1
   

Questions For Which Evolutionists Have No Answers

 
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 09:38 am
Quote:
I agree with you, but this kind of reasoning was enormously controversial when E. O. Wilson revived it in his book Sociobiology (1975). The opposition then didn't consist of creationist faithheads. It consisted of behaviorists, marxist sociologists, and generally left wing academics in the humanities and social sciences. So there are secular reasons for not according to evolution a prominent role in psychology and sociology. Whether these reasons are good is another question.


Yeah, and this still goes in academia today. "That can't be the answer because that shouldn't be the answer." I read about Wilson in "The Global Brain" not too long ago. There are ninnes left, right, and center, in the church and in the brothel.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 09:48 am
Quote:
From an evolutionary point of view the belief of the mass of people in the Christian ideal has certainly worked. To remove that belief is a leap in the dark. A faith even. If the elite have cynically engineered such a mass belief they have been justified by the outcome.


The belief in the (or, rather, a) mass of people in the Christian ideal didn't work at all for my Cherokee forefathers. It worked out quite poorly, as a matter of fact. I'll accept, given the virtual annihilation of their genes from the gene pool, that this was evolution, but that doesn't make it right.

You seem to think that a belief that evolution happens goes hand in hand with a belief that it is right. Which is just stupid. Polio happens. That doesn't mean I have to like it, or submit to it.

Also, your premise that Chistianity is an evolutionary "success" is not supported. Certainly it has survived, and there are a lot of Christians. There are also a lot of Muslims, a lot of Taoists, a lot of Hindus, and, increasingly, a lot of atheists... (that's not meant to be a comprehensive list, of course) And, even if we accept for the moment that Christianity is an evolutionary success, that doesn't mean that it will continue to be one. The dinosaurs were an evolutionary success, and how many of them do you see around? Lemurs did fantastically well in Madagascar for longer than humans have even been around, and now most lemur species are kaput.

Traits that serve a population well at one time may not serve them well at another.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 01:58 pm
PD wrote-

Quote:
Anyway, the notion, which you and spendi seem to espouse, that truth should be determined not on the basis of careful observation but rather on the basis of what somebody or other determines will best benefit society smacks of fascism and 20th century state communism.


I can't speak for gunga but you can chunter away to yourself after asserting that slimy smear.

You are obviously stupid.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 03:00 pm
Yes, clearly. What's your position on the teaching of evolution again?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 06:27 pm
I musta missed something - what is this "smear" to which spendi apparently - and in passably objectionable manner - takes offense?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 06:39 pm
This is what's quoted.

Quote:
Anyway, the notion, which you and spendi seem to espouse, that truth should be determined not on the basis of careful observation but rather on the basis of what somebody or other determines will best benefit society smacks of fascism and 20th century state communism.


I stand by it. I've read spendius advocate the teaching of ID in science classes not because of its intellectual merit but because it'd be good for society, and in this thread objections have been raised against evolution because it lacks a moral framework (in so many words).

I understand the reaction. I'd feel the same way if someone told me I was thinking like a charismatic christian.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Dec, 2006 06:21 am
gungasnake wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

Quote:

Until somebody can show me a reason for believing otherwise, I am sticking with the idea that the universe is basically eternal.

I can. Get a PhD in Physics, and I absolutely guarantee that you will find very elaborate, very detailed, very tight reasoning supporting that idea. I wouldn't attempt to critique a novel written in Pakistani without learning the language first. I truly don't mean to be mean, but who cares whether you believe it or not? You don't know anything about the subject.


YOU nonetheless seem to be an expert on the subject, at least in your own mind.....

Tell me then, if I were to somehow be transported back in time to a time about ten minutes prior to the "Big Bang(TM)", would my wrist watch stop working (because time didn't exist yet...)??

I'm not qualified to discuss this subject, since I am not familiar with quantum electrodynamics. But I suspect that in answering your question, it would be helpful to ask you exactly how your time machine works. The fact that you with your intuition about time and space gained during your limited personal experience on Earth, and your absolute lack of knowledge of the subject can seem to come up with difficult questions means nothing. A very ignorant person might challenge the belief that there is a minimum possible temperature by asking, "So, if I were to cool an object down to below absolute zero, what would happen - my thermometer would stop working???" This would signify only that he doesn't know what temperature is.
0 Replies
 
Breeish
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Mar, 2007 09:11 pm
Kindof really off date....
Suppose an animal like a giraffe had a short neck. the whole species had a short neck. Like an Okapi or such, Randomly, a few here or there had a mutation that gave them a longer neck. In times of overpopulation perhaps when the short-necked giraffes were competing with other animals of similar height for food on the trees, all the food at those heights might become scarce, and the longert necked ones could continue eating and thus survive a bit better. While the originals started dieing off. Realize that this would take an incredibly long time over thousands of generations or more. slowly the long necked ones would form their own species and may even gain longer and longer necks. This adaptation also allowed them to see preditors coming for them much better, this also inclined them to survive a bit more. Maybe at the same time a few with only 3 legs were born. apparently it was not helpful at all for there are no 3 legged giraffes...



Also consider selective breeding for dogs, to get a breed of dog that you want you take certian traits and breed them together. after awhile you get a new type of dog. It takes time and remixing the dog with the original breed will befuttle the selective breeding, so for a new species to form, that means often the old ones would end up dieing out, or getting separated from them. I mean a great dane and a ****-zu are quite a bit different.

Im also thinking that in the WHALE theory, suppose the whales added krill to part of their diet, but it did not become necessary. if/when krill became all that was available the ones that ate it there would survive while ones that didn't wouldnt, after awhile these krill eating whales had the toothbrush looking teeth mutation, amazingly this helped them to get krill faster and more efficently then the other whales, and then they would survive better, (out of pure luck of course if krill somehow died out so would they!) slowly new mutations with more of these bristle teeth would occur until all the teeth became long brissles instead of a bunch of short ones or something?

oh well, just ranting i guess.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2007 05:22 am
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys back to its flock to claim victory.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2007 08:57 pm
Wilso wrote:
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys back to its flock to claim victory.


And then the whole flock claims that chess itself is an attack on pigeonhood.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2007 09:20 pm
spendius wrote:
PD wrote-

Quote:
Anyway, the notion, which you and spendi seem to espouse, that truth should be determined not on the basis of careful observation but rather on the basis of what somebody or other determines will best benefit society smacks of fascism and 20th century state communism.


I can't speak for gunga but you can chunter away to yourself after asserting that slimy smear.

You are obviously stupid.


Let me clarify my own position here.....

If a theory were TRUE or provable, then it would not matter WHAT kind of consequences belief in it entailed. Avoiding it would amount to avoid reality, when profits nobody in the long run.

If on the other hand a theory basically amounts to a steaming pile of ideological BULLSHIT which had been disproven over and over and over and over repeatedly over a decades-long span of time, as is the case of evolution,
then it is perfectly legitimate to ask yourself what kinds of consequences that theory might entail.

In other words, in this world, there is harmless bullshit, and then there is harmful bullshit. Examples of both flavors of bullshit are not difficult to produce.

For instance, the whole world pretty much knows that the basic ideas of Mormon theology are bullshit (a quick google search on 'joseph smith' and 'rosetta stone' should suffice to convince anybody who has not previously made any sort of a study of this). Nonetheless, most people do not really give a rat's ass about theology, and the LDS church mainly functions as a support group for middle class people trying to raise children. Moreover, to my knowledge, there has never been a case of 20 Mormons flying airplanes into buildings. On a scale of one to ten for being harmful, the LDS church is basically a zero.

The theory of evolution on the other hand, is an opposite example. As bullshit goes, evolution is a spectacularly dangerous and evil flavor of it. Belief in evolutoin eliminates any rational or logical basis there could possibly be for morality. The doctrine was a major philosophical corner stone in the great isms of the last century, in the eugenics movements of the last century and a half or so, of the runaway arms races of the last century and a half or so, and in general of untold grief.

In a rational world, the teaching of evolution might easily be outlawed and banned; it sure as hell should not be taught as a "fact" in public schools at public expense.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2007 10:22 pm
gungasnake wrote:


The theory of evolution on the other hand, is an opposite example. As bullshit goes, evolution is a spectacularly dangerous and evil flavor of it. Belief in evolutoin eliminates any rational or logical basis there could possibly be for morality. The doctrine was a major philosophical corner stone in the great isms of the last century, in the eugenics movements of the last century and a half or so, of the runaway arms races of the last century and a half or so, and in general of untold grief.



That is without doubt the single most ridiculous thing I have ever seen posted on the internet. What a spectacular crock of swill. What in hell are you taking?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2007 10:51 pm
That's (the avatar pic) the way you actually dress, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2007 11:28 pm
gungasnake wrote:
That's (the avatar pic) the way you actually dress, isn't it?


I dress more like this

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h300/Wilso38/Nee%20and%20Me/DinnerinKohSamui2.jpg
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2007 11:59 pm
Wilso wrote:
gungasnake wrote:


The theory of evolution on the other hand, is an opposite example. As bullshit goes, evolution is a spectacularly dangerous and evil flavor of it. Belief in evolutoin eliminates any rational or logical basis there could possibly be for morality. The doctrine was a major philosophical corner stone in the great isms of the last century, in the eugenics movements of the last century and a half or so, of the runaway arms races of the last century and a half or so, and in general of untold grief.



That is without doubt the single most ridiculous thing I have ever seen posted on the internet. What a spectacular crock of swill. What in hell are you taking?


i guess that means people will only have morality if they know they will be punished. interesting.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2007 12:26 am
There is no hell- so SMILE. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2007 04:31 am
gungaa think
Quote:
evolution is a spectacularly dangerous and evil flavor of it. Belief in evolutoin eliminates any rational or logical basis there could possibly be for morality.
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy :

I tell ya that Ive gotta agree with Wilso on this. Ive seen some really dumass dimwitted stuff on the internet but this has to rank up there among the top 5 dumbest.

Hey gunga, maybe morality evolved about the same time as "lactose intolerance"
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2007 04:36 am
Y'all can "nyah, nyah" gungasnake all you'd like - stand and shoot spitballs for that matter. It doesn't affect the FACT that evolution vs. creationism is a debate which has raged and will rage between good people on both sides.

At some point, simply calling the other side "stupid" in however many ways sure doesn't elevate anyone.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2007 04:41 am
I have distinguished the "Post" from the "Poster". Im not saying that gungasnake is a stupid midieval minded wart, not at all. I said his post, which clearly is evidence of its own merit, is
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 May, 2007 04:42 am
farmerman wrote:
gungaa think
Quote:
evolution is a spectacularly dangerous and evil flavor of it. Belief in evolutoin eliminates any rational or logical basis there could possibly be for morality.
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy :

I tell ya that Ive gotta agree with Wilso on this. Ive seen some really dumass dimwitted stuff on the internet but this has to rank up there among the top 5 dumbest.


I agree. It also clearly shows Gunga's true motive behind his fear of evolution. He doesn't care about evidence, he cares about protecting the world from knowledge which he perceives would undermine ethics and morality.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 10:33:09