PDA

View Full Version : Abusus usum non tollit



klaus54
08-20-2014, 08:46 PM
A particularly vociferous YEC started a thread on the evils of Social Darwinism with the clear implication that the theory of evolution was wrong by reason of its putative misappropriation.

This particular YEC kicked me off his thread, so I thought we could try to have a reasonable discussion here on an uncensored one.

Facts:

1) How a scientific theory is applied culturally has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth value of the theory.

This should be obvious to all but the most ignorant. It's like trying to refute Newton's Law of Gravitation by pointing out human defenestration or the strong nuclear force for the ability to destroy civilization via the hydrogen bomb.

2) Since hardly any type of false reasoning is more transparent, why do anti-evolutionists use this dirty trick? What kind of blatant credulity would cause one to circumvent all reason so as to be influenced by this garbage? It blew me away that there two (or three) creationist posters that seemed to buy into the argument.

3) Are there other examples of attempting to negate a scientific theory by pointing out (putative) misapplications to culture?

Even the most vehement evolution-hater is free to post in this thread sans fear of censorship.

K54

rwatts
08-20-2014, 11:42 PM
A particularly vociferous YEC started a thread on the evils of Social Darwinism with the clear implication that the theory of evolution was wrong by reason of its putative misappropriation.

This particular YEC kicked me off his thread, so I thought we could try to have a reasonable discussion here on an uncensored one.

Facts:

1) How a scientific theory is applied culturally has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth value of the theory.



Well exactly. Think of all the millions of men, women and children killed over the past few hundred years, thanks to the application of Newton's theory. Think of the ten times the number of these, maimed and crippled for life. And think if the trillions of dollars of property damage done by the application of his theory.

If you read a lot of the literature from AiG, you will see that creationists think that Newton is the pre-eminent creation scientist.

Killer Newton, I say.

As I pointed out to a certain YEC earlier, he's simply too blind to see the silliness of his argument. But hey, when you are as desperate as the YEC to make a sensible argument against ToE, you'll side with the devil himself and offer dimwitted stupidity under the pretence of a brilliant thought.

Now, if instead, said YEC burried his head into creation science, and described their papers which deal with experimental systems for testing the plausibility of intelligent designers making organisms by speaking to dirt, then he might come across as more credible to reasonable people which includes mature, sober Christians.

Roy
08-21-2014, 01:41 AM
2) Since hardly any type of false reasoning is more transparent, why do anti-evolutionists use this dirty trick? What kind of blatant credulity would cause one to circumvent all reason so as to be influenced by this garbage? It blew me away that there two (or three) creationist posters that seemed to buy into the argument.It's implicit association.

Remember GW Bush repeatedly mentioning Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence to foster the illusion that Iraq was connected with 9/11? It's the same technique, except that it's Darwin being falsely associated with atrocities rather than Iraq.

Roy

Jorge
08-21-2014, 04:31 AM
This particular YEC kicked me off his thread, so I thought we could try to have a reasonable discussion here on an uncensored one.

K54

Are you EVER going to exhibit honesty? :no:

I stated the ground rules in the OP and I gave you a chance when you broke the rules. YOU disregarded both and so YOU, in essence, kicked yourself off the thread. I merely carried out the sentence that you pronounced upon yourself.

Furthermore, you insinuate that I practice "censorship" when people do not agree with me. That is yet another instance of your dishonest reporting. I shan't dignify your accusation beyond saying that.

In short, had you (or your amigo - Beagle Boy) written rational, scholarly, honest ... posts, then there may have been some benefit to everyone and I wouldn't have had any grounds to boot you off the thread. You brought it upon yourself ... man-up and live with it.

Jorge

rwatts
08-21-2014, 05:06 AM
... man-up and live with it.

JorgeNo word on the Newtonian atrocities then Jorge? Other than a rant that is?

klaus54
08-21-2014, 05:28 AM
Are you EVER going to exhibit honesty? :no:

I stated the ground rules in the OP and I gave you a chance when you broke the rules. YOU disregarded both and so YOU, in essence, kicked yourself off the thread. I merely carried out the sentence that you pronounced upon yourself.

Furthermore, you insinuate that I practice "censorship" when people do not agree with me. That is yet another instance of your dishonest reporting. I shan't dignify your accusation beyond saying that.

In short, had you (or your amigo - Beagle Boy) written rational, scholarly, honest ... posts, then there may have been some benefit to everyone and I wouldn't have had any grounds to boot you off the thread. You brought it upon yourself ... man-up and live with it.

Jorge

Yes. In this thread for sure.

So, right here and now -- do you or do you not endorse this kind of argument?

It's combination of equivocation of theory/fact with application and a form of ad hominem towards Darwin and other "evolutionists."

We evolutionists could easily bring up numerous examples of slaughter and racism in the name of God. If I were you, I wouldn't go there.

How about the Hamite curse which was used over the age as an excuse for racism?

How do feel about the Crusades being (falsely!) applied as an attack on NT Christianity?

Don't like those, huh?

There's a term for what you do. Intellectual dishonesty.

And even worse, you use the projection fallacy to forward this dishonesty.

K54

klaus54
08-21-2014, 05:40 AM
It's implicit association.

Remember GW Bush repeatedly mentioning Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence to foster the illusion that Iraq was connected with 9/11? It's the same technique, except that it's Darwin being falsely associated with atrocities rather than Iraq.

Roy

Thanks, Roy.

Yep, I forgot guilt by association.

Oops! I guess that's the ad hom fallacy.

In addition to being a fallacy, that sword cuts both ways and probably more applicable to Fundy Christians than "evolutionists".

E.g., Anyone who knows anything about Chuck Darwin knows that he was a good man and a humanitarian, especially within the context of the time which he lived. OTOH, Jim Baker not so much...

K54

seer
08-21-2014, 05:40 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus


The scientist Richard Dawkins has become embroiled in another Twitter row, claiming it would be “immoral” to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down’s syndrome.

The British author made the comment in response to another user who said she would be faced with “a real ethical dilemma” if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with the disorder.

Dawkins tweeted: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

Doesn't this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view? With other species the weak and infirmed die off, don't breed, and therefore are less likely to pollute the gene pool.

klaus54
08-21-2014, 05:48 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus



Doesn't this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view? With other species the weak and infirmed die off, don't breed, and therefore are less likely to pollute the gene pool.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the truth value of the SCIENCE of biological evolution.

Why doesn't this SIMPLE fact sink in?

BTW, the Dawkinsian atheists are doing harm to the science by saying this kind of thing, i.e., applying a scientific notion to culture in an inhumane way.

Hell, you might as well blame H. habilis for inventing stone tools to make murder easier. (Actually you'd be blaming geologic processes over deep time for making that chert available! LOL)

Abus usum non tollit.

K54

Roy
08-21-2014, 06:15 AM
Doesn't this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view? With other species the weak and infirmed die off, don't breed, and therefore are less likely to pollute the gene pool.Not necessarily. People with Downs syndrome are, I understand, capable of having children, and the condition is not always inherited. Nor are they necessarily physically weak or infirm. From a purely evolutionary point of view they may be less likely to compete successfully, survive and succeed in raising children, but* that is not necessarily a reason to remove their chance altogether.

Roy

*apart from the risks to the mother inherent in carrying to term

Cerebrum123
08-21-2014, 07:07 AM
A particularly vociferous YEC started a thread on the evils of Social Darwinism with the clear implication that the theory of evolution was wrong by reason of its putative misappropriation.

One reply, and one reply only so I can get this out of my system. Then I'm unsubscribing from the thread.


This particular YEC kicked me off his thread, so I thought we could try to have a reasonable discussion here on an uncensored one.

Facts:

1) How a scientific theory is applied culturally has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth value of the theory.

Ah, way to miss the point entirely. This isn't about "abuse" of a "scientific theory", but the logical application of Charles Darwin's naturalistic philosophy/theology*. Strike one.


This should be obvious to all but the most ignorant. It's like trying to refute Newton's Law of Gravitation by pointing out human defenestration or the strong nuclear force for the ability to destroy civilization via the hydrogen bomb.

Guessing you meant Einstein and relativity, right? Doesn't matter anyway since your first point missed the mark by a few galaxies.


2) Since hardly any type of false reasoning is more transparent, why do anti-evolutionists use this dirty trick? What kind of blatant credulity would cause one to circumvent all reason so as to be influenced by this garbage? It blew me away that there two (or three) creationist posters that seemed to buy into the argument.

Since you are not describing the reasoning involved at all, this is a moot point. If anything, it's this description that's dishonest.


3) Are there other examples of attempting to negate a scientific theory by pointing out (putative) misapplications to culture?

Again, a complete misrepresentation of the argument. Oh, and btw, it's not only creationists who see the link between Darwin and eugenics/"Social"(more correct name would be "Applied")Darwinism. Here's a good example of an evolutionist who was able to connect the dots(and his writing helped me do the same). http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/search?q=Charles+Darwin Language warning for his blog. It's not part of the post, but he does have a link to a blog name that breaks TWeb Decorum.



Even the most vehement evolution-hater is free to post in this thread sans fear of censorship.

K54

At this point I would hate it even if I believed it were true. I now see what it really means to accept Darwinism, and it's not pretty. Since I can't find the quote I am looking for, I will just have to settle for G.K. Chesterton.

‘Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

Again, this will be my first and only response, as I had to get this out of my system.

ETA:* Charles Darwin, and evolutionists ever since have used a lot of philosophical/theological arguments to justify the theory. In fact, Charles seems to have used more of those than of real science in his works.

Roy
08-21-2014, 07:29 AM
Ah, way to miss the point entirely. This isn't about "abuse" of a "scientific theory", but the logical application of Charles Darwin's naturalistic philosophy/theology*. Strike one.It is about abuse of the theory. The ToE, like all other scientific theories, only describes what the outcome of a particular behaviour will be, it says nothing about how people should behave. Any attempt to use any scientific theory to justify behaviour is abusing that theory.

Roy

Truthseeker
08-21-2014, 11:35 AM
I wondered how are YECs to do science at all. As I understand, science starts from the assumption that the universe evolves according to certain fixed rules that we call laws. In effect God's decisions or actions relative to the universe or any part thereof can be ignored ("assumed away") while doing science. I could see that would tick off creationists, but so far science has been signally successful. I do not believe the success means we can rule out God; I believe that God is pleased to let the universe evolve "naturally" for the great part; i.e., not many miracles.

What was Jorge's purpose in starting his thread, to persuade us that science is wrong? Or at least Darwinism? If pressed, I would concede that Darwinism should not be used to overrule Christian morality. But how could experiments with electromagnetic fields, for example, be generally harmful? My guess is that Jorge does accept science in general; indeed, consider his promise to come up with a like-wow definition of "information." But his efforts to overturn what he calls social Darwinism and thereby raise his brand of creationism is IMO pathetic.

Jorge
08-21-2014, 12:00 PM
I wondered how are YECs to do science at all. As I understand, science starts from the assumption that the universe evolves according to certain fixed rules that we call laws. In effect God's decisions or actions relative to the universe or any part thereof can be ignored ("assumed away") while doing science. I could see that would tick off creationists, but so far science has been signally successful. I do not believe the success means we can rule out God; I believe that God is pleased to let the universe evolve "naturally" for the great part; i.e., not many miracles.

What was Jorge's purpose in starting his thread, to persuade us that science is wrong? Or at least Darwinism? If pressed, I would concede that Darwinism should not be used to overrule Christian morality. But how could experiments with electromagnetic fields, for example, be generally harmful? My guess is that Jorge does accept science in general; indeed, consider his promise to come up with a like-wow definition of "information." But his efforts to overturn what he calls social Darwinism and thereby raise his brand of creationism is IMO pathetic.

If you and others here would simply THINK about what I've been posting here for over a decade - that there are two 'evolutions', one science and the other part of a religious metaphysic ... that these two are intermixed and sold as a single "scientific" theory - then you'd be able to connect the dots and everything would start making sense.

Instead you refuse to see or accept this reality. I cannot prevent you from that. :shrug:

No, the science (of evolution) is not wrong ... allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time and these changes are manifested in physical characteristics of the individuals within that population. I have never claimed otherwise.

But the ideology/metaphysic/paradigm of Evolution - THAT isn't science.

And the intermixing of evolution with Evolution - packaged as a single "scientific" theory - THAT gets used to explain and justify everything from soup to nuts. THAT is used (past, present and future) to "scientifically" justify wars, euthanasia, abortion, genocide, etc.

Anyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
08-21-2014, 12:00 PM
What was Jorge's purpose in starting his thread, to persuade us that science is wrong? .

Jorge is the forum jackass. He has to start at least one "make slurs about Darwin and insult all who respond" thread a week to keep up his core competency.

HMS_Beagle
08-21-2014, 12:06 PM
And the intermixing of evolution with Evolution - packaged as a single "scientific" theory - THAT gets used to explain and justify everything from soup to nuts. THAT is used (past, present and future) to "scientifically" justify wars, euthanasia, abortion, genocide, etc.

Jorge the undisputed King of Stupid still too dumb to get that if someone uses a baseball bat as a murder weapon that doesn't make the game of baseball wrong or evil. :ahem:

Enough. I'm not in the mood to tolerate this today

klaus54
08-21-2014, 12:19 PM
Jorge the undisputed King of Stupid still too dumb to get that if someone uses a baseball bat as a murder weapon that doesn't make the game of baseball wrong or evil. :ahem:

In his usual "end-justifies-the-means" serpentine style, Jorge conflates (likely intentionally) biological evolution, the origin of the universe, stars, planets, and life + the misapplication of natural selection to Social Darwinism. In other words biological evolution is the epistemic equivalent of atheism.

Jorge -- isn't that what you mean by "Evolution" (capital E)? If not, then do you mean the theory of common descent with diversity + natural selection - i.e., what scientists call simply the Theory of Evolution?

1) If the former, then you're going WAY beyond any scientific view. You create a bitter stew of confusion and (intentional?) misrepresentation.

2) If the latter, then please specify the boundary between micro and macro evolution as per a previous thread of mine.

K54

klaus54
08-21-2014, 12:24 PM
One reply, and one reply only so I can get this out of my system. Then I'm unsubscribing from the thread.



Ah, way to miss the point entirely. This isn't about "abuse" of a "scientific theory", but the logical application of Charles Darwin's naturalistic philosophy/theology*. Strike one.



Guessing you meant Einstein and relativity, right? Doesn't matter anyway since your first point missed the mark by a few galaxies.



Since you are not describing the reasoning involved at all, this is a moot point. If anything, it's this description that's dishonest.



Again, a complete misrepresentation of the argument. Oh, and btw, it's not only creationists who see the link between Darwin and eugenics/"Social"(more correct name would be "Applied")Darwinism. Here's a good example of an evolutionist who was able to connect the dots(and his writing helped me do the same). http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/search?q=Charles+Darwin Language warning for his blog. It's not part of the post, but he does have a link to a blog name that breaks TWeb Decorum.




At this point I would hate it even if I believed it were true. I now see what it really means to accept Darwinism, and it's not pretty. Since I can't find the quote I am looking for, I will just have to settle for G.K. Chesterton.

‘Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

Again, this will be my first and only response, as I had to get this out of my system.

ETA:* Charles Darwin, and evolutionists ever since have used a lot of philosophical/theological arguments to justify the theory. In fact, Charles seems to have used more of those than of real science in his works.

???

Wow, just wow.

Here's an example of "missing the point" on steroids.

The idea of hating the theory even if it were true is very interesting in a disturbing way.

What can anyone do to get across the UTTERLY SIMPLE POINT of this thread?!!

K54

P.S. I wonder what point he was trying to make with Einstein?

Truthseeker
08-21-2014, 04:52 PM
If you and others here would simply THINK about what I've been posting here for over a decade - that there are two 'evolutions', one science and the other part of a religious metaphysic ... that these two are intermixed and sold as a single "scientific" theory - then you'd be able to connect the dots and everything would start making sense.

Instead you refuse to see or accept this reality. I cannot prevent you from that. :shrug:Oh . . . hmm . . . :idea: Ah, you think my morals or ethics is not Christian, because you see me as one of the evil ones who suborns science as rationales for whatever evil they want to do. My goodness, what evidence do you have, my posts to TWeb!? Come on, show me the evidence. Maybe the shock of seeing it will push me to repentance and on to saintliness. And I'd thank you thank you thank you Jorge!



No, the science (of evolution) is not wrong ... allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time and these changes are manifested in physical characteristics of the individuals within that population. I have never claimed otherwise.Sorry, I misunderstood what you were doing.



But the ideology/metaphysic/paradigm of Evolution - THAT isn't science.I agree, if I understand correctly that you are talking about morality or ethics here.



And the intermixing of evolution with Evolution - packaged as a single "scientific" theory - THAT gets used to explain and justify everything from soup to nuts. THAT is used (past, present and future) to "scientifically" justify wars, euthanasia, abortion, genocide, etc.

Anyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).OK, I agree. Suborning science for evil purposes as in the "science" of climate change is bad.

shunyadragon
08-21-2014, 06:39 PM
One reply, and one reply only so I can get this out of my system. Then I'm unsubscribing from the thread.



Ah, way to miss the point entirely. This isn't about "abuse" of a "scientific theory", but the logical application of Charles Darwin's naturalistic philosophy/theology*. Strike one.



Guessing you meant Einstein and relativity, right? Doesn't matter anyway since your first point missed the mark by a few galaxies.



Since you are not describing the reasoning involved at all, this is a moot point. If anything, it's this description that's dishonest.



Again, a complete misrepresentation of the argument. Oh, and btw, it's not only creationists who see the link between Darwin and eugenics/"Social"(more correct name would be "Applied")Darwinism. Here's a good example of an evolutionist who was able to connect the dots(and his writing helped me do the same). http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/search?q=Charles+Darwin Language warning for his blog. It's not part of the post, but he does have a link to a blog name that breaks TWeb Decorum.




At this point I would hate it even if I believed it were true. I now see what it really means to accept Darwinism, and it's not pretty. Since I can't find the quote I am looking for, I will just have to settle for G.K. Chesterton.

‘Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

Again, this will be my first and only response, as I had to get this out of my system.

ETA:* Charles Darwin, and evolutionists ever since have used a lot of philosophical/theological arguments to justify the theory. In fact, Charles seems to have used more of those than of real science in his works.

Gooney bird makes a fly by dropping a big smelly one . G.K. Chesterton is ancient history. Can cite something from real reputable modern science. G.K. Chesterton did not even have BS in science.

phank
08-21-2014, 06:39 PM
???

Wow, just wow.

Here's an example of "missing the point" on steroids.

And yet another thread experiences drive-by stupidity. "You people are all wrong, here's something irrelevant, here's something downright idiotic, here's something flat-out wrong, and this is my only post. THERE! Take that!"

klaus54
08-21-2014, 07:27 PM
And yet another thread experiences drive-by stupidity. "You people are all wrong, here's something irrelevant, here's something downright idiotic, here's something flat-out wrong, and this is my only post. THERE! Take that!"

Trying to analyze the nonsense of the YEC/anti-evolutionist position, I came up with the following:

1) They are presuppositionalists, so they KNOW they are right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

2) They are RIGHT about their Bible reading (not interpretation), thus KNOW that the theory of evolution/deep time is false.

3) Therefore, knowing it's false, they are free to fling ad hominems regarding its founders and any adherents whence they can cherry-pick a supposed cruel cultural meme.

4) #3 is spewed to prop up the beliefs of the credulous. A little extra intellectual dishonesty is ok if you can get away with it. Kinda like a sinuous lawyer winning a case by fooling the jury by rhetoric, spinning, and emotion.

I'm glad I started this thread. It was a REAL eye-opener on the far flung idiocy of an anti-science position.

The end justifies the means.

K54

rwatts
08-21-2014, 09:43 PM
Trying to analyze the nonsense of the YEC/anti-evolutionist position, I came up with the following:

1) They are presuppositionalists, so they KNOW they are right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

...



As a presuppositionalist, at least his royal highness offers rants in response to questions. I've met a few, particularly on other forums who don't think they need even bother with a rant. All they need think about is the next question to ask you, in response to anything you may have offered by way of an explanation. And any question you ask of them? Well these are simply ignored because who do you think you are to be asking them questions.

The "funniest" I've come across to date is a duo who will ask a question and if you answer it, then they will respond with:-

"How do you know that?"

If you address that, then the points you raise are met with:-

"How do you know that?"

And so it goes. :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's serious stuff with these folk, but if the apologetic caught on then imagine what would happen. Imagine an argument between two such apologists. It would be sterile, banal, idiotic and pointless.


I love to point out that the apologetic really is for the ignorant, the stupid and the coward, simply because anyone exhibiting one or all of these characteristics would naturally be drawn to it as a supposedly good way of "arguing". I also point out that in the real world, no one attempts to use such a silly way of arguing, so why use it here. Furthermore, why should any of them think they know the absolute truth, given all the mistakes they make when dealing with the things you and I think? If they cannot get what we think, correct, why should we accept that their assertions about God are necessarily correct? And if they are under infallible guidance, then how come they are such goof-balls when it comes to science, what we think, and why we think it?

So it seems to me that the apologetic really is for the nitwits and the dimwits and those too frightened to stand on their own feet and offer an argument and an explanation in support of an idea.

Roy
08-22-2014, 12:27 AM
Trying to analyze the nonsense of the YEC/anti-evolutionist position, I came up with the following:

1) They are presuppositionalists, so they KNOW they are right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. ...and if they persist in disagreement must be either ignorant or dishonest.

Roy

Jorge
08-22-2014, 04:10 AM
Oh . . . hmm . . . :idea: Ah, you think my morals or ethics is not Christian, because you see me as one of the evil ones who suborns science as rationales for whatever evil they want to do. My goodness, what evidence do you have, my posts to TWeb!? Come on, show me the evidence. Maybe the shock of seeing it will push me to repentance and on to saintliness. And I'd thank you thank you thank you Jorge!

No, I pass no judgment on your ethics or morals. You may simply be unaware of the facts and/or so deeply brainwashed by your formative background and "education" that you no longer know which way is "up". That applies to many (perhaps most) people nowadays. The propaganda of the liars is relentless and ubiquitous - people can hardly be faulted for falling victim to it. I consider it my duty to at least try to sound a wake-up call. If people choose to ignore that call then so be it.



Sorry, I misunderstood what you were doing.

Hope you're being sincere.



I agree, if I understand correctly that you are talking about morality or ethics here.

It's far more than just "morality or ethics". The Evolutionary paradigm (a part of the greater Materialistic worldview/metaphysic/religion) has infiltrated into every - bar none - area of human endeavor. Perhaps you are unaware of this (?).


OK, I agree. Suborning science for evil purposes as in the "science" of climate change is bad.

Yes, the "global warming" deception is another example of how "science" is adulterated in order to accomplish an ideological agenda in diverse areas such as politics, economics, legislation, human rights, etc. That's the general idea. Well, exactly the same thing is what is going on with Evolution (as I outlined in my previous post). If you've grasped all of this then you are light years ahead of many here - congrats!

Jorge

Jorge
08-22-2014, 04:15 AM
Trying to analyze the nonsense of the YEC/anti-evolutionist position, I came up with the following:

1) They are presuppositionalists, so they KNOW they are right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

2) They are RIGHT about their Bible reading (not interpretation), thus KNOW that the theory of evolution/deep time is false.

3) Therefore, knowing it's false, they are free to fling ad hominems regarding its founders and any adherents whence they can cherry-pick a supposed cruel cultural meme.

4) #3 is spewed to prop up the beliefs of the credulous. A little extra intellectual dishonesty is ok if you can get away with it. Kinda like a sinuous lawyer winning a case by fooling the jury by rhetoric, spinning, and emotion.

I'm glad I started this thread. It was a REAL eye-opener on the far flung idiocy of an anti-science position.

The end justifies the means.

K54

REFUTE MY THESIS OR REMAIN QUIET: :glare:

If you and others here would simply THINK about what I've been posting here for over a decade - that there are two 'evolutions', one science and the other part of a religious metaphysic ... that these two are intermixed and sold as a single "scientific" theory - then you'd be able to connect the dots and everything would start making sense.

Instead you refuse to see or accept this reality. I cannot stop you from doing that. :shrug:

No, the science (of evolution) is not wrong ... allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time and these changes are manifested in physical characteristics of the individuals within that population. I have never claimed otherwise.

But the ideology/metaphysic/paradigm of Evolution - THAT isn't science.

And the intermixing of evolution with Evolution - packaged as a single "scientific" theory - THAT gets used to explain and justify everything from soup to nuts. THAT is used (past, present and future) to "scientifically" justify wars, euthanasia, abortion, genocide, etc.

Anyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).

Jorge

Jorge
08-22-2014, 04:16 AM
...and if they persist in disagreement must be either ignorant or dishonest.

Roy

REFUTE MY THESIS OR REMAIN QUIET: :glare:

If you and others here would simply THINK about what I've been posting here for over a decade - that there are two 'evolutions', one science and the other part of a religious metaphysic ... that these two are intermixed and sold as a single "scientific" theory - then you'd be able to connect the dots and everything would start making sense.

Instead you refuse to see or accept this reality. I cannot stop you from doing that. :shrug:

No, the science (of evolution) is not wrong ... allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time and these changes are manifested in physical characteristics of the individuals within that population. I have never claimed otherwise.

But the ideology/metaphysic/paradigm of Evolution - THAT isn't science.

And the intermixing of evolution with Evolution - packaged as a single "scientific" theory - THAT gets used to explain and justify everything from soup to nuts. THAT is used (past, present and future) to "scientifically" justify wars, euthanasia, abortion, genocide, etc.

Anyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).

Jorge

phank
08-22-2014, 04:27 AM
OK, let's see if I got this right:

1) The Theory of Evolution isn't really a biological theory, despite the confusion of every evolutionary biologist in the world. It's really a political theory used to support practices I dislike.

2) This unique (and religiously inspired) description of Evolution gets mixed in with "real" evolution, which IS biology, so I'm not denying evolution happens, quite. However,

3) We simply won't address the cumulative effects of changing alleles and allele distributions over long periods of time, because that inevitably leads to theologically unacceptable conclusions, and because those conclusions are based on too many millions of consistent observations. So we'll deny that even TIME existed!

4) If anyone doesn't agree with ME, they must be either stupid or ignorant or dishonest. The alternative is that I might be wrong, and God tells me I am never wrong.

shunyadragon
08-22-2014, 04:27 AM
...and if they persist in disagreement must be either ignorant or dishonest.

Roy

It is not a matter if disagreement.

Roy
08-22-2014, 04:47 AM
...and if they persist in disagreement must be either ignorant or dishonest.
Anyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).[/COLOR]Or (3) correct.

Roy

HMS_Beagle
08-22-2014, 05:58 AM
REFUTE MY THESIS OR REMAIN QUIET:

Jorge

Provide positive supporting evidence for your YEC assertions or shut your big mouth.

klaus54
08-22-2014, 05:59 AM
REFUTE MY THESIS OR REMAIN QUIET: :glare:

If you and others here would simply THINK about what I've been posting here for over a decade - that there are two 'evolutions', one science and the other part of a religious metaphysic ... that these two are intermixed and sold as a single "scientific" theory - then you'd be able to connect the dots and everything would start making sense.

Instead you refuse to see or accept this reality. I cannot stop you from doing that. :shrug:

No, the science (of evolution) is not wrong ... allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time and these changes are manifested in physical characteristics of the individuals within that population. I have never claimed otherwise.

But the ideology/metaphysic/paradigm of Evolution - THAT isn't science.

And the intermixing of evolution with Evolution - packaged as a single "scientific" theory - THAT gets used to explain and justify everything from soup to nuts. THAT is used (past, present and future) to "scientifically" justify wars, euthanasia, abortion, genocide, etc.

Anyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).

Jorge

Your thesis was refuted many times over in this thread. Misapplication of a scientific principle does not negate that scientific principle.

And many analogies were given you. Newton mechanics, atomic theory, nuclear theory...

And examples from a cultural/theological/hermeneutic view were given. The Hamite curse, God-ordered slaughter in the OT... Also consider the pain, oppression, bloodshed, arrogance, etc. created by the Divine Right of Kings.

Your style is like a no-talent boxer who can take a lot of really good punches. His strategy is to keep standing and hope the other guys falls over from sheer exhaustion.

K54

klaus54
08-22-2014, 06:07 AM
It is not a matter if disagreement.

???

klaus54
08-22-2014, 06:21 AM
OK, let's see if I got this right:

1) The Theory of Evolution isn't really a biological theory, despite the confusion of every evolutionary biologist in the world. It's really a political theory used to support practices I dislike.

2) This unique (and religiously inspired) description of Evolution gets mixed in with "real" evolution, which IS biology, so I'm not denying evolution happens, quite. However,

3) We simply won't address the cumulative effects of changing alleles and allele distributions over long periods of time, because that inevitably leads to theologically unacceptable conclusions, and because those conclusions are based on too many millions of consistent observations. So we'll deny that even TIME existed!

4) If anyone doesn't agree with ME, they must be either stupid or ignorant or dishonest. The alternative is that I might be wrong, and God tells me I am never wrong.

Excellent summary.

The micro/macro thread demonstrated their inability to deal with what Jorge refers to as the two "Es".

Other threads demonstrated their inability to deal with the specific mapping of the Genesis stories to physical reality.

And in every thread in which they participate they indicate their Rock of Gibraltar steadfastness in not budging from a position they KNOW is correct in the face of a barrage of contrary evidence.

"They" being the presuppositionalist YEC/anti-evolutionist.

K54

P.S. And they project like Mercator.

Kristian Joensen
08-22-2014, 06:23 AM
Your thesis was refuted many times over in this thread. Misapplication of a scientific principle does not negate that scientific principle.

And many analogies were given you. Newton mechanics, atomic theory, nuclear theory...

And examples from a cultural/theological/hermeneutic view were given. The Hamite curse, God-ordered slaughter in the OT... Also consider the pain, oppression, bloodshed, arrogance, etc. created by the Divine Right of Kings.

Your style is like a no-talent boxer who can take a lot of really good punches. His strategy is to keep standing and hope the other guys falls over from sheer exhaustion.

K54

Isn't there are a difference though? I mean the theories of Newton and Einstein have been used to create weapons. But that is not what Jorge and others are saying about evolution. In that case it is supposed to be the implications of the theory that lead to certain views about the value of human life etc and via those views to horrible acts. I don't see that anyone has done that to the theories of Newton and/or Einstein. Have they?

klaus54
08-22-2014, 06:41 AM
Isn't there are a difference though? I mean the theories of Newton and Einstein have been used to create weapons. But that is not what Jorge and others are saying about evolution. In that case it is supposed to be the implications of the theory that lead to certain views about the value of human life etc and via those views to horrible acts. I don't see that anyone has done that to the theories of Newton and/or Einstein. Have they?

Any scientific theory can lead to technology that can used for evil. Evolution can be misapplied to social theory.

Big deal. In any case, the putative social application of a scientific theory DOES NOT NEGATE THE SCIENCE.

Is it the thesis of philosophical anti-evolutionists that the science should be discarded since the knowledge COULD BE misapplied socially?

Ridiculous.

Of course what I said in an earlier post holds. They reject "Evolution" (to use the Jorgian notation) as science (by axiom), so are free to use the putative social applications to bash it.

K54

rogue06
08-22-2014, 06:56 AM
Any scientific theory can lead to technology that can used for evil. Evolution can be misapplied to social theory.
Yup. The Nazis utilized Germ Theory for a justification for the Holocaust. Gravitational theory has been employed in ballistics allowing artillery and the like to be more accurate and devastating.

Jorge
08-22-2014, 07:40 AM
OK, let's see if I got this right:

From what you wrote below, you most definitely do NOT have it right.


1) The Theory of Evolution isn't really a biological theory, despite the confusion of every evolutionary biologist in the world. It's really a political theory used to support practices I dislike.

First, which 'evolution' are you speaking of - evolution or Evolution?
Second, NO, it is not "a political theory used to support practices".
Where you come up with that stuff only your hairdresser knows for sure.


2) This unique (and religiously inspired) description of Evolution gets mixed in with "real" evolution, which IS biology, so I'm not denying evolution happens, quite. However,

No, besides dripping with sarcasm the above is worded quite poorly.
Re-read what I've written but this time go much slower.



3) We simply won't address the cumulative effects of changing alleles and allele distributions over long periods of time, because that inevitably leads to theologically unacceptable conclusions, and because those conclusions are based on too many millions of consistent observations. So we'll deny that even TIME existed!

As Pauli would have said, "Not even wrong!"



4) If anyone doesn't agree with ME, they must be either stupid or ignorant or dishonest. The alternative is that I might be wrong, and God tells me I am never wrong.

Now you've really gone off the deep end - which is to be expected when specimens like yourself find themselves unable to refute a position that makes them look stupid. So they resort to name-calling, distortions, misrepresentations, intellectual dishonesty and, of course, an all-time favorite: ad hominem.

I expected no less from Phankestein. My only surprise is that it took as long as it did.

Jorge

Jorge
08-22-2014, 07:43 AM
Provide positive supporting evidence for your YEC assertions or shut your big mouth.

Hadn't I booted you off .......... oops, wait... my bad! :blush:

Beagle Boy deserves to be booted off so often that the
threads merge into one - a sort of Vulcan Mind Meld. :rofl: :lol:

Jorge

Jorge
08-22-2014, 07:53 AM
Your thesis was refuted many times over in this thread. Misapplication of a scientific principle does not negate that scientific principle.

And many analogies were given you. Newton mechanics, atomic theory, nuclear theory...

And examples from a cultural/theological/hermeneutic view were given. The Hamite curse, God-ordered slaughter in the OT... Also consider the pain, oppression, bloodshed, arrogance, etc. created by the Divine Right of Kings.

Your style is like a no-talent boxer who can take a lot of really good punches. His strategy is to keep standing and hope the other guys falls over from sheer exhaustion.

K54

Interesting ... this must be a new form - perhaps the New Age Version - of debate in which the person (i.e., you) merely claims to have refuted something and, PRESTO!, it becomes "true". Yeah, right ... maybe where Dorothy was transported to.

Even more impressive is that to support their "refutation" they (you) employ evidence and analogies that are irrational, non sequitur, misrepresentations, illogical and so on. My recent favorite remains the "Spartans" by R06 - I'm still reeling over that one. :dizzy:

No, Santa Klaus, you have NOT "refuted" anything. Perhaps in your warped, deluded mind you have, but in the real world you haven't - you're not even close. You're going to have to eat your Wheaties and veggies and then try again.

Jorge

Jorge
08-22-2014, 08:05 AM
Isn't there are a difference though? I mean the theories of Newton and Einstein have been used to create weapons. But that is not what Jorge and others are saying about evolution. In that case it is supposed to be the implications of the theory that lead to certain views about the value of human life etc and via those views to horrible acts. I don't see that anyone has done that to the theories of Newton and/or Einstein. Have they?

Hallelujah!!! It appears that there is at least someone here (outside of a small group) that is 'getting' it. F=ma, as an example, may be applied to technology that leads to weapons that kill people. A rifle, employing Newtonian physics, may be used to defend a person from a criminal or from a bear or to hunt for food ... the same rifle may be used to commit a criminal act such as murder. That's NOT what I've been talking about.

What I have been talking about is that the DIRECT implications of the fundamental Evolutionary Principle of "survival of the fittest" may be, has been and will continue to be used as "scientific" justification for war, euthanasia, abortions, genocide, homosexual practices, stealing, and essentially anything. The direct implication of F=ma, on the other hand, is nothing more than a physical description.

In order to protect their Sacred Cow, the Evo-Faithful merely create red herrings and straw men until people give up out of exasperation.

Jorge

Kristian Joensen
08-22-2014, 08:39 AM
Jorge, I would agree that a materialistic, naturalistic, atheistic worldview has some horrible consequences when consistently reasoned through. But I don't see how evolution in itself can be said to lead to those conclusions. Theistic Evolutionism need not stop at the survival of the fittest. The theistic part of Theistic Evolutionism makes all the difference in the world.

klaus54
08-22-2014, 09:19 AM
From what you wrote below, you most definitely do NOT have it right.



First, which 'evolution' are you speaking of - evolution or Evolution?
Second, NO, it is not "a political theory used to support practices".
Where you come up with that stuff only your hairdresser knows for sure.



No, besides dripping with sarcasm the above is worded quite poorly.
Re-read what I've written but this time go much slower.




As Pauli would have said, "Not even wrong!"




Now you've really gone off the deep end - which is to be expected when specimens like yourself find themselves unable to refute a position that makes them look stupid. So they resort to name-calling, distortions, misrepresentations, intellectual dishonesty and, of course, an all-time favorite: ad hominem.

I expected no less from Phankestein. My only surprise is that it took as long as it did.

Jorge

Phank is right on the money.

That fact that you deny that and deny that in such a strident and snarky manner speaks volumes of you as a presuppositionalist apologist.

Oh, and excellent example of the projection fallacy as well!

K54

phank
08-22-2014, 09:23 AM
Jorge, I would agree that a materialistic, naturalistic, atheistic worldview has some horrible consequences when consistently reasoned through. But I don't see how evolution in itself can be said to lead to those conclusions. Theistic Evolutionism need not stop at the survival of the fittest. The theistic part of Theistic Evolutionism makes all the difference in the world.

I can never understand this claim. Why must a materialistic worldview lead to worse consequences than a worldview based on imaginary all-powerful entities who never do anything?

In any case, evolutionary theory is nothing more than a set of proposed mechanisms for biological changes in populations, which are easily observed and for which the cumulative evidence is incontrovertible. If we make up a "magical mechanism" to superimpose onto those proposed, which adds no explanatory power whatsoever, how does that help the theory?

What Jorge is doing is fabricating a term he calls "Evolution" which encompasses everything his narrow theology can't deal with, and then blaming it for everything he dislikes.

klaus54
08-22-2014, 09:25 AM
Hallelujah!!! It appears that there is at least someone here (outside of a small group) that is 'getting' it. F=ma, as an example, may be applied to technology that leads to weapons that kill people. A rifle, employing Newtonian physics, may be used to defend a person from a criminal or from a bear or to hunt for food ... the same rifle may be used to commit a criminal act such as murder. That's NOT what I've been talking about.

What I have been talking about is that the DIRECT implications of the fundamental Evolutionary Principle of "survival of the fittest" may be, has been and will continue to be used as "scientific" justification for war, euthanasia, abortions, genocide, homosexual practices, stealing, and essentially anything. The direct implication of F=ma, on the other hand, is nothing more than a physical description.

In order to protect their Sacred Cow, the Evo-Faithful merely create red herrings and straw men until people give up out of exasperation.

Jorge

Is this best you got? Repeating mendacious nonsense?

Whatever people putatively derive from the theory of evolution to apply to cultural practice is irrelevant to the validity of the scientific theory.

Pure and simple. And I will keep posting this refutation as long as you flood the thread(s) with your intellectual dishonesty.

Please let this sink into your head:

EVEN IF YOU THINK THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS WRONG SCIENTIFICALLY, ITS PUTATIVE APPLICATION TO CULTURAL ISSUES IS NOT EVIDENCE AGAINST IT AS SCIENCE!!!

Google "Category Error"...

Unbelievable...

K54

klaus54
08-22-2014, 09:29 AM
I can never understand this claim. Why must a materialistic worldview lead to worse consequences than a worldview based on imaginary all-powerful entities who never do anything?

In any case, evolutionary theory is nothing more than a set of proposed mechanisms for biological changes in populations, which are easily observed and for which the cumulative evidence is incontrovertible. If we make up a "magical mechanism" to superimpose onto those proposed, which adds no explanatory power whatsoever, how does that help the theory?

What Jorge is doing is fabricating a term he calls "Evolution" which encompasses everything his narrow theology can't deal with, and then blaming it for everything he dislikes.

Yes.

And Jorge should understand (It's hard to believe he can't) that equating biological evolution (natural science) with atheism/agnosticism (philosophy) is also a category error.

The question for all here is, do you think 1) Jorge understands this and is prevaricating for propaganda sake, or 2) is he simply ignorant of this obvious dichotomy?

K54

klaus54
08-22-2014, 09:37 AM
Interesting ... this must be a new form - perhaps the New Age Version - of debate in which the person (i.e., you) merely claims to have refuted something and, PRESTO!, it becomes "true". Yeah, right ... maybe where Dorothy was transported to.

Even more impressive is that to support their "refutation" they (you) employ evidence and analogies that are irrational, non sequitur, misrepresentations, illogical and so on. My recent favorite remains the "Spartans" by R06 - I'm still reeling over that one. :dizzy:

No, Santa Klaus, you have NOT "refuted" anything. Perhaps in your warped, deluded mind you have, but in the real world you haven't - you're not even close. You're going to have to eat your Wheaties and veggies and then try again.

Jorge

Your denial of the obvious reminds me of the dwarfs in the last chapter of C.S. Lewis' "The Last Battle" who still fervently believed they were in a smelly cowshed when in fact they were sitting in a paradisaical meadow of wildflowers on the foyer of heaven.

K54

...
When they arrived, they noticed that the dwarfs have a very odd look and were huddled together in a circle facing inward, paying attention to nothing. As the children drew near, they were aware that the dwarfs couldn't see them. "Where are you ?" asks one of the children. "We're in here you bone-head," said Diggle the dwarf, "in this pitch-black, poky, smelly little hole of a stable."

"Are you blind?" asks another child. "No," respond the dwarfs, "we're here in the dark where no one can see."

"But it isn't dark, you poor dwarfs," says Lucy, "look up, look round, can't you see the sky and flowers - can't you see me?" Then Lucy bends over, picks some wild violets, and says, "perhaps you can smell these." But the dwarf jumps back into his darkness and yells, "How dare you shove that filthy stable litter in my face." He cannot even smell the beauty which surrounds him.
...

Roy
08-22-2014, 09:40 AM
What I have been talking about is that the DIRECT implications of the fundamental Evolutionary Principle of "survival of the fittest" may be, has been and will continue to be used as "scientific" justification for war, euthanasia, abortions, genocide, homosexual practices, stealing, and essentially anything.And the DIRECT implications of various scriptural passages may be, have been and will continue to be used as "religious" justification for war, mutilation, genocide, murder, theft, plural marriages, slavery and essentially anything.

One other point: exactly how does "survival of the fittest" lead to homosexual practices? Homosexuality does not, by definition, lead to reproductive success.* It is the complete antithesis to ensuring your genes are propagated.

Nor do euthanasia or abortion do much to promote evolutionary fitness. The above list appears not to be anything to do with evolution, but more to do with religious prohibition.

Roy

*Except in Texan whiptail lizards.

Truthseeker
08-22-2014, 12:03 PM
I'm not sure, are folks such as Roy, Klaus, Beagle, et al. denying that some people have adapted scientific theories (including, tentatively, ToE) to produce systems of ethics? I think Klaus, for one, have failed to grasp Jorge's main point.

Jorge
08-22-2014, 12:10 PM
Jorge, I would agree that a materialistic, naturalistic, atheistic worldview has some horrible consequences when consistently reasoned through. But I don't see how evolution in itself can be said to lead to those conclusions. Theistic Evolutionism need not stop at the survival of the fittest. The theistic part of Theistic Evolutionism makes all the difference in the world.

Once again, first you must be clear on which 'evolution' you are referring to, otherwise the dots cannot be properly connected. The Evolutionary paradigm, based on the fundamental Darwinian Principle of "survival of the fittest", is directly (DIRECTLY!) applied to human life, societies and cultures and LOGICALLY obtains that wars, killing the "unfit", genocide, homosexual practices, abortion ... and so on are merely the result of "Nature" every bit as much as a bullet shot out of a rifle is the result of F = ma.

I honestly cannot see why you're having such a difficult time seeing/accepting this.

You end by saying, "the theistic part of Theistic Evolutionism makes all the difference in the world". With this you are clearly promoting the notion that God used Evolution. That opens up a can of worms that doesn't go towards the thesis that I'm presenting here. TO WIT: obviously the "theistic" part does not exist for Evolutionists other than Theistic Evolutionists. Yet wars, euthanasia, abortion, homosexuals, genocide and so on are issues for everyone - not just for Theists.

The point that I've been making is that the Fundamental Evolutionary Principle (FEP) - namely, "survival of the fittest" - whether promoted by a Theist or a non-Theist has direct, logical implications summarized earlier (above).

HOW does the "theistic" in Theistic Evolutionists make all the difference in the world? I mean, is it that God switches the FEP on and off for TE's so that they don't commit or justify atrocities with "scientific" Evolution?

Jorge

JonF
08-22-2014, 12:25 PM
I'm not sure, are folks such as Roy, Klaus, Beagle, et al. denying that some people have adapted scientific theories (including, tentatively, ToE) to produce systems of ethics? I think Klaus, for one, have failed to grasp Jorge's main point.
I don't think anyone is denying that evil people have used all sorts of inappropriate justifications for their evil, including the ToE.

Jorge's main [point (shared by many YECs) appears to be that the ToE inexorably leads to all kinds of evil. This claim has been falsified by observation.

shunyadragon
08-22-2014, 12:31 PM
???

I consider the word 'disagreement' to be more then a bit superficial. There is a stronger deeper problem of the rejection of the foundation of the knowledge of science.

There was a not of sarcasm in my response.

HMS_Beagle
08-22-2014, 01:33 PM
Once again, first you must be clear on which 'evolution' you are referring to, otherwise the dots cannot be properly connected.
Jorge

Listen jackass, there's not a single person here who accepts your moronic private definitions of two evolutions.

Why don't you stick to your one line drive-by insults instead of stinking up another thread with the same stupidity?

Jorge
08-22-2014, 01:37 PM
I don't think anyone is denying that evil people have used all sorts of inappropriate justifications for their evil, including the ToE.

That much is true ........ annnnnnnnnddddddddd .......................


Jorge's main [point (shared by many YECs) appears to be that the ToE inexorably leads to all kinds of evil. This claim has been falsified by observation.

.......... that much is totally FALSE!!!

If you're going to claim to quote me, I would appreciate it if you would either do it correctly or not at all. NO, the ToE does not "inexorably lead to all kinds of evil". I never said that it did and you either have a serious reading comprehension problem or you understood just fine but are deliberately putting out false version (a.k.a. a LIE) of what I actually said. Then, after you create a Straw Man (i.e., a falsehood), you proceed to demolish it; "This claim has been falsified by observation". Uhhh ... yeah ... observation does indeed falsify the claim that I never made, you Dodo Nincompoop! :glare:

I will not repeat what I actually said since it is clear enough in the previous posts.

Jorge

Jorge
08-22-2014, 01:41 PM
Listen jackass, there's not a single person here who accepts your moronic private definitions of two evolutions.

Why don't you stick to your one line drive-by insults instead of stinking up another thread with the same stupidity?

I see you are emboldened by being in a thread where you cannot be drop-kicked OFF the way I did to you in my thread. That's the thing about cowardly bullies, they like it when they can do as they please and get away with it. Carry on, Beagle Boy ... carry on. :lol: :popcorn:

Jorge

rwatts
08-22-2014, 01:57 PM
I mean, is it that God switches the FEP on and off for TE's so that they don't commit or justify atrocities with "scientific" Evolution?

JorgeThink of all those creationists who commit atrocities with "scientific" Newtonian gravitational theory. If those creationists abandoned Newtonian theory and placed their trust in the Bible, then they would know that God, not gravity, actually causes rainfall by speaking to the raindrops. Accordingly they would not behave as their comrades do who have drunk the koolaid of Newtonianism.

Not to mention these:-


http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/my-story-alexandra.html
"When I was pregnant with our second child I caught my husband with another woman. I was crushed (this wasn’t the first time, or the last). I took our 2 year old daughter and went to my parents’ home to stay. I went to see my pastor and get his counsel and prayer for my situation. He told me I should go back home and apologize to my husband for leaving. Being the dumb, 23 year old brainwashed cult member that I was, and thinking this man really had God’s word and wisdom on everything spiritual, I did just that. I basically made myself a doormat. My husband was a sociopath, so he didn’t see the love and virtue in this. He just took full advantage of it for 21 years. One pastor told me that if my husband wasn’t “saved” it was my fault, because if I were truly a “Godly woman” that he would have come around. In reality, my husband just disrespected me more every year for acting like an idiot and letting him get by with murder with no accountability to our relationship whatsoever. One of my pastors over the years taught that babies who were aborted went to hell."



No atheists or theistic evolutionists there Jorge.

HMS_Beagle
08-22-2014, 01:58 PM
I see you are emboldened by being in a thread where you cannot be drop-kicked OFF the way I did to you in my thread. That's the thing about cowardly bullies, they like it when they can do as they please and get away with it. Carry on, Beagle Boy ... carry on. :lol: :popcorn:

Jorge

That's more like it - pointless insults by Jorge the board's pet jackass. Stick to what you know Jorge.

Jorge
08-22-2014, 02:17 PM
That's more like it - pointless insults by Jorge the board's pet jackass. Stick to what you know Jorge.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Jorge

Jorge
08-22-2014, 02:29 PM
Think of all those creationists who commit atrocities with "scientific" Newtonian gravitational theory. If those creationists abandoned Newtonian theory and placed their trust in the Bible, then they would know that God, not gravity, actually causes rainfall by speaking to the raindrops. Accordingly they would not behave as their comrades do who have drunk the koolaid of Newtonianism.

Not to mention these:-


http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/my-story-alexandra.html
"When I was pregnant with our second child I caught my husband with another woman. I was crushed (this wasn’t the first time, or the last). I took our 2 year old daughter and went to my parents’ home to stay. I went to see my pastor and get his counsel and prayer for my situation. He told me I should go back home and apologize to my husband for leaving. Being the dumb, 23 year old brainwashed cult member that I was, and thinking this man really had God’s word and wisdom on everything spiritual, I did just that. I basically made myself a doormat. My husband was a sociopath, so he didn’t see the love and virtue in this. He just took full advantage of it for 21 years. One pastor told me that if my husband wasn’t “saved” it was my fault, because if I were truly a “Godly woman” that he would have come around. In reality, my husband just disrespected me more every year for acting like an idiot and letting him get by with murder with no accountability to our relationship whatsoever. One of my pastors over the years taught that babies who were aborted went to hell."

No atheists or theistic evolutionists there Jorge.

Is it any wonder why I waste no more than a few moments on specimens like you?
It is worth pointing out what you do here: you select a few of the worst cases
imaginable to use as "representatives" towards your anti-Christian agenda. Heck,
I'm no Catholic but I wouldn't have been surprised if you had used one of the many
"Father" pedophiles that has scandalized the RCC over the years to support your
anti-God cause. You're just pathetic, Roland ... p-a-t-h-e-t-i-c! :no:

Folk of ANY position - yes, even Fundamentalist Bible Creationists - are able to
commit sin and do so every day! Try getting a clue, Duffus.

Jorge

klaus54
08-22-2014, 02:33 PM
I'm not sure, are folks such as Roy, Klaus, Beagle, et al. denying that some people have adapted scientific theories (including, tentatively, ToE) to produce systems of ethics? I think Klaus, for one, have failed to grasp Jorge's main point.

I grasped the main point just fine.

You missed my main point completely.

You can't use the misapplication of a scientific theory as evidence against the science.

Got it?

Geesh.

K54

klaus54
08-22-2014, 02:34 PM
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Jorge

Why are you eating popcorn and waiting? Your reasoning has been completely demolished.

Admit that you were wrong -- whether through ignorance or deceit -- it matters not.

K54

klaus54
08-22-2014, 02:41 PM
That much is true ........ annnnnnnnnddddddddd .......................



.......... that much is totally FALSE!!!

If you're going to claim to quote me, I would appreciate it if you would either do it correctly or not at all. NO, the ToE does not "inexorably lead to all kinds of evil". I never said that it did and you either have a serious reading comprehension problem or you understood just fine but are deliberately putting out false version (a.k.a. a LIE) of what I actually said. Then, after you create a Straw Man (i.e., a falsehood), you proceed to demolish it; "This claim has been falsified by observation". Uhhh ... yeah ... observation does indeed falsify the claim that I never made, you Dodo Nincompoop! :glare:

I will not repeat what I actually said since it is clear enough in the previous posts.

Jorge

Jon's remark hit the nail right on the head.

Is it your strategy to keep babbling nonsense pretending you've supported your point when it's trivially shown to be false? In this post you seem to be saying the opposite of what you claim earlier - that "metaphysics" of evolution lead to all kinds of evil.

Which is it, Jorge?

That ANYONE is convinced by your nonsense is the scariest aspect of these two threads.

Pitiful.

K54

klaus54
08-22-2014, 02:44 PM
I consider the word 'disagreement' to be more then a bit superficial. There is a stronger deeper problem of the rejection of the foundation of the knowledge of science.

There was a not of sarcasm in my response.

Gotcha.

The (note?) of sarcasm was not clear to me.

K54

klaus54
08-22-2014, 02:49 PM
I don't think anyone is denying that evil people have used all sorts of inappropriate justifications for their evil, including the ToE.

Jorge's main [point (shared by many YECs) appears to be that the ToE inexorably leads to all kinds of evil. This claim has been falsified by observation.

And my point is who cares if it does? (I mean that with sarcasm of course.) :wink:

The application of a scientific theory to culture does not affect the truth value of the science.

I wish Jorge and his friends would acknowledge this simple fact and move on (move on to what other nonsense I don't know.) :lol:

K54

K54

Roy
08-22-2014, 02:50 PM
Is it any wonder why I waste no more than a few moments on specimens like you?
It is worth pointing out what you do here: you select a few of the worst cases
imaginable to use as "representatives" towards your anti-Christian agenda....just like Jorge selected the worst consequences imaginable to further his anti-evolution rants.

I'd say Jorge had double standards except he doesn't seem to have any standards at all.

Roy

rwatts
08-22-2014, 03:04 PM
Is it any wonder why I waste no more than a few moments on specimens like you?
It is worth pointing out what you do here: you select a few of the worst cases
imaginable to use as "representatives" towards your anti-Christian agenda. Newton's theories are used across the world, and have been used across time to kill millions of people, Jorge. And they have been used to injure and maim tens of times more folk. And think of all the property damage use of this theories have caused.

If Darwin started Eugenics, then Newton refined mass murder.

See how easy it is to argue just like you do Jorge? Abandoning thinking is the first step to your methodology.




More examples for you, just to show that the YEC behaviour I mentioned is not isolated:-

Saints, members of the master race:-
http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/my-story-grace-peterson.html
"Being a member of a cult has its benefits. There is the self-importance that comes with being a member of the master race"


Saints who abuse their wives and children, the latter who are taught to put up with it.:-
http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/fundamentalists_anonymous
"In extreme cases, Luce reports, women and children in violent fundamentalist families suffer further abuse while struggling to follow a religion that teaches them to stay in the home despite beatings."


Saints who are babbling idiots, happy to use prayer instead of medicine:-
http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/my-story-joan.html
"The parents I knew became babbling idiots who prayed for us rather than take us to the doctor. When I developed mono, I ran a fever of 104 and hallucinated. Still, no docs. Thankfully my aunt dropped by when my temp rose to 105 and I had seizure. She told them they were nuts and took me to the ER. Oh, and those family values?"



I can get a whole lot more if you think the above kind of behaviour is isolated to about three or four Christian families.*




* Naturally, this is not to suggest that all Christians are of this calibre. There are such folk as mature, sensible, sober Christians who, on reaching adulthood, left Sunday School well behind. But clearly these folk above, justify their behaviour as Godly behaviour.

Truthseeker
08-22-2014, 04:03 PM
OK, so the ToE does not invariably lead to evil acts. So what is the fuss about? That the ToE sometimes leads to evil? That's like saying guns sometimes lead to deliberate shooting injuries and deaths.

Hearken ye to the words of Jeremiah, that the human heart is wicked, wicked.

rwatts
08-22-2014, 04:09 PM
Hearken ye to the words of Jeremiah, that the human heart is wicked, wicked.Exactly.

And that is why Jorge's argument is so stupid. However, in creationist circles, such inane arguments are currency.


Mind you, Jeremiah is only partly correct. The human heart is also kind, good, empathetic, loving, and so on. Jeremiah may have been having a bad hair day when he wrote those words. A hug may have seen him write more positively about the human heart. :teeth:

klaus54
08-22-2014, 04:19 PM
OK, so the ToE does not invariably lead to evil acts. So what is the fuss about? That the ToE sometimes leads to evil? That's like saying guns sometimes lead to deliberate shooting injuries and deaths.

Hearken ye to the words of Jeremiah, that the human heart is wicked, wicked.

Exactly. Which has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution. Of course, Jorge's strawman theory of Evolution does foster wickedness. Why? Cuz he sez so.

Remember "E" vis-a-vis "e". :lol:

Simple-even-to-a-child. Right, Jorge?

K54

Method
08-22-2014, 05:30 PM
Isn't there are a difference though? I mean the theories of Newton and Einstein have been used to create weapons. But that is not what Jorge and others are saying about evolution. In that case it is supposed to be the implications of the theory that lead to certain views about the value of human life etc and via those views to horrible acts. I don't see that anyone has done that to the theories of Newton and/or Einstein. Have they?

Actually, Darwin dealt with this issue quite well.

"It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)

The claim that accepting the theory of evolution leads to a materialistic, evil worldview (apparently what Jorge calls the other "E") was once leveled at Newton's laws. If Jorge were consistent, he would be talking about the two N's (Newton's theories and Social Newtonism). We could even go further and point to the two K's of Koch's germ theory and Social Kochism where we purposely infect people because nature somehow demands it.

rwatts
08-22-2014, 05:37 PM
The direct implication of F=ma, on the other hand, is nothing more than a physical description.

Talk about silly.

"Survival of the fittest" = "Statistically, get to reproductive age and out-reproduce others". That is nothing more than a physical description.


But aren't you one who complains about the materialism of science, Jorge?

So F=ma is a materialistic description, better rewritten as F=ma+God.