Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Yet another icon of evolution falls.

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Yet another icon of evolution falls.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44, 45 Next

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:24 am Post subject:

In response to Junior's 3 posts above:

Concerning post #1:

Junior wrote:

You want all the security that judeo-christian values bring to society while at the same time getting away with irresponsibly undermining them.

I do not subscribe to Judeo-Christian values as a whole. I agree with some of the values, I disagree with others.

Junior wrote:

How do you know what is good, exactly? What's your yardstick/ foundation for judging what is good or bad?

I live in accordance to the laws of the society I live in and do my best to be a law-abiding citizen who does no harm to others. I have been raised by my parents to recognize what is good or bad, and will subsequently pass down these teachings onto my children.

Simply treating other people in the way I would like to be treated (or more importantly,how they would like to be treated) is the foundation of my own morality. It's really that simple.

Junior wrote:

Evolution teaches biological inequality. Some races or population groups must necessarily be more advanced or better, with higher traits, or more intelligent than others.

The Theory of Evolution states no such thing. You are just making the fallacy of equating a few radical Social Darwinists to the modern scientific Theory of Evolution.

It would be similar for one to link the actions of David Koresh, or members of the Christian Identity Movement, or reading of Mein Kampf, and say they equate to Christianity.

Just because some people pervert the ideas of certain source material does not mean that the writers of the source material were at any fault of their own.

Junior wrote:

You just told me that humans are animals.

It's a scientific fact that humans are animals. Biologically speaking, we are animals whether you like it or not.

Philosophically, however, I do not view humans as animals. That's just my belief, and I do not need a god, nor any holy book, to believe that. As I am a member of the human species (which includes all races descended from African ancestry) I value our species with the utmost importance, measures higher than other animals.

Junior wrote:

lol...how many times are have you been caught contradicting yourself in this thread?

I merely have an objective viewpoint and try my best to understand the complexities of the world as best I can. I simply just do not share your simplistic world-view; things are not always black and white to me, as it seems they are to you.

Concerning post #2:

Your agenda is clear in linking to that article. It's a common creationist tactic to try and prove that Hitler was inspired by Darwin. The evidence is not very good for that. In fact, if you read Mein Kampf, Hitler made far more references to Jesus and than he did to Darwin, far more references to Christianity than to evolution. Not many people would be very happy saying "therefore Christianity inspired Nazism." I think we can just give Hitler his own credit for that. I don't think we have to blame either Christianity or evolution.

And actually Darwin's ideas do not provide support for Hitler's Aryan superiority idea, because, remember, what evolution & natural selection predict is that a population will be selected to be successful in one particular environment. There is no such thing as the superior phenotype that is going to be the "master race" in all environments that humans encounter. So actually, evolution by natural selection is an argument against Aryan superiority. It's understandable why Hitler might not have used it. But actually, Hitler was just ignorant of science in general and there is no evidence to support that he knew very much about natural selection, one way or the other.

Moreover, the Darwinian concept of the origins of man was not acceptable to Nazi race theorists. Not only was such a humiliating ancestry unsuitable to a race of superior beings destined to rule; it also required a common origin of all races: another blow to the Aryan ego. Nazis would never accept the "We are all Africans" theory.

That article (which concerns historical views of Social Darwinism rather than the modern Theory of Evolution) serves as yet another common, overdone creationist tactic to appeal to emotion, sensationalize, and draw a false equation which wrongly states Evolution = Nazism. It's yet another logical fallacy.

Concerning post #3:

All I have to say is so what?

Many people supported eugenics in the early 20th century at no fault of Charles Darwin himself. Like I said before, eugenics is a perversion of Darwin's ideas and has nothing to do with him, nor the modern scientific Theory of Evolution. Social Darwinism is only "Darwinian" in name only.

Teddy Rossevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, H.G. Wells, Keynes, lots of people bought into the eugenics idea. Even the churches:

If you go to the below website, you will find an apology by the United Methodist Church apologizing for accepting eugenics.

Quote:

Ironically, as the Eugenics movement came to the United States, the churches, especially the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians, embraced it.
Methodist churches around the country promoted the American Eugenics Society �Fitter Family Contests� wherein the fittest families were invariably fair skinned and well off. Methodist bishops endorsed one of the first books circulated to the US churches promoting eugenics. Unlike the battles over evolution and creationism, both conservative and progressive church leaders endorsed eugenics. The liberal Rev. Harry F. Ward, professor of Christian ethics and a founder of the Methodist Federation for Social Service, writing in Eugenics, the magazine of the American Eugenic Society, said that Christianity and Eugenics were compatible because both pursued the �challenge of removing the causes that produce the weak. Conservative Rev. Clarence True Wilson, the General Secretary of the Methodist Episcopal Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals, and the man chosen to debate Clarence Darrow after William Jennings Bryan�s death, believed that only the white Aryan race was the descendent of the lost tribes of Israel. Methodists were active on the planning committees of the Race Betterment Conferences held in 1914, and 1915. In the 1910s, Methodist Churches hosted forums in their churches to discuss eugenics. In the 1920s, many Methodist preachers submitted their eugenics sermons to contests hosted by the American Eugenics Society. By 1927, when the American Eugenics Society formed its Committee on the Cooperation with Clergymen, Bishop Francis McConnell, President of the Methodist Federation for Social Service served on the committee. In 1936, he would chair the roundtable discussion on Religion and Eugenics at the American Eugenics Society Meeting. The laity of the church also took up the cause of eugenics. In 1929, the Methodist Review published the sermon �Eugenics: A Lay Sermon� by George Huntington Donaldson. In the sermon, Donaldson argues, �the strongest and the best are selected for the task of propagating the likeness of God and carrying on his work of improving the race.�

http://idexposed.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/united-methodist-church-an-apology-for-support-of-eugenics/

Eugenics is wrong, and we know that. Perverting science to serve a political agenda is wrong, just as perverting religion to serve a political agenda is also wrong.

Eugenics is a perversion of evolution.
The Christian Identity Movement, the Ku Klux Klan, the Branch Davidians, and Hitler's Mein Kampf serve as perversions of Christianity.

The Christian Identity Movement: ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm )
The Ku Klux Klan: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism )
The Branch Davidians: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh )
Mein Kampf: ( http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm )

In Conclusion:

Perversion of a thing does not equal the thing.

Perverting the originator's ideas and coming up with distorted conclusions from the originator's ideas unrelated to the originator's original message does not lead to the originator himself being responsible.

If we were to accept your logic, then Christianity would be completely invalidated by the Christian Identity Movement, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Branch Davidians. Jesus and God would be evil if we were to use your system of logic when studying Mein Kampf.

It's your logic, Junior, not mine.

I say we leave eugenics to the eugenicists and Nazism to Hitler. I say we forget about your rather flawed system of logic.

I suppose nothing will get you to accept the differences between historical Darwinism, Social Darwinism, Eugenics, or the modern scientific Theory of Evolution. To you, they are all one-and-the-same. It's another example of a precondition you create to deny the science. It's ignorant, fallible, illogical, over-simplistic, and deceptive all at once.

This way of thinking merely allows you to keep living in your own little close-minded world.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:50 am Post subject:

brento1138 wrote:

I have been raised by my parents to recognize what is good or bad

How do you recognise what is good and what is bad?
i've been asking this for 3 posts in a row now.
You know the 3 strikes rule. if you persistently ignore a question then you have to answer it or it gets re-peated in ever bigger font.

Quote:

Simply treating other people in the way I would like to be treated (or more importantly,how they would like to be treated) is the foundation of my own morality. It's really that simple.

Can you give me ten million won then please?. Because thats how I want to be treated.

Quote:

Junior wrote:

Evolution teaches biological inequality.

The Theory of Evolution states no such thing.

Denial is not a river in egypt.
You can't just keep lying and contradicting yourself and hope to maintain credibility.
Each person is slightly different to the next so they can't all be equally perfectly adapted to their environment.

Quote:

Just because some people pervert the ideas of certain source material does not mean that the writers of the source material were at any fault of their own.

Like the whole Darwin family?
With Grandpa Charlie looking on approvingly?

Quote:

Junior wrote:

You just told me that humans are animals.

It's a scientific fact that humans are animals. Biologically speaking, we are animals whether you like it or not.

Philosophically, however, I do not view humans as animals.

look, you're sounding so irrational now that I'm primarily still in this thread for the amusement factor.
Certainly not for the calibre of the competition.
There is something amusing I suppose to watch you thrash about desperately in the death-throes of loserville.

You just insisted that humans are animals but strangely you deny that darwinism or evolution applies to humans.

Quote:

I value our species with the utmost importance, measures higher than other animals.

Based on what? You refuse to elaborate any logical basis for your beliefs.

Quote:

It's a common creationist tactic to try and prove that Hitler was inspired by Darwin. The evidence is not very good for that.

have you read Mein Kampf? The origin of species? They're practically identical in large chunks.
Hitler grew up in a place and time when evolutionism was all the rage. This is reflected in all the writings of the time as well as his own. He was simply a demagogue. He rode the bandwagon.

Quote:

And actually Darwin's ideas do not provide support for Hitler's Aryan superiority idea, because, remember, what evolution & natural selection predict is that a population will be selected to be successful in one particular environment.

Then why is it some races have historically been far more succesful than others no matter what climate or part of the world they were transplanted to.
White americans of european stock do not belong in the us but they seem to be thriving there. In fact they out-competed the natives pretty quickly.

Quote:

But actually, Hitler was just ignorant of science in general and there is no evidence to support that he knew very much about natural selection, one way or the other.

*Pshaw.* His writings reveal an obsession with natural selection and evolution.

Quote:

If you go to the below website, you will find an apology by the United Methodist Church apologizing for accepting eugenics.

How about an apology from evolutionists? or would that be too much for you.

Quote:

Eugenics is a perversion of evolution.

Charles darwin didn't seem to object to his entire family "perverting" it.

Quote:

Perverting the originator's ideas and coming up with distorted conclusions from the originator's ideas unrelated to the originator's original message does not lead to the originator himself being responsible.

How is it that an entire nation, their soldiers, government, philosophers, scientists and thinkers, with free access to darwins works, all managed to "misunderstand" his book to such a degree?
Never mind Stalin, Marx and Mao?
They must have been really dumb to misconstrue darwins message. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

The acceptance of Darwin�s implausible theory by western civilization has come with the hidden but nasty baggage of moral Darwinism. The blame for the steady deterioration in the dignity and holiness of life as manifested in societal trends such as the call for euthanasia, abortion on demand, the redefinition of marriage and current proposals to legalize infanticide of healthy three month old babies at the whim of the parents, is correlated with the rise of evolution that has been promoted in the media and academia. E.O. Wilson (Harvard) and Michael Ruse (Florida State University) write as follows:

The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent G-d on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called �ethical principles.� The question is not whether biology � specifically, our evolution � is connected with ethics, but how[1].

As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in G-d�s will.... In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth's dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance[2].

Michael Ruse provides an enthusiastic approbation to Rabbi Nathan Slifkin's new book, The Challenge of Creation (Yashar Press, 2006). We explore below some of the the ethical consequences of moral Darwinism ala Ruse.

Scholars have pointed out that the three greatest genocides ever were committed in the 20th century by Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tsung.

I'm now convinced that Stalin [responsible for the murder of 61 million people] exceeded Hitler [20 million] in monstrous evil, and Mao [73 million] beat out Stalin.[3]

Hitler, Stalin and Mao were deeply influenced by Darwin�s theories of survival of the fittest.http://www.toriah.org/misc/RNS/topics/darwin-and-genocide.htm

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:02 pm Post subject:

Those evolutionists who did accept eugenics should apologize. Those who don't shouldn't.

