Sunset of Darwinism

Sounds like a neat looking turtle. Where are the pictures?

Ya know, I havent seen them. Only the descriptions ferom NATURE. OF course, Ive ranted on about the "24 hour science publishing cycle" that is so popular today.

I hope it's a four-wheeler because effemm would be sure to wobble into a ditch on a two-wheeler.

It's popular because people read it and think they are scientists. A lot of people buy the Wall Street journal and imagine they become annoited financial experts as a result.

When will people learn that science and religion will never mix. People of religion cannot accept science, because it'll crumble their life-long belief in their god and after life.

Rubbish. People of religion invented science. And use it. How many more times do you need telling ci?

Science on its own will crumble your life-long beliefs in very short order.

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=how-did-turtles-get-their-shells-2008-11-26

Which is from a site called "60 second science."

Which is about all ros has ever given to science and that's probably exaggerating.

Anyway--we no longer trust photographs. Science has rendered them unsafe as objective evidence I'm afraid. Even the 10 second scientist knows that.

They are designed for the re-assurance of the star-struck. A "tell 'em what they wanna hear" branch of publishing.

We will have to hope that the education of our drip feed connectors and therapists is not decided on the evidence paraded above. That is those of us who think the photograph is off-topic, irrelevant and all the other things Ed said my posts are. Anybody who thinks otherwise knows not a jot about science. And is even incorrect in thinking he does.

(ros turns away--he daren't look.)

spendi, Just because people of religion invented science, that's a far cry from people of religion believing in science and scientific evidence.

I've yet to meet a religious person, in the loosest sense of the term, who does not set great store by science and lives a life taking full advantage of every convenience science has bestowed upon us. Every observation that is used to effect some gain to humans is the application of science. Science is the observation. Primitives had science. Voodoo shamen knew scientific stuff. That's what gave them power over those that didn't. No religion eschews science. That would be fakir stuff on top of a pole.

There are chapels and choirs and hymns and religious festivals all over the colleges where Mr Dawkins gets his shillings. He's just found himself a nice little earner tickling up the egos of fatheads like you. His basic argument is so circular it must make him dizzy. Once you assume there is no spiritual side to life, or any psychosomatic realm even, the gene has **** all else to be than selfish.

Does he sell his sperm on ebay? Why not? Any self-respecting selfish gene would do that. And think of those who would follow his lead. David Beckham could make playing football look stupid. One sperm bank canvassed scientists as donors and, if I read it right, got one response. Why?

Why would science seek to make everybody scientists anyway? No other trade encourages everybody to know its secrets.

We are not discussing your ever-present straw man. We are discussing exclusive science. Not science as we know it. It is you lot who don't believe in "Religion" as a process. Irrespective of the dogma. And our religion has brought you all you have. Your wallpaper is a function of Christianity.

This thread is still active? Wow.



Even the UK has creationists. You must not get out enough, or lack the ability to detect what you claim. In fact, you yourself seem to have nothing but contempt for science, scientists, and appreciators of science, at least when they don't fit nicely into your pretentions. I'm sure you'll assure me that you love science, but what you actually say about scientific topics strongly suggests otherwise.



Oh I see, you're just interested in equivocating over science. That explains everything. While science does have a lot to do with basic reasoning and common sense, very silly people (hey, like you!), often for religious reasons, reject scientific findings repeatedly and have nothing but contempt for scores upon scores of scientists. I suppose I shouldn't expect more than lying, though...



You sure can write a lot while saying very little. That which is of substance is pure bull. Have fun with your imagination, spendi.



Because you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. But please, do arrogantly go on.



Ah, I see. If something is different, it must be silly. I have to wonder if you were drunk when you seriously asked why being open and clear would be beneficial to mutual inquiry into empirical reality.



More attempts at pretending to be a half-decent writer. I'm sorry, spendius, but you're terrible at it. I at least have the honesty to admit that I'm a mediocre writer.

Since that last paragraph was so opaque (and presumably pretentious), I'll ask you what the crap you mean. An ever-present straw man? Which one? Exclusive science, what? Wallpaper? Sorry, but you're not being too high-brow for anyone, just incoherent.

There's a nice bunch of silly responses if ever I saw one.

I "don't get out enough", I have "nothing but contempt for science", I'm " just equivocating", I'm "very silly", I "reject scientific findings", I deal in "pure bull", I "haven't the slightest idea of what I'm talking about", I'm pretending to be a half-decent writer" ( where does that idea come from?), I'm "terrible at it" and I'm "incoherent" and "opaque".

You should be running the world Shira. As you're not your self-reassuring assertions have no meaning.

I am talking about abusing science for personal reasons and not abusing science per se.

You didn't answer any of the points. You didn't even try to. If you go about like that all day long it must be very tiresome for your companions.

My last paragraph was simple stuff. Your straw man is thinking you understand science by talking about it. Religion is a scientific process. And Christianity has brought you all you have. What's incoherent or opaque about that. Saying it was incoherent and opaque is not an argument.

You're not a mediocre writer Shira. You are not a writer at all. Of any description. Unless srtinging words together is your criteria and six year olds can do that.

And why do you express surprise that the thread is still active? It can only be that you think that nothing is going on when you're not there.

I agree that a philosophical case can be made for that but it is a justification for extreme narcissism.

Yes, on the specific things I mentioned, those are accurate. Care to make any defense whatsoever? No? Oh, I see, you'll be acting as an internet psychologist instead. Touché!



Funny, I saw you writing quite a few things, most of them complete crap, and not only a commentary on"'abusing science for personal reasons". I saw you writing ignorant nonsense about what you'd expect Dawkins to do and equivocating on what science is.



Most of the points were so ignorant that I'd be wasting my time explaining how you're wrong. You made errors so basic that I'd be surprised if anyone with a cursory familiarity with science or Dawkins would make them. For now, I'll just point out that they're stupid and ignorant and see if you can put in some effort towards being accurate, as opposed to the usual pretentious and condescending ignorance.

Oh, hey, I'll be nice and give one example: "Every observation that is used to effect some gain to humans is the application of science. Science is the observation. Primitives had science. Voodoo shamen knew scientific stuff. That's what gave them power over those that didn't. No religion eschews science. That would be fakir stuff on top of a pole."

No, science, in common usage - which is to say what everyone else is talking about - , is the methodological effort to understand objective reality using empirical methods and a number of 'safety' features to ensure good reasoning and pragmatic inquiry. You can look up what those specific things are just like anyone else can. If you go on about your silly sophistry on using an expansive definition of science, you'll be commenting on something else entirely for no apparent reason other than to fuckwittedly peddle pedantic sophistry.



Nonsense, if you'd asked anyone to tell you what you meant, you'd probably have gotten a 50/50 response at best. We've played this game before, and the people on *your* side didn't know what the hell you were talking about.



What? If anything, that entire statement is a straw man of the people you're arguing with. But please, explain how it's a straw man to me.



Lol, how stupid. Like I said, you are equivocating on science. You are using an expansive definition because it is convenient, not because it's the actual subject matter. Defining religion as a process is even more entertaining. I suppose Catholicism is a process? Scientology? They're not movements or organizations (static referents)? To answer my own question, of course they are. You're equivocating on religion as well.



You've never given any reasonable evidence for that. The most I ever seem to get from you is some tough talk at first and rambling later. Even if we pretend your fantasy here is accurate, so what? An Appeal to Consequences, particularly what one is merely materially comfortable with, is fallacious.



Nothing, you rewrote it. Did you not notice?



Did I say it was?



Yes, stringing words is indeed my criteria and like I said you're often not very good at it, especially when you try to be pretentious.

If that's the only reason you can think of, it's time to diagnose your thinker. I expected this thread to be dead because it was dead for a long time. Gungasnake started the topic, it was thoroughly hashed and rehashed (very one-sided), then it fizzled out.

Ever notice that scientists have been studying e-coli for the last hunred years or thereabouts, and that all they've seen get generated from e-coli is more e-coli?

Care to hazard a guess as to how many generations of e-coli that is which has not evolved into anything else??

It's the same with their assertions gunga. They never evolve either.

Could you tell us what evolutionary principles tell us that in the last hundred years, E. coli should have evolved into "something else"? Please be specific about what "something else" is, because via your implication it clearly doesn't include a population evolving the ability to take advantage of a new energy resource (biochemically).

I'll note that your answer *must* include numbers to hold any weight.

And again we see that all you really have to offer is bitterness.

I thought it was inane paragraphs of fluff.

You do have a small vocabulary and a rather restricted imagination.

Who said that inane paragraphs of fluff can't be bitter?