]

really? You seem to have forgotten how insulted you were

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

You invest faaaaaaaaar too much in your own opinions

says the man unable to state that philosophy is all a crock of wrong shite despite knowing absolutely that it is.

[worm]

says the man unable to state that philosophy is all a crock of wrong shite despite knowing absolutely that it is.

[eFestivals]

That's because I don't believe that it is a load of wrong shit. So why would I ever want to 'state' that?

You're just weird. Plain and simple.

No, I'm just consistent; something you lack, due to the blind faith you hold in contradicting things (which in itself is laughable).

If it's not a crock of wrong shit then you can tell me which philosophy is 100% correct.

Your silence or avoidance of the question will prove me correct.

[worm]

No, I'm just consistent; something you lack, due to the blind faith you hold in contradicting things (which in itself is laughable).

[eFestivals]

Consistent to what?

reality.

This just proves how stupid you are. I've explained this four times now.

I've explained it four times.

what you've explained four times is that you know it's a crock of useless shite. You just refuse to use those words when you say it.

Let's try it another way: what original, useful, and working & applicable idea has come out of an academic approach to philosophy*?

(* worded that way to avoid you giving an answer using "every idea is a philosophy" as the basis of your reply).

Has it ever come up with anything of use? Or does it simply talk around and around pre-existing ideas that it's picked up on and thought were an interesting but ultimately pointless avenue to explore?

Philosophy adds nothing, zero, zilch.

[worm]

reality.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

The scientific method. Maths. Physics. Argumentation. English. IT. A number of ologies. Modernisation. Politics. Human rights. Oh, I could go on.

Bullshit. Science, maths, physics etc have simply grown out of existing knowledge, not out of any pre-defined philosophy - the philosophy that is applied to them got made up afterwards.

There's not a single humanities 'ology' that's any more right than the crock of useless shite that is philosophy.

Modernisation happened by itself, out of existing knowledge, not out of any pre-defined philosophy. Are you really suggesting that, for example, before Henry Ford sat down to design the Model T he said "I must first find out if there's a philosophy which allows me to do that"?

Politics - same. Human rights - same.

You could go on - you DO go on.

You could go on until the end of time but you'd never bring anything to the table of worth that has come FROM philosophy. If you think you can then you're even more stupid that the most ridiculous religious fundamentalist.

[worm]

Bullshit. Science, maths, physics etc have simply grown out of existing knowledge

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[worm]

You could go on until the end of time but you'd never bring anything to the table of worth that has come FROM philosophy.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

Yes. Out of philosophy.

go back and read my original question.

You've done specifically what I said not to. Why is that? Because I'm right; the philosophies you hold so dear are invented and post-applied to what is already known.

You're an idiot Neil.

hmmmmm .... one of has world first's to his credit yet doesn't consider himself a genius because he's able to recognise what all things are built on, while the other parrots stuff from books without adding any additional thought, believes in genius' and (I think I'm correct in remembering) posted that he considers himself one, invents fantasies from thin air and believes them as facts, and is 'too clever' to do a moment's research to discover just how wrong he is even when pointed in the right direction .... and added to that cannot even simple questions posed to him very clearly which have simple answers.

[eFestivals]

I just have. But you won't accept them. Your table is a foolish one that I do not wish to dine at.

says the man who relies on invented fantasies as his 'facts' as you've done in this thread to evolution.

When someone was coming up with the Big Bang theory did he have to check there was a documented philosophy it could fit within before he could pursue his ideas? Or was a philosophy post-applied to it?

I would gladly discuss with you about some of the intricacies of where philosophy fails and such like (pretty much post modernism where we're at now), but you can't even accept what philosophy is so we aren't going to get anywhere.

oooooo ..... we're getting somewhere - an admission that it does fail.

Keep going, and one day you'll get to catch up with the rest of us.

[worm]

says the man who relies on invented fantasies as his 'facts' as you've done in this thread to evolution.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[worm]

go back and read my original question.

[eFestivals]

Again, evidence of your stupidity.

I said that all things are constructed through language. That means when we talk of the facts of an eye it depends upon what we mean by the eye and so on and so on and so on.

squirm, squirm, squirm, squirm, squirm, run away, run away, run away, run away.

You have claimed yourself as the world's only perfect communicator; if you fail to communicate properly, then, on the basis of you claiming to be the world's only perfect communicator all error in understanding in those you are communicating to can only be yours.

How's that for a bit of philosophy? .... And actually, it's something that can only be 100% true unlike your own drivellings.

But back to it....

You were just f**king wrong, on every possible level. You might as well try claiming you can turn your shit into gold, it would be no more or less accurate.

I didn't think you'd understand.

What's not to understand? I said they fail, you said they fail .... but now you're trying to pretend something different.

[Goblinz]

What is classed as an eye? Something that sense light?

In some lower vertibrates the Pineal gland acts as an eye and is even structured like an eye with a lense and other associated parts. In reptiles, as it's very close to the skin it senses light and lets them know when they should be sleeping (it also releases "sleep chemicals"). In birds it's not quite so close, I read one source that says that it can still still sense light and the theory is that this is how they navigate, other sources say that it contains magnetic sensors for navigation which would involve a whole new sense. Whereas the human pineal is burried deep in the brain.

Has this not evolved seperately from normal eyes?

[eFestivals]

Just as well because you're not.

I know - because I know there's no such thing. There is only accumulation - the process via which we have all things.

Philosophy made science. I've answered your question.

No, knowledge made science just as knowledge - then combined with huge but worthless egos - made the empty space you call philosophy.

[worm]

You have claimed yourself as the world's only perfect communicator

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

No Neil. You did.

no, you claimed that what you said couldn't be misunderstood by a person with knowledge of that subject. Kriss understood you, and I understood you, and understood you as wrong. So now you're trying to pretend that you meant something else. Real pathetic.

Nope. As has been explained and as you simply do not understand.

What's to not understand? I understand that you cannot answer the question "tell me which philosophy is 100% correct" and I understand that your inability to answer that question means "none".

And so, as I said, it's worthless shite.

Science is the bigest failing in philosophy.

Priceless, real priceless. The error is in science that brings us real things and not in philosophy that brings us nothing.

If you knew anything about philosophy at all, you'd have known exactly what I was saying and we may have had a nice chat. But you don't. You just want to win an argument by any means necessary. I just don't have the energy for that myself.

I know more than I need to about philosophy - that even those who treat it like a religion know it's worthless. Game over.

[worm]

I know - because I know there's no such thing. There is only accumulation - the process via which we have all things.

Edited February 5, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Priceless, real priceless. The error is in science that brings us real things and not in philosophy that brings us nothing.

[worm]

What's to not understand?