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:22 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

I have already answered this. Societal law + parental wisdom + my own beliefs on what is good and bad = how I recognize what is good and bad.

Junior wrote:

Can you give me ten million won then please?. Because thats how I want to be treated.

You are changing the topic and over-simplifying my beliefs. There is nothing in societal law that says "Brento must give 10 million won to Junior."

Junior wrote:

Evolution teaches biological inequality.

Wrong. The scientific theory of evolution does not teach racism.

Junior wrote:

Denial is not a river in egypt.

You are telling me about denial when the foundations of your beliefs depend on your denialism of science.

Junior wrote:

You can't just keep lying and contradicting yourself and hope to maintain credibility.

Lying is what creationists do best. In fact, here's a small fragment of the lies, many from guys like Hovind.

300 creationist lies: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og/cindex/creationist_lies.html

I have been consistent both with my position and beliefs. Creationist beliefs, as you have demonstrated here many times, are almost always a contradiction.

Junior wrote:

Each person is slightly different to the next so they can't all be equally perfectly adapted to their environment.

DNA is what makes every human unique, and their DNA is a result from suitability to their environment. This is what science says. It's merely an observation. The church recognizes that every human is unique too. Neither the church nor evolutionary biologists say one human being is "better" or "more superior" than the other due to slight differences in phenotypes.

If anything the theory of evolution stresses that we are all members of the same family, all originated from a common ancestor in Africa, and share way more similarities than we do differences.

Junior wrote:

look, you're sounding so irrational now that I'm primarily still in this thread for the amusement factor.
Certainly not for the calibre of the competition.

So you think someone who doesn't think in a black & white way is, to you, an irrational person. Very interesting. You do know there is a difference between philosophy, belief, and scientific/biological observation, right? Or in the "Junior" world these things are all one?

Lurkers here probably wonder why I bother continuing on with you. I seem to be one of the very few left here standing up for science. Why is that? Because nobody probably sees the point of "debate" with you. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

A conversation where one person does not listen to the other is not really a conversation.

As I've said before, you resemble the crazy person on the side of the street with a microphone yelling out as passersby just walk on by. I am like someone who has come up to you, to get you to stop, to listen to logic and reason, and understand that you are wrong. But rather than listen to me, you just ignore me and keep on yelling out to everyone the same ole' thing. Most people, I suppose, know that the crazies will just keep on being crazy.

Junior wrote:

You just insisted that humans are animals but strangely you deny that darwinism or evolution applies to humans.

Biologically it does.
Philosophically it doesn't.

It boggles my mind you cannot distinguish the difference here. You must have a very thick skull: nothing seems to be getting through.

Junior wrote:

have you read Mein Kampf? The origin of species? They're practically identical in large chunks.

They are completely different books and have nothing to do with each other. One was a book describing the origin of species, the other was a book describing one man's "battle" or "struggle." That's like someone saying that the Bible and Terminator are the same because they both have "Judgment Day" in them.

That Hitler ever referred to Darwin or the scientific theory of evolution has already been debunked here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution

You are just guilty of the logical fallacy of an argument from adverse consequences, suggesting that we should not accept the theory of evolution because it could lead to the kind of racist views perpetuated by Hitler.

I could make the same fallible argument that we should not become Christians because it could lead to the Christian Identity Movement, Ku Klux Klan, or David Koresh.

Junior wrote:

Hitler grew up in a place and time when evolutionism was all the rage. This is reflected in all the writings of the time as well as his own. He was simply a demagogue. He rode the bandwagon.

The fact that you just used the word "evolutionism" demonstrates that you still don't know how to use the accepted and established meanings of English words. *facepalm*

Anyways, this is just really more of the same coming from creationists. It's desperate attempts at getting people to have an emotional knee-jerk reaction to Charles Darwin, and then subsequently the theory of evolution, trying to get people to distance themselves from a scientific theory that has absolutely nothing to do with Hitler or the Nazis.

Enlighten yourself on the matter, Junior:

Quote:

It is sometimes claimed, especially by creationists, that Adolf Hitler was inspired or motivated by a belief in evolutionary theory. Conservapedia regularly perpetuates this argument, especially in their epic (fail) article on the theory of evolution.

One aspect of the connection, which can cause confusion, is the generally accepted fact that Hitler's conception of racial of national struggle and supremacy bore some relationship to social Darwinism, a political theory which can be summed up as "survival of the fittest, applied to people". Social Darwinism is distinct from the biological theory of evolution, and only loosely connected with Charles Darwin, whom Hitler is not known to have ever mentioned.

Furthermore, using Hitler's belief in evolution as an argument against evolutionary science is an example of the logical fallacy of an argument from adverse consequences, suggesting that we should not accept the theory of evolution because it could lead to the kind of racist views perpetuated by Hitler. This is also an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, implying that Hitler's racist views were inspired directly by a belief in evolution. In fact, even if the connections between the theory of evolution, social Darwinism and the Holocaust can be made, this does not imply that evolution is a dangerous theory, only that Hitler had perverted the theory to justify his beliefs and actions.

However, it seems that there is at least some evidence to suggest that, far from embracing Darwin's work and social Darwinism, the Nazis tried to ban them. The 1935 edition of the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, Die B�cherei, contains a list of banned books. One of the entries in this edition of Die B�cherei is "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H�ckel)".

Hitler on natural selection

In Mein Kampf (1924-25), Hitler expressed his views on the natural world, largely as an analogy and justification for his racialist views on human society. It is clear that he saw struggle for survival, and natural selection based on this struggle, as crucial to the lives of animals, as outlined these excerpts:
�Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.�
�By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.�

However, this view of "natural selection" as applied to society, has little to do with biological evolution. Rather, it has more in common with social darwinism, which originated from Herbert Spenser, not Charles Darwin. To link social darwinism with darwinian evolution simply because of the name similarity would be just as absurb as linking the Christian Identity movement to Christianity simply because they both have the word "Christian" in it.

On human evolution

Hitler did not explicitly address the topic of human evolution from animals in Mein Kampf, but he seems to have touched on the subject in some of the dinner conversations with Nazi leaders which were later published as Table Talk. These conversations aren't universally accepted as actually having taken place, and as such any evidence for the stances of Hitler based on this work is dodgy at best. While talking about the limitations of historical records, he is recorded as having stated that "there have been human beings, in the baboon category, for at least three hundred thousand years". In justifying his own vegetarianism, he noted that "[t]he monkeys, our ancestors of prehistoric times, are strictly vegetarian". This shows at least an awareness of the concept of humanity's evolution from primates, although it is a common misconception to state that humans evolved from apes or monkeys, since these animals, like humans, are the results of divergent evolution from our common ancestors.

On another occasion, however, Hitler seems to have expressed uncertainty on the matter of human evolution.
�Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey � assuming that this transformation really took place.

On interbreeding

As a white supremacist, Hitler was vehemently opposed to racial interbreeding (miscegenation), and used his views on nature to argue that it was abhorrent. He wrote of an "iron law of Nature" which compels creatures to procreate only with their own kind.
�Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.�

Hitler saw this "iron law" as resulting in a fixity of species and their characteristics.
�This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.�

It is certainly true that procreation between distinct animal species rarely occurs, and that when it does, as Hitler correctly noted, the offspring is usually sterile. However, Hitler's view of fixed non-interbreeding species and an "urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed" contradicts evolutionary theory, which suggests that the development of separate species has resulted gradually over thousands of years from animals mating with those having similar but slightly differing characteristics. His statement that "[t]he fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose" seems to be at odds with his other statements in support of evolution of species.

On higher and lower orders

In applying these concepts to human miscegenation, Hitler stated that:
�If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.�

This demonstrates another major fallacy in Hitler's understanding of evolution. While evolutionary science emphasises that the results of evolution are the great diversity of life, with each organism adapting to its own habitat and needs, Hitler saw only progress towards a "higher stage of being", and elsewhere mentioned "the higher evolution of living organisms". His comments on animal interbreeding further demonstrate this, for he stated that:
�the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. . . . [F]or if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.�

Clearly, rather than viewing the separate species as creatures which have evolved in order to adapt to their surroundings, Hitler saw always a distinction between stronger and weaker species. It seems probable that he believed in a kind of hierarchy of animal superiority, much as he believed in a strict racial hierarchy among humans.

On intelligent design

Numerous statements by Hitler indicate that, whether or not he believed in human evolution from animals, he certainly believed in the intelligent design of humanity by God.
�Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.�
�[I]t was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.�
�The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.�

As well as mentioning God, Hitler also extensively referred to Nature as if it was a conscious being. For example:
�Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species.�

Other examples can be seen in some of the other quotes on this page. It is unclear whether he was simply using "the will of Nature" as an allegory for the entirety of natural processes as he perceived them. However, his references to God, along with his belief in progress towards a higher evolutionary order, strongly suggest that he believed that evolution was guided by a purposeful entity.

Precursors and contemporaries: Some views about Darwin

Houston Stewart Chamberlain was an influence on Hitler's antisemitism. In Chamberlain's book, "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" he wrote of "A manifestly unsound system like that of Darwin ..." (Author's Introduction, page lxxxviii), "... Darwinian castles in the air ..." (First Part, Division II, Fourth Chapter, "Scientific Confusion" volume 1, footnote beginning on page 264), "... no tenable position can be derived even from the most consistent, and, therefore, most shallow Darwinism." (Second Part, Ninth Chapter, "Historical Criterion" volume 2, pages 215-216)

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, an infamous anti-Semitic fraud of some influence, includes Darwin among its demons:

"Protocol 2: ... 3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM."

Remember "micro"evolution?

Let us forget, for the moment, all of the above which shows that evolution had no connection with the Nazis. Let's suppose that there was something about evolution within "mankind" that made people think that it would be a good idea to become a Nazi. And then, let us recall that many of the creationists insist that they fully accept "micro"evolution within a "kind". Nobody is claiming that "macro"evolution, such as the descent of birds from dinosaurs, has any relevance at all to how we treat our fellow humans. All that the creationists, when dragging up the supposed Hitler connection, are claiming is that evolution within "mankind" is responsible. How, then, do the creationists avoid the same responsibility?

Conclusions

...Mein Kampf is often quote mined to suggest that Hitler was an adherent of Darwinian theory. Similarly, with its references to God and the guiding will of Nature, it has sometimes been quote mined by atheist websites to prove that Hitler was a creationist. In fact Hitler's views on nature seem to be a mixture of the two philosophies, and he made some rather muddled statements, confusingly mixing the two concepts. For example, in regard to marriage, and avoiding miscegenated marriages, he stated that:
"The State should consecrate it as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man and ape."

Based on comments like this, Hitler seems to have believed that humanity, and especially the Aryan race, had evolved to become the likeness of God (rather than being created initially in God's image), while other races were closer to humanity's evolutionary ancestors.... This is, however, a false understanding of the theory of evolution as upheld by biologists of Hitler's time as well as our own.

Last edited by brento1138 on Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:10 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

I'm primarily still in this thread for the amusement factor.
Certainly not for the calibre of the competition.

You drove away "the competition" by ignoring them when you didn't have a suitable response.

How can you claim Shapiro's conclusion of design supports your account of creation when the reasoning he used to come to that conclusion completely disagrees with it? How are three (two of which were fraudulent) examples of radiometric dating errors a "truckload" of examples? Where's your evidence that "every" time a radiometric dating lab is given a sample without a guesstimate to go on they "make a massive gaffe". Above all else, where's your evidence for the massive scientific conpiracy that has to exist in order to cover up the far more "obvious" creationist account and to perpetuate the "evolutionist fantasy"?

As for your moral argument: let's see some rough stats on how hedonistic and criminally intent those science types are compared to, say your average church.

You don't have a whit of scientific credibility to either your argument against evolutionary theory, or your argument for creationism. Your moral argument simply isn't.

So, now it's a blase game of name calling, emotionally loaded, irrelevant questions and guilt by (vague) association.

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:15 pm Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

You drove away "the competition" by ignoring them when you didn't have a suitable response.

Do you think I'm insane for sticking around? Laughing

It is interesting to see this thread progress, or rather, regress. Junior has tried out all the creationist tricks in the book. Nothing is really new here at all. It's the same ole' song & dance routine I've seen time and time again.

When things don't work out for Junior, there's a new dance move to try out. But like they say, you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? In other words, is there any real substance to anything Junior has said in this entire thread. I'm afraid there isn't.

I find it interesting how Junior tried in vain to show evidence against evolution, but due to being shot down every time, and realizing that this strategy won't work, Junior must now resort to philosophical, religious, moral or political attacks against evolution, relying on arguments from ignorance (not understanding the differences between Social Darwinism / evolution, for example). The thread started with a misconception that new evidence in support of evolution was somehow evidence against it! And now it is regressing from ignorance to fallacy with the whole "evolution is evil because it equals Hitler" thing.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:46 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

How can you claim Shapiro's conclusion of design supports your account of creation when the reasoning he used to come to that conclusion completely disagrees with it?

I posted why a couple of pages back. But it appears the mods deleted it for brevity.

So here is a snippet:

Quote:

University of Chicago molecular biologist James A. Shapiro is not a proponent of intelligent design (ID). And he is an evolutionist. But his new book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century is recommended reading for ID proponents who have an interest in biological complexity.

Quote:

Shapiro's excellent summaries of the mechanisms of non-random genetic and epigenetic biological change are entirely consistent with an ID view.

Quote:

Let me put the question another way: Shapiro prefers to describe the evolutionary process as "engineering" rather than "tinkering," but is that because he has observed and demonstrated material mechanisms that truly can "engineer" the genome, or because he has observed features in biology that require engineering to arise?

After all, many of the "natural genetic engineering rearrangements" he cites entail observations like "LINE-1 elements associated with deletions in human genome variation" or "Many inversions associated with L1 repeats." (pp. 122-123) No doubt those are accurate observations, but is that evidence that some complex mutational mechanism can produce (and has produced) new traits by coordinating multiple regions of the genome?

Shapiro's ideas are certainly interesting, but his claim that these complex mutational mechanisms like "horizontal transfers and the movement of transposable elements through chromosome rearrangements [and] whole genome duplications and cell fusions" (p. 128) can spontaneously produce radically complex traits is not conclusively established. Much here is speculative, and much is inadequate: "domain swapping" (p. 130) cannot explain the origin of domains in the first place.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/james_shapiros_evolution_a_vie050111.html

In other words shapiro demonstrates something that creationists have been saying and evolutionists have been denying for an awfully long time: That organisms actively engineer their own genetic modification.

His conclusions inevitably lead to intelligent design, however he takes a step back at the last moment and retreats into trite and weak conclusions in order to remain in the good graces of the evolutionist establishment.

But the damage is done.

Quote:

Shapiro would seem to be confronted with a difficulty: He doesn't want to rely on blind and random mechanisms for evolution because biological systems simply appear too complex to have arisen in such a fashion. However, if he doesn't rely on blind and random mechanisms for at some point along the process, then he's forced into the realm of intelligent design -- which is exactly where he doesn't want to go. In a sense, Shapiro's thesis is no different from neo-Darwinism because he just pushes the selected trait back to the "capacity to change" rather than the "change itself."

Quote:

How are three (two of which were fraudulent) examples of radiometric dating errors a "truckload" of examples? Where's your evidence that "every" time a radiometric dating lab is given a sample without a guesstimate to go on they "make a massive gaffe".

You'd only deny it if I were to tell you.

Quote:

Above all else, where's your evidence for the massive scientific conpiracy that has to exist in order to cover up the far more "obvious" creationist account and to perpetuate the "evolutionist fantasy"?

You'd only ignore it.

Last edited by Junior on Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:02 am; edited 1 time in total

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:55 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

APGW is just a theory, no? Ooops, can't act on that. It might turn us into Pol Pot.

Apples and oranges dear boy.
APGW is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Evolution lacks convincing evidence.

APGW demands urgent action to save our planet and continued existence.
Evolution demands nothing. Except perhaps that we commit genocide and kill the useless eaters. So its probably better to not act on it. Or even give it credence in the first place.

Chalk and cheese.

By the way, the email fiasco only reiterates that scientists are fallible and human. Corrupt. This is no surprise to me but it is to the gullible likes of brento- who hold scientists in God-like awe.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:01 am Post subject:

catman wrote:

Those evolutionists who did accept eugenics should apologize.

Those who don't shouldn't.

Modern eugenecists have mostly gone underground. Illuminati?

Quote:

Eugenics is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created unequal and the food is running short; that, in the struggle for food, those who have an inherited advantage prevail and pass the advantage on to their children who prevail even more; that this is how evolution, Yale and the English aristocracy happened. A further belief is that, at this point in evolution, the more evolved must take destiny and the less evolved in hand. Selection must not be left to chance for chance is cruel, capricious and, all too often, expensive but must instead be led by the kindly elite - Harvard professors, British aristocrats, Serbian psychiatrists, Aryans and so on. But death control, which has been the main method used by natural selection or chance, for termination of useless populations, must be replaced by birth control which is cheaper, and, as Charles Darwin pointed out in The Descent of Man, more effective.

The problem is that the masses will not dedicate themselves unselfishly to the production and protection of an elite while exterminating their own posterity. Over and over the eugenicists roll this rock up the hill and over and over it rolls down - often on them. Outstanding classics of scientific racism, such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy or The Passing of the Great Race, The Bell Curve or The g Factor are rejected in favor of "sentimental slogans" such as " All men are created equal" or "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its Constitution". Governments with eugenic policies come to power in Germany, South Africa, Rumania, or Alabama and the world rises against them. Then it's all to do again.

But like the ants, which these social biologists believe we resemble (or should resemble), the eugenicists toil away in their dark underground passages. For they always have a new plan. Put your head down and listen, and you can hear their latest and the greatest plan:

"The ideas of eugenics are based on the assumption that men are unequal, while democracy is based on the assumption that they are equal. It is therefore, politically very difficult to carry out eugenic ideas in a democratic community when those ideas take the form, not of suggesting that there is a minority of inferior people, such as imbeciles, but of admitting that there is a minority of superior people. The former is pleasing to the majority, the latter unpleasing. Measures embodying the former fact can therefore win the support of the majority, while measures embodying the latter cannot." ( from The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law)

These are the words of Bertrand Russell, who is being quoted by Professor Glanville Williams. Williams is the Rous Ball Professor of English law at Cambridge University, a fellow of the English Eugenics Society, and, for the last twenty three years, head of the English Abortion Law Reform Association. What Williams is saying is that the elitist ideas of eugenics can come to power in democracies by encouraging attacks on minorities, much as Hitler came to power by scapegoating the Jews.
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:52 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

How can you claim Shapiro's conclusion of design supports your account of creation when the reasoning he used to come to that conclusion completely disagrees with it?

I posted why a couple of pages back. But it appears the mods deleted it for brevity.
...
His conclusions inevitably lead to intelligent design, however he takes a step back at the last moment and retreats into trite and weak conclusions in order to remain in the good graces of the evolutionist establishment.

This is ridiculous. You're putting words in the man's mouth and saying they're caused by some scientific conspiracy no one can see but you to make it seem like his theory supports yours. I think I'll take his word on what his theory entails.

And he's not "taking a step back". His entire line of reasoning is that "since the big changes happen (something you deny entirely) it appears like there might be some design."

Junior wrote:

Quote:

You'd only deny it if I were to tell you.

Translation: "I have nothing."

Junior wrote:

Quote:

You'd only ignore it.

Translation: "I have nothing."

You're getting lazy Junior.

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:44 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

In other words shapiro demonstrates something that creationists have been saying and evolutionists have been denying for an awfully long time: That organisms actively engineer their own genetic modification.

Really? I thought creationists said a divine creator designed the creatures, not the creatures designed themselves. Also, I thought that creationists viewed mutation as "subtractive only" due to "the Fall" and are thus becoming less "perfect" every day. How does this amount to organisms doing the creator's handy-work for him? I think most creationists (such as yourself) would disagree with Shapiro about "new information" being fundamental to mutation, along with a vast host of his other ideas. Shapiro's theory doesn't need a creator whatsoever, just self-organization. He would disagree with practically everything you've written on this thread.

Junior wrote:

His conclusions inevitably lead to intelligent design, however he takes a step back at the last moment and retreats into trite and weak conclusions in order to remain in the good graces of the evolutionist establishment.

I think your conclusions of his work lead to intelligent design, which he doesn't agree with. Here is a letter from Shapiro which proves that fact:

Robert Shapiro wrote:

Dear Mr. Evans,

I felt that Professor Behe�s book has done a better job of explaining existing science than others of its kind. I agree with him that conventional scientific origin-of-life theory is deeply flawed. I disagreed with him about the idea that one needed to invoke intelligent designer or a supernatural cause to find an answer. I do not support intelligent design theories. I believe that better science will provide the needed answers.

Sincerely yours, Robert Shapiro

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/robert-shapiro.html

Sorry, Junior. But Shapiro has absolutely nothing in common with creationists other than he feels the origin-of-life theory needs way more work and research (oh, wait, creationists DON'T think that at all since they already have the "answer"!). I completely and totally agree with Shapiro that we need to look much further into the origin of life theories and conduct way more experiments and research (this includes going to Mars, Titan, and Europa).

Although I admit I am not too familiar with Robert Shapiro's research myself, I actually quite like him and his alternative take on evolution. I watched the entire hour long presentation which Hijacked Twilight linked to. From what I've seen, so far it looks very interesting.

So in reference to Junior's black and white world-view: Shapiro is what you would refer to as an "evolutionist." He just doesn't hold traditional Darwinian processes of natural selection acting on random mutations in very high regard. And at that, he is far from a "creationist." I know this is confusing for you, that an "evolutionist" who isn't a "believer" in "Darwinism" could possibly exist. Tough for you to accept, perhaps. Not such a black and white world now, is it Junior?

Junior wrote:

Evolution demands nothing. Except perhaps that we commit genocide and kill the useless eaters. So its probably better to not act on it. Or even give it credence in the first place.

Translation: I am afraid of evolution, so I cannot accept it.

Junior wrote:

...scientists are fallible and human. Corrupt. This is no surprise to me but it is to the gullible likes of brento- who hold scientists in God-like awe.

I am the first to admit that all human beings are fallible, and I absolutely do not hold scientists in God-like awe. They are human beings, just like myself. Look at the disgraced South Korean stem cell scientist Hwang Woo-Suk. A bad apple, for sure.

Yet more than scientists, the human beings, I respect science itself: the scientific process. I believe this process has led to the greatest of human achievements (to be fair, some bad things too, however our tiny human brains which still retain a great quantity of superstition and barbarity is more likely to blame for that). It has increased our knowledge and has helped the human race grow up from a child-like species into one that I believe is between child and grown-up: a sort of adolescence. It's in this stage that the teenager-like consciousness of humanity as a whole thrashes with angst, letting go of its child-like ways and smartening up and becoming an adult. I see this, in fact, as the creationism vs. evolution non-debate (as in there is no debate within the scientific community, just within the less specialized members of society). Some will have a hard time letting go of the past, while others look forward to the future.

Anyways, I would bet that the vast majority of scientists are dedicated, hard-working, honest individuals. A few bad apples doesn't necessarily spoil the whole bunch. If that were so, then all priests would be child molesters. All ESL teachers would be AIDS-infested alcohol-abusing womanizers. That just simply isn't the case (well, not the AIDS part anyways... hehe... kidding...).

Junior wrote:

Modern eugenecists have mostly gone underground. Illuminati?

Must be pretty deep underground. Illuminati? Why don't you enlighten us with more of your tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theories, Junior?

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:37 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Read the link I provided.
Or are you that afraid of reading an alternative viewpoint that might actually change your worldview. Scary stuff.

Quote:

And he's not "taking a step back". His entire line of reasoning is that "since the big changes happen (something you deny entirely)

he infers that only, he has no evidence. Same as all evos.

Quote:

it appears like there might be some design."

No, he's saying that organisms possess highly, mind-bogglingly complex sytems by which they genetically engineer themselves.

Creationists are merely pointing out that they have been claiming this for years. And that such complex systems are evidence for design because they could not have evolved by any known mechanism.

But I'll reserve full judgement until I have read it.

Underwaterbob wrote:

Junior wrote:

You'd only deny it if I were to tell you.

Translation: "I have nothing."

Junior wrote:

Quote:

You'd only ignore it.

But you would. Whatever evience is presented you'd simply find a way to ignore it or wave it away.

Your mind is welded shut like a giant clam.

I don't participate in this thread out of some illusion that you're open to reason..but for the interest of researching and thinking about the topic.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:48 am Post subject:

Brento wrote:

Really? I thought creationists said a divine creator designed the creatures, not the creatures designed themselves.

You haven't followed what I've been saying. Living things were designed with the ability to make minor adaptive genetic changes by a creator who knew they would need to survive in a world that would change.

I've never stated any different. If you think I have, you're welcome to go back through every evolution thread you can find.

Glad to see you're finally accepting that organisms are able to genetically tweak themselves right on cue with precisely the right modification at exactly the right moment.

I told you this about ten pages ago (with regard to the nylon bugs) but you denied it.
Haha ..do you have your own mind or not? Because you seem to just blindly foolow whatever your darwinist goons tell you.
You've lost so much face I'm surprised you still have the audacity to keep showing it on this thread. Some people have no shame.

Quote:

I think your conclusions of his work lead to intelligent design, which he doesn't agree with. Here is a letter from Shapiro which proves that fact:

Robert Shapiro wrote:

-thanks for that.Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Shapiro: Michael behe's book has indeed done a better job of explaining sxisting science than the standard evolutionist pap.

I also agree with him that "conventional scientific origin-of-life theory is deeply flawed".

So yes it appears Mr shapiro agrees with me to a large extent.

Brento wrote:

Yet more than scientists, the human beings, I respect science itself: the scientific process.

Why do you respect evolutionism then? They've made a mockery of the scientific process at every possible turn. Harry Potter qualifies as science more than does much of standard evolutionary fantasy.

Quote:

Anyways, I would bet that the vast majority of scientists are dedicated, hard-working, honest individuals.

Sure. So were most nazis. They were honestly mistaken. Honestly misled. They genuinely thought that liquidating the worlds inferior races would result in a better future.

Quote:

Must be pretty deep underground. Illuminati? Why don't you enlighten us with more of your tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theories, Junior?

I don't especially claim to know about modern eugenicism. But if you're curious why don't you read the link?

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:14 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Read the link I provided.
Or are you that afraid of reading an alternative viewpoint that might actually change your worldview. Scary stuff.

I read some of it.

Your response has nothing to do with the quotation above it. You are changing his theory to suit yours and somehow claim this is support for your theory. Nonsense.

Junior wrote:

Quote:

And he's not "taking a step back". His entire line of reasoning is that "since the big changes happen (something you deny entirely)

he infers that only, he has no evidence. Same as all evos.

He doesn't "infer" it, it's an important part of his reasoning. Anyhow, if he's got no evidence, then I guess his theory is bunk and doesn't support anyone.

Junior wrote:

Quote:

it appears like there might be some design."

No, he's saying that organisms possess highly, mind-bogglingly complex sytems by which they genetically engineer themselves.

Genetic engineering that you deny ever occurs.

Junior wrote:

Creationists are merely pointing out that they have been claiming this for years. And that such complex systems are evidence for design because they could not have evolved by any known mechanism.

Please point out creationist sources that have been claiming Shapiro's theory for years. There aren't any. You're just rehashing the same old ID claims. Shapiro specifically states that his theory is not ID.

ID states that some systems are too complex to have evolved. Shapiro states that he feels some systems are so complex that they may have evolved through some form of genetic programming.

Junior wrote:

But I'll reserve full judgement until I have read it.

You haven't even read it, are claiming it supports your dogma and are telling us that "Creationists are merely pointing out that they have been claiming this for years." Your credibility is whatever the opposite of credibility is.

Junior wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

Junior wrote:

You'd only deny it if I were to tell you.

Translation: "I have nothing."

Junior wrote:

Quote:

You'd only ignore it.

But you would. Whatever evience is presented you'd simply find a way to ignore it or wave it away.

Your claims I was asking for evidence for:

1. Three examples (two fraudulent, so one really) of radiometric dating mistakes constitute a "truckload".
2. "Every" time a radiometric dating lab is not given a guesstimate they "make a massive gaffe."
3. A massive scientific conspiracy covering up the "obvious" creation account and promoting the "evo-fantasy".
4. Shapiro's theory supports my creationist theory, despite glaring contradictions.

I can't ignore your evidence for these claims because you haven't shown me any.

Junior wrote:

Your mind is welded shut like a giant clam.

Yes, yes, you think ad-homs make you look smart. We all know that by now.

Junior wrote:

I don't participate in this thread out of some illusion that you're open to reason..but for the interest of researching and thinking about the topic.

Your "research" involves little more than picking through the facts, finding one here and there that you think supports your pre-conceived conclusion of design and creation, ignoring all the rest, insulting and misquoting anyone who doesn't agree with you and then declaring victory in a flurry of unanswerable irrelevant questions on morality and Hitler comparisons. Laughing

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:13 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Living things were designed with the ability to make minor adaptive genetic changes by a creator who knew they would need to survive in a world that would change.

I've never stated any different. If you think I have, you're welcome to go back through every evolution thread you can find.

Actually, you did state differently. I remember you said the following:

Junior wrote:

A loving God endowed his creation with all that they would need to adapt to a world he knew would change.

It seems you've refined it from "all" to "minor adaptive change" unless you think that only minor adaptive change is all creatures need. So not only have you been inconsistent, you have been illogical in assessing what the word "all" means. According to your beliefs, since creatures are only limited to losing information or exchanging information with others of the same species or kind, then it seems the creator didn't do a very good job of preparing his creations for change, no? Especially since over 99% of all species which have ever existed are now extinct!

Junior wrote:

Glad to see you're finally accepting that organisms are able to genetically tweak themselves right on cue with precisely the right modification at exactly the right moment.

How did you get to that conclusion? Just because I find Shapiro's work interesting doesn't mean I am accepting that organisms are able to intelligently tweak themselves (with the exception being humans, as we have developed the technology to do that...). I merely remain open to the possibility that at the small scale, an organism can detect elements in its environment and mutate accordingly to adapt to the environment. Saying something "may be possible" is not akin to accepting it.

Anyways, this doesn't seem to be the case, since so many mutations are either neutral or harmful. Most mutations seem very random, as only a small handful ever turn out to be beneficial. If the creatures are, as you say, intelligently designing themselves, then they are not doing it very *ahem* intelligently... are they?

Junior wrote:

I told you this about ten pages ago (with regard to the nylon bugs) but you denied it.

I still accept the scientific consensus which is the best explanation we have: that one particular Nylon bug mutated randomly while reproducing and the random mutation turned out to be beneficial (aka ability to digest Nylon which happened to be in the environment). Since there was so much Nylon sitting around, the ones who were able to digest it thrived, and thus grew to a large number.

Your explanation is that a) the creator originally gave the bacteria the ability to digest Nylon (something which didn't exist until 1935), and b) the bacteria somehow decided to reactivate that design feature since it sensed Nylon in the environment.

Your explanation invokes the supernatural and is unscientific. The scientific consensus doesn't invoke the supernatural, and explains things scientifically. It's the same as comparing the supernatural explanation for wind (the breath of gods) versus the scientific one (pressure systems).

Junior wrote:

Haha ..do you have your own mind or not? Because you seem to just blindly foolow whatever your darwinist goons tell you.

"Haha" ?? You really do live in your own little world, don't you?

I am open-minded to the science, that's all. If Shapiro has something interesting to say, I listen. You cannot really accuse me of "blindly" following a faith when you are absolutely guilty of that. I just accept the science: nothing more, nothing less.

Junior wrote:

You've lost so much face I'm surprised you still have the audacity to keep showing it on this thread. Some people have no shame.

I wonder how you could possibly think that when you've been proven dead-wrong time and time again on this thread, not just by me, but by science itself: the very process which allowed you to read these words on your computer screen, that allowed you to fly to Korea, and which granted you a much greater chance of surviving childhood. Yet you seem to have no respect for it. The Theory of Evolution uses the exact same scientific process as any other science. It is just your denialism, rooted in a particular fundamentalist interpretation of your faith, which leads you to think otherwise.

Junior wrote:

Robert Shapiro wrote:

Yet disagrees with you completely, at the same time.

You invented the comparison to "standard evolutionist pap." Shapiro was not comparing the two. He was comparing Behe's work to others of its kind: ie. intelligent design/creationist books. Also you seem to have ignored the part where he says "I do not support intelligent design theories. I believe that better science will provide the needed answers." (This just serves as more evidence for your head-in-the-sand, reading only what you want to read)

Sure Shapiro said he thinks Behe's book is the best of its kind but only in explaining existing science. Even I would agree with that statement, as he merely explains how complex life is, which reflects actual existing science. But as we all know, Behe is not producing any new science. He loses when he says the word "irreducibly" especially since he wrote the book, scientists have already reduced many of his supposedly "irreducibly complex" items down to the last atom. Behe's just looking at the existing science, and throwing up his arms, and saying "Well, it's too tough. It's too complicated. Let's just give up." The term "irreducibly complex" is just another way of saying "we will never understand it, so let's give up."

As for Origin of Life theories, there is no one theory. There are several. And the flaws come more due to our lack of knowledge, research, etc. Perhaps when we learn more, conduct more experiments, get results from other planets, it will become less flawed, as happens with all science. To just say "it's flawed" and leave it at that is not what science does. It constantly refines and updates itself, based on observation and experimentation.

Junior wrote:

brento1138 wrote:

Anyways, I would bet that the vast majority of scientists are dedicated, hard-working, honest individuals.

Sure. So were most nazis. They were honestly mistaken. Honestly misled. They genuinely thought that liquidating the worlds inferior races would result in a better future.

Still comparing scientists to Nazis, huh? So anyone you disagree with you just compare to Nazis.

Let me imagine Junior having an outing with some friends at Baskin Robbins. One of your friends chooses vanilla ice cream and you choose chocolate. Junior leans over and whispers to the rest of the group: "did you know Nazis like vanilla ice cream?"

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 42, 43, 44, 45 Next
Page 43 of 45

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe