3
   

Darwinists: Persisting despite the evidence

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 10:17 am
@OmSigDAVID,
One further clarification...

Quote:

[me]
...Jesus WOULD have said something had there been anybody in his audience stupid enough to believe that they could breed a cat or a goat from dog stock, i.e. if there had been anybody like Farmerman in his audience but, obviously, there WASN'T anybody that stupid walking around in those days....


What that means is, that NATURAL SELECTION would have weeded out anybody that stupid in those days.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 10:29 am
@gungasnake,
David wrote:
Quote:
I doubt that he 'd like that.
Jesus had plenty of time to express his own position.
He never condemned evolution; he did not tell farmers
to stop breeding animals for better results. ...

gungasnake wrote:
Quote:
I've mentioned this before... There are two kinds of evolution, i.e. MICROEVOLUTION which nobody disputes and which produces variations within one KIND of animal, and MACROEVOLUTION which is what the theory of evolution is about and which the controversy is about, and farmers are practicing the art of influencing MICRO evolution and, in fact, breeders told Chuck Darwin he was full of **** early on since they knew perfectly well that they could never breed a new KIND of animal

Well, there is something new on the horizon,
or maybe closer than that: I saw on TV a few weeks ago
that some DNA of a spider was introduced into that of a goat,
such that the goat's milk included material of spider webs,
which has been found (if I recall accurately) to be, by weight,
5 times stronger than steel, and therefore of commercial value.

Thay also showed a pig with human DNA,
who was growing a human ear on his back, to be harvested for a human
who 'd had some misfortune whereby he lost an ear;
i.e., there r new phenomena in this field.

In my reference to Jesus I only sought to bring out that if he desired
to discourage future belief in evolution, he woud have done so,
speaking not only to his immediate audience, but to humanity in general, including posterity.
The same way that he did not warn:
"do not believe in the heliocentric theory of the solar system (or of the universe)"
so also did he not warn:
"don 't believe in macroevolution,
because if u believe in macroevolution u will thereby offend the Supreme Being."

There is no evidence that Jesus or God cares about
whether anyone believes in evolution.
A (formerly) firery, threatening, Protestant minister
who returned from death said that he was surprized
that God did not care about the minister's theology.



Quote:

Chihuahuas and great Danes are both still dogs; their genome is entirely determined by information as is ours, and the ONLY information present in any dog is that for dogs. Turn them ALL loose, i.e. all the dogs in the world and stop breeding them and, five generations later, all that will be left is your ordinary fifty pound wild dog which is common over the world.

I guess your position is that genetic mutation
is insignificant ?



Quote:

Jesus WOULD have said something had there been anybody in his audience stupid enough to believe that they could breed a cat or a goat from dog stock, i.e. if there had been anybody like Farmerman in his audience but, obviously, there WASN'T anybody that stupid walking around in those days.

Is it your position that when Jesus spoke,
he intended to limit his advice to those people immediately
in front of him and that he had no message for future generations ?



`
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 11:21 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
In my reference to Jesus I only sought to bring out that if he desired
to discourage future belief in evolution, he woud have done so,
speaking not only to his immediate audience, but to humanity in general, including posterity.


He DID warn against false prophets, and that would include Chuck Darwin as well as Muhammed (MHBH)....
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 11:28 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
In my reference to Jesus I only sought to bring out that if he desired
to discourage future belief in evolution, he woud have done so,
speaking not only to his immediate audience, but to humanity in general, including posterity.


He DID warn against false prophets, and that would include Chuck Darwin as well as Muhammed (MHBH)....

IF he had felt like it,
the same way that he warned against false profets,
he coud also have warned against believing in macroevolution,
IF he considered that to be IMPORTANT.
He did NOT. We can take an inference.





David
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 12:20 pm
gunga-- you ought to know that anti-IDers have not come on A2K to learn anything. If there is one scientific proof of that it is their repetitive posting over the four or so years I have been on here and for all I know from long before that elsewhere.

And that is in exactly the same place now as it has been since they adopted their position for what I believe to be emotional reasons. They are unshiftable. That is why they are scared shitless of taking any cognisence of the social consequences of their ideas, if one might so call them, if they were to be adopted by the whole population of western society which must be their aim for otherwise they are standing on sand. They seek to have everyone believe a set of ideas which they are unwilling to even contemplate the outcome of let alone attempt to describe.

The notion never enters their heads that the properties of the radiations reaching the earth are unlikely to be the same as the properties of those radiations after they have been reflected off a mirror, passed through a series of lenses with it's original direction having been reconfigured, and goodness knows what else, and collected on a receptor, beamed down to the photographic plate, developed and then pored over teleologically and displayed to the awestruck kissebreeches who kneel in rapture at the thought of catching a shard of the numinosity which shines out of the glass of their threating spectacles, off their foreheads and probably out of their assholes for those who dare to examine the prospect.

What they see, and use to power themselves into positions of responsibility, reserved car parks and in house apartheid, is actually a "vision".

Visions have a number of qualities. But the one in play here is the contemplative. It is contemplating itself, just as a lady with a new frock does, in relation to frustrating all other possible visions. The aggregation of these visions when broadly in agreement might be said to be the "spirit" of anti-ID.

Not that this spirit would accept such a name for itself. Despite it having no other suggestions once it gets the knee-tremblers from seeing a copy of The Materialist Theory of Mind on a swap-meet bookstall.

It has no science. Perish the thought. It has run, nay galloped, away from any and every attempt to bring science into these discussions. As in this post. It will run from this. It will "split".

It, this spirit of anti-ID, has no real idea of how to measure the acheivements of science aside from how they might help it to suffer less. The achievements of science, and there is Faust to suggest that they may be a Satanic contract, come from a long way back. Where the original creative act upon which it is founded was they have not the first idea. And wherever it was it was certainly the finest of all creative acts in the history of science.

I have suggested Jesus to them and through his vision refracted through a certain bishop in the 14th century concerned with the higher mathematics on which the rest stands.

But the spirit wants the credit. Now. An aggressive motion. Notice the aggression they display. Even neutrals have commented on it. They take their arrows from the pages of books and magazines and peer-reviewed circularities all of which will be forgotten in a very short time.

And the spirit resides in no more than 15% of Americans which I supect would be 99% once the matter was explained in more than a casual fashion and eschewing appealing to base animality.

It is deleriously happy to destroy all our past psychic life and thus our sense of the men and women who preceded us in the sole service of the gratification of contemplating its own image or what it thinks is its image.



Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 12:25 pm
@spendius,
Quote:


The notion never enters their heads that the properties of the radiations reaching the earth are unlikely to be the same as the properties of those radiations after they have been reflected off a mirror, passed through a series of lenses with it's original direction having been reconfigured, and goodness knows what else, and collected on a receptor, beamed down to the photographic plate, developed and then pored over teleologically and displayed to the awestruck kissebreeches who kneel in rapture at the thought of catching a shard of the numinosity which shines out of the glass of their threating spectacles, off their foreheads and probably out of their assholes for those who dare to examine the prospect.


My god, you're a ******* idiot. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. You clearly have no understanding of the Scientific method or Electromagnetism whatsoever.

I really think you just live in some sort of mystical fantasy world in your head, where all Science gives the world is complicated names for Magic, and people shouldn't ask questions, they should just shut up and accept things they way they are. You are the ultimate anti-intellectual. Breathtaking.

Cycloptichorn
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 12:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
One really does need to try to be breathtaking to have the very smallest purchase on intellectualism.

Thank you.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 12:43 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

One really does need to try to be breathtaking to have the very smallest purchase on intellectualism.

Thank you.


Do you understand, that the properties of a piece of radiation are in fact extremely likely to be exactly the same, even after traveling through space, hitting a mirror, and then being observed? This is an extremely basic point. Yet you treat it as if it were some sort of joke.

It is not a joke.

On our side, we have repeated and testable theories. On yours, assertion and books written hundreds and thousands of years ago which lead to no testable theories whatsoever. How can you feel that your side of the argument has any real strength to back it up?

Cycloptichorn
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 01:17 pm

What does " ID " stand for ?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 01:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


What does " ID " stand for ?


Intelligent Design. And given those who promote the idea, it's highly ironic.

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 01:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
. . . given those who promote the idea, it's highly ironic.


hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe . . .

okbye
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 01:34 pm


Genesis Revisited
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 01:39 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Intelligent Design. The idea is that it is in fact possible to construct valid tests and metrics for the question of whether or not something requires information input and some sort of design in order to exist.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 01:42 pm
@spendius,
What you're seeing in the case of people like Farmerman or Richard Dawkins is a paradigm lockout.

Same thing happened to Detroit in the 70s and 80s. They reached a point at which their entire universe was sealed: they had their own schools for engineers, and they all lived in the same neighborhoods, went to the same schools, grocery stores, churches etc., hired and promoted almost entirely from within, and the chances of a new idea breaking through all of that had become vanishingly close to zero.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 01:49 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
On yours, assertion and books written hundreds and thousands of years ago which lead to no testable theories whatsoever.


The culture you live in is the tested proof of the validity of those assertions and books. It is the language of that culture you express yourself in and, in the main, its manners you adopt, if only to avoid ostracism. By rights you ought to gibber and grunt. To be consistent I mean. And wait for the mating season.

You have no way of showing that atheism wouldn't have left us still running around in breechcloths stabbing moose with flint pointed sticks and cooking the thing without spice and allowing the ladies the best cuts in order to curry favour with them. A couple of million years of that and then --poof--those doggone assertions and books arrive.

Praise be the Lord.

We do know that living by those assertions and books we got here, for better or for worse. I think for the better.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 01:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,

Thank u.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 02:12 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Quote:
gunga-- you ought to know that anti-IDers have not come on A2K
to learn anything. If there is one scientific proof of that it is their
repetitive posting over the four or so years I have been on here
and for all I know from long before that elsewhere.

And that is in exactly the same place now as it has been since
they adopted their position for what I believe to be emotional reasons.

They are unshiftable. That is why they are scared shitless of taking
any cognisence of the social consequences of their ideas, if one might
so call them, if they were to be adopted by the whole population
of western society which must be their aim for otherwise they are
standing on sand. They seek to have everyone believe a set of ideas
which they are unwilling to even contemplate the outcome of let alone attempt to describe.

I see Intelligent Design permeating all around.
I accept macroevolution as being factual.
I am always glad to learn things of value,
but I come here more to chat socially.

Altho I accept conventional beliefs qua macroevolution and I accept
Darwin as being essentially correct, I have NO fear, however slight
of any social consequences thereof. I am convinced that people,
individually and in groups, will act the same way
whether macroevolution is true or false.
I assure u with the fullest of sincerity that since the age of 8,
I have entertained a sense of tranquility, except only
insofar as it has been disturbed by the threat of collectivist authoritarianism.
That is not related to whether macroevolution has been true or false.
I wonder Y u believe that anyone is afraid,
concerning social consequences; WHAT consequences ?





(I surmise that I shoud give up on getting a reply from Spendius
to the questions that I presented earlier.)





David
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 02:23 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
On yours, assertion and books written hundreds and thousands of years ago which lead to no testable theories whatsoever.


The culture you live in is the tested proof of the validity of those assertions and books.


Untestable, unprovable assertion on your part.
Quote:


It is the language of that culture you express yourself in and, in the main, its manners you adopt, if only to avoid ostracism. By rights you ought to gibber and grunt. To be consistent I mean. And wait for the mating season.

You have no way of showing that atheism wouldn't have left us still running around in breechcloths stabbing moose with flint pointed sticks and cooking the thing without spice and allowing the ladies the best cuts in order to curry favour with them. A couple of million years of that and then --poof--those doggone assertions and books arrive.


I don't have to show what Atheism would or wouldn't have done to know that Science and the scientific theory is superior to your empty assertions.

Quote:
Praise be the Lord.

We do know that living by those assertions and books we got here, for better or for worse. I think for the better.


It is not said assertions that got us where we are, but instead, Science. Life in the 1500's had the same set of assertions that we have today; and yet, we are FAR more advanced then we were 500 years ago. Entirely due to testable science.

And in every case where science conflicts with your assertions, Science has won out in the end. And it will continue to do so.

In short,

Your last post was an assertion, a Black Swan argument, and a base misunderstanding of history. Fail on all attempts.

Cycloptichorn
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 02:27 pm
@McGentrix,

Ha. Good one Smile

I guess this means that God has no respect for Occam's Razor.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 03:10 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
(I surmise that I shoud give up on getting a reply from Spendius
to the questions that I presented earlier.)


I thought they were for gunga.

What were the questions?
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/16/2024 at 10:31:23