Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@spendius,

Quote:

Which means all the medical expertise is now in the hands of evolutionists

oes this surprise you? I suppose youd rather that medicine be distributed by the neighborhood Shaman?

@JimmyJ,

Quote:

Stop responding to Herald.

Take a look at his responses. He ignores the bulk of your posts (after you've clearly debunked him) and changes the subject. He does this every time without fail.

And you haven't noticed fm doing exactly that?

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

Oh I don't really give a damn. If I respond and he comes back with some idiocy, Im happy just because some young kids may read his bullshit and believe it were we not around to disxuss facts as they are.

I submit that your responsibility is the same. Thi is a public forum and , in the past, whenever wed get some of these Creationist marionettes , the pretty much say the same things over and over and can be easily exposed on their own. Weve often had some high school kids stop by and speak about how their earlier opinions have been modified by a bunch of us who don't back off from these SOCK PUPPETS FOR FUNDAMENTALISM.
Recall that these giuys are members of a rather small minority of religious believers.(That includes folks like neo who, despite his need to sound reasonable, he makes no doubts that he aint buyin any of what science says if it disputes his Fundamentalist Views)

The Heralds of the internet are pussies , really. Most of them don't have any desire to read and gain knowledge so they are easy targets. He will accuse me of not responding to "why Im an atheist" so thatll make him feel justified in his ignoring me.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

This is a claim without any evidences. How did you succeed to assign belief to this statement?
Bookkeeping here means perhaps 'history record' (it is not entirely clear actually what it means).

Gould's own statement was based upon the recognition that the primary adaptive change that affects a single individual or a small population, may have NO genetic signature . It may be entirely within the mode of genetic variability.
Continued selection of the trait actually garners some genetic modification but no one knows WHEN it is assigned to a trait.
So Gould, is merely making a statememt that follows lots of the evidence.
There may be a single nucleotide polymorph that affects several emergant traits (or not).

The growing discipline of epigenetics I making it appear that early definitions of speciation or even adaptive radiation may have to be modified a bit. Ill keep up with the literature if you wont.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

does this surprise you? I suppose youd rather that medicine be distributed by the neighborhood Shaman?

Yes--it does surprise me and I expect it would surprise most people. And I don't think that entails a desire to return to witch doctors.

I don't see that a commitment to evolution is a necessary condition for medical expertise and care. It could result in atheists being the recruitment pool for the profession just as being a communist has been a necessary condition in some countries for entry into some of them.

We have had a number of medical scandals which have resulted from a lack of compassion and patient welfare becoming less important than the needs of the management bureaucracy. And there are probably cases as yet undiscovered.

I imagine that most people from the west who work in deprived regions of the world in medical care are religious people. Or, at least, not atheists.

You're being a precious middle-class American. And you're on another reductio ad absurdum mission.

0 Replies

Spendius wrote:

I imagine that most people from the west who work in deprived regions of the world in medical care are religious people. Or, at least, not atheists.

Either you are misinformed or you are doing your typical religious propaganda.

I'm told most of Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without borders) are of the atheistic persuasion.

1 Reply

@timur,

Okay tim--I'm doing my typical religious propaganda. The viewers can make up their minds about it.

I don't think many people associate a word like propaganda with what an individual does on his or her own account.

It is a fact that I imagine that most people from the west who work in deprived regions of the world in medical care are religious people. Or, at least, not atheists.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Typical religiosity, repeating the mantra...

1 Reply

@timur,

Thank you for availing me of the opportunity to repeat that I imagine that most people from the west who work in deprived regions of the world in medical care are religious people. Or, at least, not atheists.

2 Replies

@spendius,

However, it seems that your imagination is only wishful thinking.

Atheists do care about suffering as much (if not more) as religious people.

1 Reply

@timur,

Throwing a mountain of unsubstantiated **** over the character of the atheist is to relinquish the moral high road, while admitting to have no real argument ready.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Thank you for availing me of the opportunity to repeat that I imagine ...

I think that kind of says everything about you spendi.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

As an atheist myself I agree ed. We can't have Nietzsche being our philosophical representative when he went around saying that pity was a sign of weak vitality which destroys the joy of life and produces contagious misery, or what we call the victim culture.

I was simply recognising the work religious people do in places like Africa where the salaries are nowhere near what the atheist carers charge these days, which is an arm and a leg, and which encourages them to create more patients.

Like the bank robber who said he robbed banks because they were where the money was, the carer goes to where care is most needed rather than where the best career opportunities exist.

Doctors here charge nearly £200 for a house call. And the BMA's propaganda blitz never ceases.

We need to see what atheist carers are like when they have been educated in an atheist society rather than in a Christian one which is the case now.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Just because you can't see the trees growing doesn't mean they aren't growing.

I can observe the trees growing ... if I want (by using long-exposure photography, for example). So, the example is not quite appropriate.

quote wrote:

The Universe is still evolving cosmologically and life on earth is still evolving biologically.

Can you give some examples of that. Take for example the CO2 story that can cause eventually acidification of the blood. Can you give an example of some people that have become 'acid-resistant' as a result of the increase of CO2 (and NO2 and SO2) into the air?
Or let's have another example - the junk food in the fast food restaurants. Can you give an example of people that have become resistant to junk food as a result of consuming such food in industrial quantities?

further wrote:

No. It's not deterministic.

If it is not deterministic it has to be stochastic. So you claim that Reproduction, Variation and Natural Selection that result in Biological Evolution are stochastic processes. Is it that what you are claiming?

further wrote:

It's very clear from the mountains of evidence exactly how biology is evolving.

No, it is not clear ... at all. For centuries some people in the ancient times have believed that the Earth is flat ... and what about the Newton mechanics ... and gravity?
The problem is that it takes tremendous effort to break out of the matrix.

further wrote:

Done deal.

Nothing in the opera is over ... until the fat lady starts singing.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Can you give some examples of that. Take for example the CO2 story that can cause eventually acidification of the blood.

During the "Big 5" extinction events, several entire Classes of animals and plants were lost each event while others evolved their way past the extinction event. Look at mammals. Before the end of the Cretaceous there were 7 order of mammals on the planet. After the Cretaceous? Paleocene boundary, there are left only three (monotremes, marsupials, and placentals). SO, you cannot predict what will happen before an extinction event especially if it occurs very quickly. Often, time s the great mollifier of the effect of the event

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Just because you can't see the trees growing doesn't mean they aren't growing.

I can observe the trees growing ... if I want (by using long-exposure photography, for example). So, the example is not quite appropriate.

And you can observe evolution by using the equivalent of "long-exposure" geology and fossils (which is exactly what we do). Your counter example is perfect because it shows the validity of the scientific methodology we are using. And it shows that you are accepting of the process.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

During the "Big 5" extinction events ...

Forget about the extinction events. Why don't you tell us something that is happening right now.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Forget about the extinction events. Why don't you tell us something that is happening right now.

Nice way to avoid everything he just said to you.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

And you can observe evolution by using the equivalent of "long-exposure" geology and fossils

You don't have the long-exposure of geology and fossils ... with the CO2 and the junk food for example ... for they are driving along exponent ... which does not sound like 'long-exposure' time.
Aren't you aware that when depicting exponent on a diagram one have to cut down on the time (in logarithmic scale) along the X axis in order to depict the graphics 'properly' (within the visible screen, or sheet of paper, or whatever it is there).

further wrote:

And it shows that you are accepting of the process.

In the general case -yes, but here you are not exploring a process, for you don't have direct and indisputable evidences that this process even exists.
The problem with some 'great' theories is that because the universe is so huge (big bang) and the time scale is so large (evolution) the inapplicability of the laws of physics and the contradictions with the math logic could somehow be ignored. Nobody in anyway will not even notice that they are based on a black box ... where everything goes.

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Nice way to avoid everything he just said to you.

Biology is hobby to fm, but where are your examples?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know