Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

fm wrote-

Quote:

Myths of origins and gods were developed and (most importantly for good crowd control) we needed devils
"Gods arent necessary to maintain order in a civilization but devils are" --I forget who said that

I presume you are in favour of good crowd control fm. Science would have some difficulties proceeding without it I think.

But "devils" are personifications of human characteristics isolated for clarity. Rather like the Statue of Liberty is a personification of the enfolding and protecting and comforting mother and Uncle Sam with his characteristics. Parts in movies and novels are the same. Psychological studies of humanity where the "devil" stands for characteristics which the society has decided to select out.

They enable us to accelerate evolution. Pious homilies are often quite ineffective. They can be suspected of serving the interest of those spouting them.

The good scientist can be personified in movies just as the evil scientist can.

The question is can we do without such things as devils. But that is your Achilees Heel isn't it. The social consequences. You speak as if we have a mass of ideal human beings to contend with with roughly similar dispositions to your own, which is admirably Christian.

0 Replies

so all that jibajabbah just means that you dont know who said that quote first. Youre such a phoney .

0 Replies

Tell me something I don't already know.

Show me someone who isn't a phoney and I'll go out and say a prayer for him.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Tell me something I don't already know.

Show me someone who isn't a phoney and I'll go out and say a prayer for him.

I don't need your prayers. I'll work hard and treat my fellow man with dignity and respect, and let the card lie where lie.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Spendius wrote:

Quote:

The question is can we do without such things as devils. But that is your Achilees Heel isn't it.(sic) The social consequences.

No, dear spendius, it is yours. You are the one needing the phoneys around you, striking more poses than Madonna on an MTV tour. At least she knows it's merely an act, you spout about gods and devils and grace and sin and heaven and hell because you have an abject fear of this human existence. Oh my, yes, they's bad, bad people in the world, but instead of facing up to them and this existence, you would have us perform rituals and murmur prayers to a god that you yourself know is the biggest phoney of them all.

Joe(I'll pass on the wafers)Nation

0 Replies

Joe-

I don't know if your misunderstanding of my post is wilful or not.

You will have to explain to the viewers why the anti-IDers on wande's thread never once even attempted to address the social consequences of their position despite repeatedly being challenged to do so if you are to make a case that it is not their Achilles Heel.

How can it be mine when I support the status quo. From my position the social consequences of Christianity are what you see with your eyes. I am more than prepared, eager even, to debate the social consequences of materialism. It is your side which has waved the white flag on the issue and it is on the record all down wande's thread that they have. Week in, week out for two years.

I have already said somewhere, if you keep up, that we are all phoneys. You included. You are even trying to pretend that you have no fear of this existence and that is the phoniest position known to mankind. It is as if you are trying to convince yourself that there's some weakness involved in the fear emotion. Anybody without the capacity for fear is insane.

I did not spout about Gods and devils. I responded to a spouting about them and explained what they are. And I don't recall saying anything significant about grace, sin or heaven.

The only tool the materialists have to obtain "good crowd control" is fear, assuming you wish to avoid surgical or chemical interventions within the human brain.

And- if I know myself that "god is the biggest phoney of them all" where does-

Quote:

At least she knows it's merely an act,

come from? You imply I don't know it is all an act and then you say I do know. Make your mind up.

You self-evidently know little about the symbolic nature of "signs" and make the assumption that neither does anybody else.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

no RL, maporsche read it quite correctly, you are the one stuck in second.

Sorry about that then.

I guess I mistook what you said for what you meant. Laughing

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I don't know if your misunderstanding of my post is wilful or not.

Spendi may I use this for my sig?

0 Replies

suspendi asserts

Quote:

You will have to explain to the viewers why the anti-IDers on wande's thread never once even attempted to address the social consequences of their position despite repeatedly being challenged to do so

. The thread was a clear discussion of the portfolio of science credentials that IDers wished to present. Every post wande clipped was of that speciic subject, Spendi just blew into the room and decided hed had enough . A number of us told you to go start your own thread , (Thats the usual and polite thing to do, not try to bull ones way into an established debate).

Whether you feel slighted or not was really immaterial to most, and the reason that very few folks drop in that thread anymore is because your boorish contrarian bullshit has otherwise ruined a perfectly good discussionTHAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR WISHES TO STEER IT TO SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES.
I have no idea why you are reluctant to open your own threads if you feel so strongly about these things , I see that you have had one or two that went nowhere (like your nose hair preening on the "Cambridge Philosophy Budget". Id never think of airing a budget issue of my university on a chat line open to an incipient economic "critic" as yourself). That would be moronic, so when I read a few words of that thread, the word moronic has come to mind whenever your name is mentioned.

You hide behind intellectual tangentia and never have the actual guts to take up the points of the thread and debate them without automatically bringing up your mysoginistic pathology.SOOO, We always wind up scuffling over personalities and , (I swear this will be my last "tribe at you because I think youre just nuts and unable to tell the difference when people put up with you or anwer you in real comment.
)
Sorry Joe , but Suspendi here is so full of himself that he has no sense of respect to others. What a value role model for hizzown brand of ID (which, as weve learned , doesnt even coincide with the entire issue that we were debating in wandels thread)

0 Replies

Farmerman,
too funny!

0 Replies

Funny ain't the word Chum. Comstockian comes to mind and that's a RIAMOJJ. (Reduction into a mass of juddering jelly).

I love getting fm ranting. I feel it is good for his circulation.

0 Replies

Well I meant his observations of your posts are humorous. I don't get the impression farmerman feels there should be some sort of strict censorship of materials of which he considers obscene.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Id never think of airing a budget issue of my university on a chat line open to an incipient economic "critic" as yourself).

I should phewking well hope not. It would be tantamount to a turtle trying to cast off its shell in order to be "different". I don't think evolution theory allows for organisms hell-bent on extinction.

You have to laugh though. fm accusing me of "mysoginistic pathology" when he is on the record as having pulled his rank as a married man when some bloke started coming on strong to his Missus at an exhibition of evolution or water colour painting or whatever.

If kangaroos could laugh they wouldn't be able to kick for pissing themselves.

Chum- you may proceed in any fashion that takes your fancy.

0 Replies

Chum-

You didn't really ought to mention obscenity on a thread about evolution. It is a word evolution not only has never heard of but couldn't possibly have any meaning to it. Has David Attenborough not amply demonstrated that? He has overdone it in my opinion.

Obscenity is a Christian idea. Have you never seen those Greek vases which depict a young lady having a..... well, never mind, or those cave paintings where all the chaps have 70 degree from the horizontal erections whilst trying to bring home the bacon.

Is it alright to mention erections?

And there's the sister thing in the upper echelons of Egyptian society and the shirt lifting in sophisticated circles in modern show-business.

And that's the tame stuff. Bourgeoise of the petite style.

0 Replies

Quote:

Is it alright to mention erections?

No, erections are quite out. However, if they do last longer than 4 hours, seek medical assistance.

0 Replies

RL, how is the concept of species biogeography consistent with Creationist thinking? Id really like to hear about whether the two can compliment each other.

0 Replies

Pretty tough question fm.

I've wondered why God and/or Noah put House Sparrows in Europe and Asia and not America. They obviously could have survived here. It was up to the Europeans to bring them to America in the late 19th century.

And monkeys. If all these monkeys were on the Ark why are not the Old World Monkeys and the New World Monkeys intermixed.

Quote:

Monkeys are tree-dwelling mammals that, along with prosimians, apes, and humans, make up the order Primata of the primates. The primate suborder Anthropoidea includes two different infraorders: the Platyrrhini, comprised of New World monkeys, marmosets and tamarins; and the Catarrhini, the Old World monkeys, apes, and humans.

The major division between New World and Old World monkeys, in addition to their distribution, is that the New World monkeys have three premolars and the Old World only two. Platyrrhini, literally translated from the Greek, means "broad flat nose." New World monkeys have rounded nostrils set fairly far apart and face outward. The Old World monkeys, in contrast, have narrow nostrils with only a thin membrane between them, and they tend to face downward. Catarrhini, literally means "downward nose." Note that the term "New World monkey" includes the marmoset/tamarin group as well as species in family Cebidae. New World monkeys often have a prehensile, or grasping, tail while Old World monkeys lack a prehensile tail. Old World monkeys typically sleep sitting upright on narrow branches, and this group usually has ischial callosities, which are hard, hairless pads on their posterior. New World monkeys, on the other hand, tend to sleep stretched out on a branch, and lack these callosities. The Old World monkeys have a fully opposable thumb. This wide separation of the thumb from the rest of the fingers allows them to pick up small objects and to grasp tree branches firmly. The thumbs of the smaller New World monkeys are not fully opposable.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/4427/Monkeys.html

If the Ark ended up on a mountain in Turkey with all the animals in the world how did all the New World Monkeys cross the ocean and end up in Central and South America? Why didn't they take the "eeeZ" route and go southwest to Africa with the Old World Monkeys?

0 Replies

xingu, The answer is simple; god transplanted all the animals around the world after the flood. Don't forget, it was also impossible for Noah to have collected all the species of animals from around the world before the flood. Noah's family members were not trained to round up the wild animals, nor were there enough time for them before god started the great flood to collect all of them and bring them across land to the boat.
Maybe they had some guide dogs, but with only two of them....

0 Replies

Now I can see why the anti-IDers have decamped to this thread. It is so they can post without the slightest effort and thus remain running on the spot for the rest of their lives braying sarcasms of the soft-ball type.

It sure is a trifle incongruous for a site called Able 2 Know and Ask an Expert when a debate which is exercising, and has exercised the best brains for hundreds of years, is treated in the infantile manner to be seen above. It is also profoundly disrespectful to our cultural history.

There are debate sites on the internet where you would get banned for posting such banal drivel as I think Vengo can confirm.

Still- I suppose if you can get an ego jack-off out of that sort of thing there isn't much anybody can do about it.

Quote:

The answer is simple; god transplanted all the animals around the world after the flood. Don't forget, it was also impossible for Noah to have collected all the species of animals from around the world before the flood. Noah's family members were not trained to round up the wild animals, nor were there enough time for them before god started the great flood to collect all of them and bring them across land to the boat.
Maybe they had some guide dogs, but with only two of them....

How infantile do you want to get?

Quote:

If the Ark ended up on a mountain in Turkey with all the animals in the world how did all the New World Monkeys cross the ocean and end up in Central and South America? Why didn't they take the "eeeZ" route and go southwest to Africa with the Old World Monkeys?

What insight!

Quote:

Pretty tough question fm.

You're a hard taskmaster fm. You pose the most searching questions.

I think rl is hosting one of those shows where the audience is having air blasts shot up its frocks to give everyone a sight of the soft underbelly.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

xingu, The answer is simple; god transplanted all the animals around the world after the flood. Don't forget, it was also impossible for Noah to have collected all the species of animals from around the world before the flood. Noah's family members were not trained to round up the wild animals, nor were there enough time for them before god started the great flood to collect all of them and bring them across land to the boat.
Maybe they had some guide dogs, but with only two of them....

POOF!! It's a miracle.

How can you not believe. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know