Originally posted by Jorge
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Abusus usum non tollit
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostJorge the undisputed King of Stupid still too dumb to get that if someone uses a baseball bat as a murder weapon that doesn't make the game of baseball wrong or evil.
Jorge -- isn't that what you mean by "Evolution" (capital E)? If not, then do you mean the theory of common descent with diversity + natural selection - i.e., what scientists call simply the Theory of Evolution?
1) If the former, then you're going WAY beyond any scientific view. You create a bitter stew of confusion and (intentional?) misrepresentation.
2) If the latter, then please specify the boundary between micro and macro evolution as per a previous thread of mine.
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostOne reply, and one reply only so I can get this out of my system. Then I'm unsubscribing from the thread.
Ah, way to miss the point entirely. This isn't about "abuse" of a "scientific theory", but the logical application of Charles Darwin's naturalistic philosophy/theology*. Strike one.
Guessing you meant Einstein and relativity, right? Doesn't matter anyway since your first point missed the mark by a few galaxies.
Since you are not describing the reasoning involved at all, this is a moot point. If anything, it's this description that's dishonest.
Again, a complete misrepresentation of the argument. Oh, and btw, it's not only creationists who see the link between Darwin and eugenics/"Social"(more correct name would be "Applied")Darwinism. Here's a good example of an evolutionist who was able to connect the dots(and his writing helped me do the same). http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com...Charles+Darwin Language warning for his blog. It's not part of the post, but he does have a link to a blog name that breaks TWeb Decorum.
At this point I would hate it even if I believed it were true. I now see what it really means to accept Darwinism, and it's not pretty. Since I can't find the quote I am looking for, I will just have to settle for G.K. Chesterton.
Again, this will be my first and only response, as I had to get this out of my system.
ETA:* Charles Darwin, and evolutionists ever since have used a lot of philosophical/theological arguments to justify the theory. In fact, Charles seems to have used more of those than of real science in his works.
Wow, just wow.
Here's an example of "missing the point" on steroids.
The idea of hating the theory even if it were true is very interesting in a disturbing way.
What can anyone do to get across the UTTERLY SIMPLE POINT of this thread?!!
K54
P.S. I wonder what point he was trying to make with Einstein?Last edited by klaus54; 08-21-2014, 06:34 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostIf you and others here would simply THINK about what I've been posting here for over a decade - that there are two 'evolutions', one science and the other part of a religious metaphysic ... that these two are intermixed and sold as a single "scientific" theory - then you'd be able to connect the dots and everything would start making sense.
Instead you refuse to see or accept this reality. I cannot prevent you from that.
No, the science (of evolution) is not wrong ... allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time and these changes are manifested in physical characteristics of the individuals within that population. I have never claimed otherwise.
But the ideology/metaphysic/paradigm of Evolution - THAT isn't science.
And the intermixing of evolution with Evolution - packaged as a single "scientific" theory - THAT gets used to explain and justify everything from soup to nuts. THAT is used (past, present and future) to "scientifically" justify wars, euthanasia, abortion, genocide, etc.
Anyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostOne reply, and one reply only so I can get this out of my system. Then I'm unsubscribing from the thread.
Ah, way to miss the point entirely. This isn't about "abuse" of a "scientific theory", but the logical application of Charles Darwin's naturalistic philosophy/theology*. Strike one.
Guessing you meant Einstein and relativity, right? Doesn't matter anyway since your first point missed the mark by a few galaxies.
Since you are not describing the reasoning involved at all, this is a moot point. If anything, it's this description that's dishonest.
Again, a complete misrepresentation of the argument. Oh, and btw, it's not only creationists who see the link between Darwin and eugenics/"Social"(more correct name would be "Applied")Darwinism. Here's a good example of an evolutionist who was able to connect the dots(and his writing helped me do the same). http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com...Charles+Darwin Language warning for his blog. It's not part of the post, but he does have a link to a blog name that breaks TWeb Decorum.
At this point I would hate it even if I believed it were true. I now see what it really means to accept Darwinism, and it's not pretty. Since I can't find the quote I am looking for, I will just have to settle for G.K. Chesterton.
Again, this will be my first and only response, as I had to get this out of my system.
ETA:* Charles Darwin, and evolutionists ever since have used a lot of philosophical/theological arguments to justify the theory. In fact, Charles seems to have used more of those than of real science in his works.
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View Post???
Wow, just wow.
Here's an example of "missing the point" on steroids.
Comment
-
Originally posted by phank View PostAnd yet another thread experiences drive-by stupidity. "You people are all wrong, here's something irrelevant, here's something downright idiotic, here's something flat-out wrong, and this is my only post. THERE! Take that!"
1) They are presuppositionalists, so they KNOW they are right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
2) They are RIGHT about their Bible reading (not interpretation), thus KNOW that the theory of evolution/deep time is false.
3) Therefore, knowing it's false, they are free to fling ad hominems regarding its founders and any adherents whence they can cherry-pick a supposed cruel cultural meme.
4) #3 is spewed to prop up the beliefs of the credulous. A little extra intellectual dishonesty is ok if you can get away with it. Kinda like a sinuous lawyer winning a case by fooling the jury by rhetoric, spinning, and emotion.
I'm glad I started this thread. It was a REAL eye-opener on the far flung idiocy of an anti-science position.
The end justifies the means.
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostTrying to analyze the nonsense of the YEC/anti-evolutionist position, I came up with the following:
1) They are presuppositionalists, so they KNOW they are right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
...
The "funniest" I've come across to date is a duo who will ask a question and if you answer it, then they will respond with:-
"How do you know that?"
If you address that, then the points you raise are met with:-
"How do you know that?"
And so it goes.
It's serious stuff with these folk, but if the apologetic caught on then imagine what would happen. Imagine an argument between two such apologists. It would be sterile, banal, idiotic and pointless.
I love to point out that the apologetic really is for the ignorant, the stupid and the coward, simply because anyone exhibiting one or all of these characteristics would naturally be drawn to it as a supposedly good way of "arguing". I also point out that in the real world, no one attempts to use such a silly way of arguing, so why use it here. Furthermore, why should any of them think they know the absolute truth, given all the mistakes they make when dealing with the things you and I think? If they cannot get what we think, correct, why should we accept that their assertions about God are necessarily correct? And if they are under infallible guidance, then how come they are such goof-balls when it comes to science, what we think, and why we think it?
So it seems to me that the apologetic really is for the nitwits and the dimwits and those too frightened to stand on their own feet and offer an argument and an explanation in support of an idea.Last edited by rwatts; 08-22-2014, 12:08 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostTrying to analyze the nonsense of the YEC/anti-evolutionist position, I came up with the following:
1) They are presuppositionalists, so they KNOW they are right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
RoyJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostOh . . . hmm . . . Ah, you think my morals or ethics is not Christian, because you see me as one of the evil ones who suborns science as rationales for whatever evil they want to do.My goodness, what evidence do you have, my posts to TWeb!? Come on, show me the evidence. Maybe the shock of seeing it will push me to repentance and on to saintliness. And I'd thank you thank you thank you Jorge!
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were doing.
I agree, if I understand correctly that you are talking about morality or ethics here.
OK, I agree. Suborning science for evil purposes as in the "science" of climate change is bad.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostTrying to analyze the nonsense of the YEC/anti-evolutionist position, I came up with the following:
1) They are presuppositionalists, so they KNOW they are right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
2) They are RIGHT about their Bible reading (not interpretation), thus KNOW that the theory of evolution/deep time is false.
3) Therefore, knowing it's false, they are free to fling ad hominems regarding its founders and any adherents whence they can cherry-pick a supposed cruel cultural meme.
4) #3 is spewed to prop up the beliefs of the credulous. A little extra intellectual dishonesty is ok if you can get away with it. Kinda like a sinuous lawyer winning a case by fooling the jury by rhetoric, spinning, and emotion.
I'm glad I started this thread. It was a REAL eye-opener on the far flung idiocy of an anti-science position.
The end justifies the means.
K54
If you and others here would simply THINK about what I've been posting here for over a decade - that there are two 'evolutions', one science and the other part of a religious metaphysic ... that these two are intermixed and sold as a single "scientific" theory - then you'd be able to connect the dots and everything would start making sense.
Instead you refuse to see or accept this reality. I cannot stop you from doing that.
No, the science (of evolution) is not wrong ... allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time and these changes are manifested in physical characteristics of the individuals within that population. I have never claimed otherwise.
But the ideology/metaphysic/paradigm of Evolution - THAT isn't science.
And the intermixing of evolution with Evolution - packaged as a single "scientific" theory - THAT gets used to explain and justify everything from soup to nuts. THAT is used (past, present and future) to "scientifically" justify wars, euthanasia, abortion, genocide, etc.
Anyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View Post...and if they persist in disagreement must be either ignorant or dishonest.
Roy
If you and others here would simply THINK about what I've been posting here for over a decade - that there are two 'evolutions', one science and the other part of a religious metaphysic ... that these two are intermixed and sold as a single "scientific" theory - then you'd be able to connect the dots and everything would start making sense.
Instead you refuse to see or accept this reality. I cannot stop you from doing that.
No, the science (of evolution) is not wrong ... allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time and these changes are manifested in physical characteristics of the individuals within that population. I have never claimed otherwise.
But the ideology/metaphysic/paradigm of Evolution - THAT isn't science.
And the intermixing of evolution with Evolution - packaged as a single "scientific" theory - THAT gets used to explain and justify everything from soup to nuts. THAT is used (past, present and future) to "scientifically" justify wars, euthanasia, abortion, genocide, etc.
Anyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).
Jorge
Comment
-
OK, let's see if I got this right:
1) The Theory of Evolution isn't really a biological theory, despite the confusion of every evolutionary biologist in the world. It's really a political theory used to support practices I dislike.
2) This unique (and religiously inspired) description of Evolution gets mixed in with "real" evolution, which IS biology, so I'm not denying evolution happens, quite. However,
3) We simply won't address the cumulative effects of changing alleles and allele distributions over long periods of time, because that inevitably leads to theologically unacceptable conclusions, and because those conclusions are based on too many millions of consistent observations. So we'll deny that even TIME existed!
4) If anyone doesn't agree with ME, they must be either stupid or ignorant or dishonest. The alternative is that I might be wrong, and God tells me I am never wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by me...and if they persist in disagreement must be either ignorant or dishonest.Originally posted by Jorge View PostAnyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).[/COLOR]
RoyJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
0 responses
6 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
1 response
16 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
05-03-2024, 01:14 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
12 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
23 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment