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

Abusus usum non tollit

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post

    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.
    Edited by a Moderator 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.
    Moderated By: rogue06


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

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    Last edited by rogue06; 08-21-2014, 02:14 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
      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.
      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
      Last edited by klaus54; 08-21-2014, 02:26 PM. Reason: typos

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        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...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.

        Source: 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.

        © Copyright Original Source



        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?
        Last edited by klaus54; 08-21-2014, 06:34 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          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.
          Oh . . . hmm . . . 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.
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            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...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.

            Source: 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.

            © Copyright Original Source



            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.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              ???

              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!"

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by phank View Post
                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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  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.

                  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.
                  Last edited by rwatts; 08-22-2014, 12:08 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    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: 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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                      Oh . . . hmm . . . 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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        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:

                        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.

                        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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          ...and if they persist in disagreement must be either ignorant or dishonest.

                          Roy
                          REFUTE MY THESIS OR REMAIN QUIET:

                          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.

                          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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              ...and if they persist in disagreement must be either ignorant or dishonest.

                              Roy
                              It is not a matter if disagreement.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by me
                                ...and if they persist in disagreement must be either ignorant or dishonest.
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                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
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 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