"The mind is proof of god's existence."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
Quote:Spencer misinterpreted Darwin. I don't think you are able to speak from a Darwinist perspective.
We don't need Spencer's survival of the fittest to look at competition and the race for progeny. Rape is a Darwinian necessity, and a moral evil based on where one's moral code lies. Rapists are comfortable with rape so I'm seeking something from you beyond subjective morals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 02:17 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
Quote:No, they have not. Nature may, at a surface level, have an appearance of design, but there is no evidence of intelligent design. Just cobbled-together systems.
I apologize. My point may have been buried in the thread. I'm not saying non-Creationist instructors say anatomy is evidence for intelligent design. I am saying the irreducible complexity of human and animal design boggles the imagination. When I hear you say "parts cobbled together" I remember that the human liver has over 500 functions that we know of...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 02:51 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013 02:54 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 07:39 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:As a side not, who in the hell would think anatomy is designed?
I apologize for responding to only one post, but there are many tangents you've gone down, including an utterly ridiculous god-in-the-box He would only make good things and we'd only eat chocolate ice cream (how would we know what is bad or how good ice cream is?) response.
Take a college course in anatomy. Many of us have. The professor, regardless of his stance on evolution, will say many times, "X is designed to work in this fashion." Almost most daily in my course I'd hear that. The irreducible complexity of a cell is on the order of the city of Chicago and that's what Dr. Behe (who I helped host as a guest in my city) was writing about.

Behe? Really? Fucking Behe? That fucking lying piece of fundy bullshit who had his ignorance put on display in a federal court Behe? The one that couldn't do any fucking research to defend his case for his irreducible complexity vis-a-vis human immune system and the bacterial flagellum Behe? The guy that spends more time writing and selling books to fucktard creationists to help keep them ignorant and happy, rather than doing real research to improve the state of his fellow man Behe? We're talking about that Behe right?

Fuck that guy, and anybody that buys into his retarded bullshit. It is bunk, has been proven bunk, and still remains bunk. He is a charlatan, and those that buy his snake oil are fools deserving of ridicule. Dodgy


Don't believe me? See for yourself in this NOVA documentary on the Dover School Board Trial that he was involved in...




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-02-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Spencer misinterpreted Darwin. I don't think you are able to speak from a Darwinist perspective.
We don't need Spencer's survival of the fittest to look at competition and the race for progeny. Rape is a Darwinian necessity, and a moral evil based on where one's moral code lies. Rapists are comfortable with rape so I'm seeking something from you beyond subjective morals.


What do you mean "rape is a Darwinian necessity"? That is an absurd statement.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
05-02-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 02:17 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:No, they have not. Nature may, at a surface level, have an appearance of design, but there is no evidence of intelligent design. Just cobbled-together systems.
I apologize. My point may have been buried in the thread. I'm not saying non-Creationist instructors say anatomy is evidence for intelligent design. I am saying the irreducible complexity of human and animal design boggles the imagination. When I hear you say "parts cobbled together" I remember that the human liver has over 500 functions that we know of...

Your lack of understanding of biology is not evidence against evolution. Your lack of knowledge that prevents you from seeing how mutation creates and selection preserves change does not make anything "irreducibly complex".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
05-02-2013, 03:02 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2013 03:14 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We don't need Spencer's survival of the fittest to look at competition and the race for progeny. Rape is a Darwinian necessity, and a moral evil based on where one's moral code lies. Rapists are comfortable with rape so I'm seeking something from you beyond subjective morals.

Rape is possibly an evolutionary advantageous trait, as in the past a rapist would be more likely to pass on their genes through many offspring. Is it a necessity? Not at all, most of us are born without rape, so it's not necessary for our survival. Does that make rape moral or ethical? Not at all. Why not? Subjectively, it violates the rights and desires of the victim. Objectively, it causes more net suffering than not raping, and is therefore objectively worse than not raping.

That I have to spell this out for the theist scares the ever living shit out of me...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-02-2013, 03:16 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 03:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We don't need Spencer's survival of the fittest to look at competition and the race for progeny. Rape is a Darwinian necessity, and a moral evil based on where one's moral code lies. Rapists are comfortable with rape so I'm seeking something from you beyond subjective morals.

Rape is possibly an evolutionary advantageous trait, as in the past a serial rapist would be more likely to pass on their genes through many offspring. Is it a necessity? Not at all, most of us are born without rape, so it's not necessary for our survival. Does that make rape moral or ethical? Not at all. Why not? Subjectively, it violates the rights and desires of the victim. Objectively, it causes more net suffering than not raping, and is therefore objectively worse than not raping.

That I have to spell this out for the theist scares the ever living shit out of me...


Interesting, very interesting indeed.

I get the odd feeling that way back when, in the times of Alpha Males, a rapist might not survive all that long though. Consider

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 03:32 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
Quote:Rape is possibly an evolutionary advantageous trait, as in the past a rapist would be more likely to pass on their genes through many offspring. Is it a necessity? Not at all, most of us are born without rape, so it's not necessary for our survival. Does that make rape moral or ethical? Not at all. Why not? Subjectively, it violates the rights and desires of the victim. Objectively, it causes more net suffering than not raping, and is therefore objectively worse than not raping.
Yes, subjectively, the rights and desires of the victim. From whence does a person's rights derive? What are the evolutionary rights of a person? From whence do you get whether rape is moral or ethical or not moral or ethical? From whence do you get the notion that "net suffering" is an evolutionary issue?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
Quote:Your lack of understanding of biology is not evidence against evolution. Your lack of knowledge that prevents you from seeing how mutation creates and selection preserves change does not make anything "irreducibly complex".
And here's the issue. What you meant to write was:
Your lack of understanding of biology is not evidence against evolution. Your lack of knowledge that prevents you from seeing how mutation MIGHT create and selection MIGHT preserve change does not make anything "irreducibly complex".
There is no proof of what you're saying otherwise ID and Creation would be dead, old issues. You have a huge bias by saying that the above processes are FACTS. Mutations can be harmful in nature--okay, they are most always harmful. Selection can enhance a species or wipe it away from existence.
You have huge biases. I did not begin as a born again Christian. I began as an open minded skeptic...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 03:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Your lack of understanding of biology is not evidence against evolution. Your lack of knowledge that prevents you from seeing how mutation creates and selection preserves change does not make anything "irreducibly complex".
And here's the issue. What you meant to write was:
Your lack of understanding of biology is not evidence against evolution. Your lack of knowledge that prevents you from seeing how mutation MIGHT create and selection MIGHT preserve change does not make anything "irreducibly complex".
There is no proof of what you're saying otherwise ID and Creation would be dead, old issues. You have a huge bias by saying that the above processes are FACTS. Mutations can be harmful in nature--okay, they are most always harmful. Selection can enhance a species or wipe it away from existence.
You have huge biases. I did not begin as a born again Christian. I began as an open minded skeptic...

ID and creationism are dead issues for scientists. The above processes are facts, they have been observed, there is no 'might' about it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: