Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

You can't make this stuff up!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    Don't worry Clucky. Your lead is so huge no one will ever catch up.
    WOW - I'll bet you stayed up all night coming up with that "genius" post.

    Bwahahhahahahhahaha !!!

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      Try reading FOR COMPREHENSION what I wrote.
      You are truly as dumb as a sack of rusty hammers, O-Mudd!
      Well, either that or a very dishonest person - I'll let you decide which.

      Jorge
      Again, you and your compatriot in office have that deny the nose on your face thing down pat!

      Jim
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        Again, you and your compatriot in office have that deny the nose on your face thing down pat!

        Jim
        HUH??? I see you've been sniffing used socks again.

        Jorge

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          HUH??? I see you've been sniffing used socks again.

          Jorge
          And another massively insightful and intellectually challenging post leaps from the fingers of our flyby poster.

          Jim
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by whag View Post
            Self righteous much?
            Can you imagine if we locked Jorge and Darfius in thread together?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              One of the trademarks of cheats and liars is that they eventually wish to censor anything that shows them for what they truly are. As an example of this, for years I commented on CNBC's site and while there noticed certain things. CNBC, in case you didn't know, is among the filthiest FAKE NEWS liars in corporate media. But let me not digress and get back to the main point ...

              As a regular commentator on the endless fake news that CNBC puts out, I noticed that somewhere between 75% and 85% of all comments (thousands upon thousands of comments!) blasted CNBC and their lies. People weren't swallowing the lies! What did CNBC do? They DELETED the ability to comment! Now you can read CNBC's lies but you cannot call them out for what they are - lies! That is how liars and cheats operate - silence dissent; censor the truth.

              What does this have to do with Science 301 and Evolutionism? Recently the University of Edinburgh put out a video containing a lecture that called out Evolution and its lies. Here it is (or better said WAS):


              https://twitter.com/Evolutionistrue/...95385367703552

              Apostle Jerry Coyne later tweeted "The video has been taken down."


              However, It was still on Youtube ...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLku...2bm0Dtj2FHqfbT

              Don't bother to look for it --- it too was taken down.

              By the way, the lecturer called BOTH Evolutionism and Creationism "pseudoscience". Of course I disagree with what he says about Creationism but, good grief, I wouldn't delete his lecture for that! Let dissenting views express themselves ... let people decide ... let there be freedom of expression.

              But that is NOT the way of Evolutionism, Communism, Fascism or any Totalitarian, lie-based mindset.


              You see, that's how psycho-criminals-liars operate ----- they allow ONLY for their lies to be promoted and do whatever they have to in order to silence everyone else lest the truth be known. They don't want to be caught in their lies -- this could cost them a great deal including being put in prison (think Bill and Hillary Clinton). The FAKE NEWS media that is running amok today is a vivid example of this principle.

              Hence, for those of you claiming to be "truth seekers" while fanatically adhering to Evolutionism, shame on you! Repent today and begin right away seeking out the truth.

              A very good start would be to read the book Zombie Science (2017) by Jonathan Wells. It is a delightful, easy-to-read, well-written, humorous book that lays the truth in plain sight -- not even a blind person could miss it.

              I know that the die-hard fanatics will never bother to look (primarily for the reasons I wrote about at the start of this post) but at least I'm doing what I can to help lead the lost out of darkness.

              Last but not least, my Information Work is currently in the hands of three reviewers. Progress is slow but it's happening. Updates will follow ...

              Jorge
              Then there are other ways in which liars and cheats operate. One is a classic tactic - lying by omission which includes concealing / camouflaging the truth. I was recently working on something and came across material I had used years ago. It had to do with eugenics - a natural offspring of Darwinism.

              Many Darwinists (not all) supported eugenics (some very strongly) and even began groups and journals to communicate their work, thoughts and philosophy. But eugenics became "not politically correct" in the second half of the 20th century and so they began concealing their goals. NOTE - they did not drop their goals, they merely concealed them. Such are the ways of liars and cheats.

              One example of this is was Eugenics Quarterly. In 1968-1969 these swindlers "mysteriously" changed the name of their journal to Social Biology. Yup - "social biology" certainly does hide the truth of what they're really about, does it not?


              Eugenics Quarterly.jpg


              Reminds me of one of the filthiest, most despicable examples of this tactic -- the infamous "National Center for Science Education". Hey, who doesn't want to promote "science education", right? Except that "promoting science education" is but a LIE (same as "social biology"). "Science education" isn't the TRUE goal of the NCSE - never has been, never will be. The NCSE is actually a political-ideological propaganda machine with the primary goal of pushing Evolutionism, Materialism and the Global Climate agenda. But this has to be camouflaged - the truth would hurt their agenda. Such are the ways of liars and cheats.

              But I digress.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #22
                Meanwhile, back on earth, one of the most popular arguments-from-consequences that YECs such as Jorge use today is the claim that the Theory of Evolution gave rise to the eugenics movement. This is a curious argument when you consider that eugenicists were attempting to intelligently design microevolutionary changes to the species because they thought that natural selection didn't work fast enough. But it's problematic in a historical sense as well.

                The fact is that from the very start Charles Darwin was adamantly opponent of eugenical concepts being promoted by his half-cousin Francis Galton, calling them, in his words, "evil" (and an "overwhelming" evil at that). And it was evolutionary biologists like Thomas Hunt Morgan and Reginald Punnett who were responsible for demonstrating that the racial theories of eugenicists were as scientifically unsound as they were morally objectionable.

                Moreover, it wasn't Darwin or evolutionary theory that the prominent eugenicists cited as their inspiration but rather Mendel and genetics. I recommend In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, by Daniel J. Kevles to those interested in just how prominent an influence that Mendel had upon eugenicists, particularly American ones.

                And for the real irony, at the end of WWII, when eugenics were repudiated and rejected by the civilized world, guess which group was still enthusiastically promoting it? YECs.
                Last edited by rogue06; 04-22-2018, 01:16 PM.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Meanwhile, back on earth, one of the most popular arguments-from-consequences that YECs such as Jorge use today is the claim that the Theory of Evolution gave rise to the eugenics movement. This is a curious argument when you consider that eugenicists were attempting to intelligently design microevolutionary changes to the species because they thought that natural selection didn't work fast enough. But it's problematic in a historical sense as well.

                  The fact is that from the very start Charles Darwin was adamantly opponent of eugenical concepts being promoted by his half-cousin Francis Galton, calling them, in his words, "evil" (and an "overwhelming" evil at that). And it was evolutionary biologists like Thomas Hunt Morgan and Reginald Punnett who were responsible for demonstrating that the racial theories of eugenicists were as scientifically unsound as they were morally objectionable.

                  Moreover, it wasn't Darwin or evolutionary theory that the prominent eugenicists cited as their inspiration but rather Mendel and genetics. I recommend In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, by Daniel J. Kevles to those interested in just how prominent an influence that Mendel had upon eugenicists, particularly American ones.

                  And for the real irony, at the end of WWII, when eugenics were repudiated and rejected by the civilized world, guess which group was still enthusiastically promoting it? YECs.
                  Nope - you are once again LYING or MISREPRESENTING -- take your pick.

                  I have never said that Darwinism "gave rise" to eugenics. I have said that (1) eugenics is a natural offspring of Darwinism and, (2) Darwinism provided pseudo-scientific support for those espousing eugenics.

                  Both (1) and (2) have been supported / 'proven' in scores of books and hundreds of papers. BTW, I did notice how you avoided touching the hard evidence of Eugenics Quarterly vs. Social Biology. Nicely done! How much plainer do you need it, rogue? Oh, wait ... it doesn't matter how PLAIN the evidence is - you'll simply ignore it and continue parroting the Party Line. My bad ... carry on!

                  Then you put the cherry on top by saying that "YECs enthusiastically support eugenics". WOW - that's a new low, even for you, rogue. Scripture clearly states that we are ALL of the same blood ... no one is better or worse than anyone else ... all human life is precious and sacred ... in short, eugenics is not supported by Scripture at all. Now, if you're speaking of improving breeds of sheep or cattle or other species then that's another thing. But that would be a deceptive 'switch' on your part.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Nope - you are once again LYING or MISREPRESENTING -- take your pick.

                    I have never said that Darwinism "gave rise" to eugenics. I have said that (1) eugenics is a natural offspring of Darwinism and, (2) Darwinism provided pseudo-scientific support for those espousing eugenics.
                    If you read my post you would have seen that both of your claims here are none-starters.

                    If it were a "natural offspring of Darwinism" then the originator of the Theory of Evolution would not have been so outspokenly against it. He called the concept "evil" and even "overwhelmingly" so. Later, in a correspondence with Galton he matter-of-factly speaks of himself as being "an opponent."

                    And evolutionary theory wasn't what provided support for eugenics as many of the leading eugenicists made clear. The support can primarily from geneticists and from the works of Gregor Mendel.

                    I think that it is telling that eugenics reached its zenith during a period known as the "Eclipse of Darwinism" when evolutionary thought was at a low point of acceptance in the scientific community. Moreover, while there were a few evolutionary biologists like Julian Huxley who supported eugenics, it was the evolutionary biologists such as Thomas Hunt Morgan and Reginald Punnett who were the ones that provided the scientific evidence against eugenics.

                    In 1917, Punnett calculated how many generations it would take to reduce what was termed “feeblemindedness” if everyone so diagnosed were sterilized in each generation. He concluded that to reduce the frequency from 1/100 to 1/1000 would require 22 generations, and to 1/10,000 would require 90 generations. To put this into perspective, 22 generations takes us back to before the Black Death reached Europe.

                    As for Thomas Hunt Morgan (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1933 for discoveries explaining the role that the chromosome plays in heredity), in 1915 he became a strong critic of eugenics when supporters kept declaring that personality traits, intelligence and behavior patterns were genetically determined whereas his own research demonstrated that the more complex the trait the more complex the interaction between heredity and the environment. As a result Morgan resigned his membership on the Committee of Animal Breeding within the ABA and insisted that they remove his name from the Association's Journal of Heredity.

                    During his acceptance of his Nobel Prize he said that "the complexity of the genetic composition of man makes it somewhat hazardous to apply only the simpler rules of Mendelian inheritance; for, the development of many inherited characters depends both on the presence of modifying factors and on the external environment for their expression."

                    It was evolutionists like Morgan and Punnett pointed out that the racial theories of eugenicists were as scientifically unsound as they were morally objectionable.

                    Another important figure in this debate, although more on the periphery, was Franz Uri Boas, the "Father of American Anthropology," especially his feud with the conservationist Madison Grant. Boas, was a huge supporter of evolutionary theory and wrote of his deep indebtedness to Darwin[1]. Grant tried for years to get Boas fired from his position at Columbia University but in the end Boas was the victor having wrested control of the American Anthropological Association from Grant and his supporters.

                    While early on Boas thought that eugenics might have some limited merit he cautioned in 1916 that "Eugenics is not a panacea that will cure human ills, it is rather a dangerous sword that may turn its edge against those who rely on its strength."

                    Later his position started shifting toward opposition toward eugenics as can be seen in his 1928 book "Anthropology and Modern Life," where he dedicated an entire chapter to eugenics and questioned its conclusions stating that eugenicists must empirically determine “without bias” what are and aren't inherited traits and expressed skepticism that they could ever attain that type of information.

                    In Race and Democratic Society a work published after his death Boas declared that "The behavior of an individual is determined not by his racial affiliation, but by the character of his ancestry and his cultural environment" as well as "No one has ever proved that a human being, through his descent from a certain group of people, must of necessity have certain mental characteristics."

                    There were of course others such as Hermann Muller, who had worked in Morgan's lab and won 1946 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. He delivered a speech at the Eugenics Conference of 1932 where he took them to task for its simplistic definition of 'unfit,' declaring that "genetic worth is a practically continuous variant, and there is no hard and fast line between the fit and the unfit, nor does relative fitness in the great majority of individuals depend on one or a few pre-specified genes."

                    By the mid 1920s evolutionists were seriously questioning and objecting to eugenics, pointing out that supporters relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity -- although one fair criticism would be that they weren't doing it strenuously enough. Still, by the time Hitler and the Nazis came around, evolutionary biologists had already shown that it wouldn't work.

                    Essentially, if you were actually familiar with evolution and how it works, you would understand that eugenics is the exact opposite of evolution. For in evolution, the larger and more dynamic the gene pool, the better because the more genetic diversity there is, the less likely a disease or a gene defect is going to wipe out an entire species. IOW the more genes and genetic diversity the more likely something is likely to adapt and survive.

                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    BTW, I did notice how you avoided touching the hard evidence of Eugenics Quarterly vs. Social Biology. Nicely done! How much plainer do you need it, rogue? Oh, wait ... it doesn't matter how PLAIN the evidence is - you'll simply ignore it and continue parroting the Party Line. My bad ... carry on!
                    That they changed their name proves a connection with evolution, how?

                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Then you put the cherry on top by saying that "YECs enthusiastically support eugenics". WOW - that's a new low, even for you, rogue. Scripture clearly states that we are ALL of the same blood ... no one is better or worse than anyone else ... all human life is precious and sacred ... in short, eugenics is not supported by Scripture at all. Now, if you're speaking of improving breeds of sheep or cattle or other species then that's another thing. But that would be a deceptive 'switch' on your part.

                    Jorge
                    The cold hard facts were that some among the self-styled "Team of Ten" (the founders of the modern YEC movement ostensibly headed by the "father of the modern creationist movement" Henry Morris) were energetically promoting the forced sterilization of those who, in their infinite wisdom, they had judged to be "inferior." This was decades after the end of WWII when the civilized world was rejecting such practices. They were very outspoken about this to the point that the silence from the other YEC leaders leads one to suspect that they tacitly agreed or didn't care.











                    1. In 1888 he declared that "the development of ethnology is largely due to the general recognition of the principle of biological evolution" and in a 1909 unpublished lecture, Boas wrote: "I hope I may have succeeded in presenting to you, however imperfectly, the currents of thought due to the work of the immortal Darwin which have helped to make anthropology what it is at the present time."

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Then there are other ways in which liars and cheats operate. One is a classic tactic - lying by omission which includes concealing / camouflaging the truth.
                      A tactic mastered by one Jorge Fernandez.
                      Reminds me of one of the filthiest, most despicable examples of this tactic -- the infamous "National Center for Science Education". Hey, who doesn't want to promote "science education", right? Except that "promoting science education" is but a LIE (same as "social biology"). "Science education" isn't the TRUE goal of the NCSE - never has been, never will be. The NCSE is actually a political-ideological propaganda machine with the primary goal of pushing Evolutionism, Materialism and the Global Climate agenda.
                      A better example is the organisation COPE - the "Citizens for Objective Public Education" - who aren't interested in objective public education at all, but whose sole purpose is to open routes for the teaching of creationism. And who was their president but one Jorge Fernandez.
                      Such are the ways of liars and cheats.
                      Then this Jorge Fernandez fellow is most definitely a liar and a cheat.
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Nope - you are once again LYING or MISREPRESENTING -- take your pick.
                        As usual, the person is actually lying is Jorge:
                        Then you put the cherry on top by saying that "YECs enthusiastically support eugenics".
                        rogue did not say that. Jorge's 'quote' is a fabrication. Jorge even quotes what rogue did say, so he can hardly be unaware of his fabrication.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Moreover, it wasn't Darwin or evolutionary theory that the prominent eugenicists cited as their inspiration but rather Mendel and genetics. I recommend In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, by Daniel J. Kevles to those interested in just how prominent an influence that Mendel had upon eugenicists, particularly American ones.
                          Separate from anything else, i can't recommend Kevles' book enough for people who care about science. It's a cautionary tale that's thoroughly researched and well written.

                          We seem to have entered another era where people are happy to claim that women or ethnic groups are genetically predisposed one way or another. Kevles' book is a healthy reminder that we've been there before, and it turned out to be an embarrassing mix of social bias and confirmation bias.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            Separate from anything else, i can't recommend Kevles' book enough for people who care about science. It's a cautionary tale that's thoroughly researched and well written.

                            We seem to have entered another era where people are happy to claim that women or ethnic groups are genetically predisposed one way or another. Kevles' book is a healthy reminder that we've been there before, and it turned out to be an embarrassing mix of social bias and confirmation bias.
                            It is interesting (at least to me) to note that one of the reasons that eugenics lost favor in the U.S. was because of the Great Depression. Eugenicists attributed economic conditions to biological deterioration -- they believed poverty was a characteristic of genetic inferiority. When the Great Depression struck eugenicists insisted that those who were poor and unemployed were so because of a biological destiny that made them incompetent, irresponsible and thriftless. But way too many folks from "good families" who were thought to be from sound biological stock were ruined and faced with poverty during this period. This caused many people to open their eyes to the unscientific nature of eugenics and how it had been designed to reinforces prejudices.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              Separate from anything else, i can't recommend Kevles' book enough for people who care about science. It's a cautionary tale that's thoroughly researched and well written.

                              We seem to have entered another era where people are happy to claim that women or ethnic groups are genetically predisposed one way or another. Kevles' book is a healthy reminder that we've been there before, and it turned out to be an embarrassing mix of social bias and confirmation bias.
                              While not trying to encourage anything like eugenics, or any sort of the stereotypical gender or racial biases that target oppression or visions of superiority, it is somewhat obvious that there are some fundamental genetic differences between male and female of all species. And it bothers me that we can't maintain civil discussions of what those differences tend to imply for the human species without accusations of various sorts of prejudice or bias.

                              Jim
                              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 04-23-2018, 10:05 AM.
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                While not trying to encourage anything like eugenics, or any sort of the stereotypical gender or racial biases that target oppression or visions of superiority, it is somewhat obvious that there are some fundamental genetic differences between male and female of all species. And it bothers me that we can't maintain civil discussions of what those differences tend to imply for the human species without accusations of various sorts of prejudice or bias.
                                I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that. I just don't think that, when it comes to behavior and aptitude, we have a strong grasp on what they are, and how separate they are from social expectations. Until we do a far, far better job of separating our bias from the conclusions and controlling for society's huge influence on expectations, the science here is going to be far too tentative to draw any conclusions from.

                                Put differently: saying "science was wrong in the past, therefore it's probably wrong now" is a specious argument - but only in cases where the field has figured out how to make its research more rigorous and thorough. When it comes to this area of research, we're still waiting on the fields to demonstrate they've got the rigor to overcome the huge biases that have been in evidence throughout their past.
                                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X