Evolution

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:54 am
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:33 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:22 am

Genesis is bad poetry.
Good poetry contains a germ of truth.
If you think Genesis is life affirming I suggest you read it again.
The King James version might make you think it is poetry but that is just the effect of archaic language which tends to lend a certian something. The content should make any rational person whince with horror.

Life affirming.

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
I am glad you mentioned Cain and Abel, because that story is on the theme of how permanent settlement on and ownership of land is a direct cause of tribal conflicts and international wars of aggression. If you have never been taught how to abstract themes from meaningful stories you may not understand what I am talking about.
I am, as so often way ahead of you on this matter. I studied anthropology as part of my ancient history and archaeology degree. My masters also included much literary criticism too.
The bible is all about tribal conflict but favours only one megalomaniac god and his special people. I doubt the makr of Cain has much to do with that since it is clearly a family spat.
But nice to try to avoid the issue.
Where the fuck is all that life affirmation you are talking about? :lol:
I am glad if you are ahead of me as I love to be instructed, and I have a special affection for social anthropology. The theme of the family spat story has a larger application, if you care to interpret it in the light of modern knowledge about evolving or revolutionary technologies. Did you see that TV (streaming now) programme about the evolution of art as images and attitudes towards nature? Cain and Abel story describes one of the inherent and ongoing problems of settled agriculture.

I prefer to read any literature eclectically. For instance one of my fav authors is a high Tory but her books contain a lot of interesting stuff about personalities, and also historical events from a high Tory point of view.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:55 am First off, I told you that the "Ascent of Man" is a title of a movie.
The "lie" is in the word "descent." Nobody actually believes in it. Rather, we all -- including Evolutionists -- realize that mankind is higher, not lower, than any proposed animalistic state. A "descent" is a "going down." Would you say that modern man is "lower" than Piltdown or Java? Of course not. If you believed that, you would expect less, not more, out of modern man than out of Peking or Nebraska Man.

Even the word "evolution" posits a "going forward," a "progress," a "getting better," not a decline, decay, or descent. If Evolutionists can't even get the word right, then don't blame me.

However, Scott, I do get what's going on with you right now. It's human nature.

I get that you don't like the argument I"ve put before you, and you hate that science agrees with the claim that the ape-tio-man theory is dead. When one is feeling cornered, it's easier just to go looking for some grounds you can sell to yourself as "moral outrage," so you can feign righteousnes, storm off, and stop thinking about the dawning realization that you need to shift your basic theory, at least somewhat. So the ad hominem becomes very attractive as an option. It seems to offer relief from the necessity of decision and revision.

That's because none of us finds it easy to shift a basic theory. It's like having the ground move under one's feet...very unsettling and concerning.

But from experience I can tell you that I think you will also find that you are not going to fool the little voice inside you that easily. Or if you do, then God help you: because that little voice is actually the sound of the truth.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Meanwhile...

Post by uwot »

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:25 pmWhen one is feeling cornered, it's easier just to go looking for some grounds you can sell to yourself as "moral outrage," so you can feign righteousnes, storm off, and stop thinking about the dawning realization that you need to shift your basic theory, at least somewhat.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:11 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:54 am
Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:33 am
I am glad you mentioned Cain and Abel, because that story is on the theme of how permanent settlement on and ownership of land is a direct cause of tribal conflicts and international wars of aggression. If you have never been taught how to abstract themes from meaningful stories you may not understand what I am talking about.
I am, as so often way ahead of you on this matter. I studied anthropology as part of my ancient history and archaeology degree. My masters also included much literary criticism too.
The bible is all about tribal conflict but favours only one megalomaniac god and his special people. I doubt the makr of Cain has much to do with that since it is clearly a family spat.
But nice to try to avoid the issue.
Where the fuck is all that life affirmation you are talking about? :lol:
I am glad if you are ahead of me as I love to be instructed, and I have a special affection for social anthropology. The theme of the family spat story has a larger application, if you care to interpret it in the light of modern knowledge about evolving or revolutionary technologies. Did you see that TV (streaming now) programme about the evolution of art as images and attitudes towards nature? Cain and Abel story describes one of the inherent and ongoing problems of settled agriculture.

I prefer to read any literature eclectically. For instance one of my fav authors is a high Tory but her books contain a lot of interesting stuff about personalities, and also historical events from a high Tory point of view.
FIne I'm sure you will agree with me just how much the Bible is Death affirming.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:25 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:55 am First off, I told you that the "Ascent of Man" is a title of a movie.
The "lie" is in the word "descent." Nobody actually believes in it. Rather, we all -- including Evolutionists -- realize that mankind is higher, not lower, than any proposed animalistic state. A "descent" is a "going down." Would you say that modern man is "lower" than Piltdown or Java? Of course not. If you believed that, you would expect less, not more, out of modern man than out of Peking or Nebraska Man.

Even the word "evolution" posits a "going forward," a "progress," a "getting better," not a decline, decay, or descent. If Evolutionists can't even get the word right, then don't blame me.

However, Scott, I do get what's going on with you right now. It's human nature.

I get that you don't like the argument I"ve put before you, and you hate that science agrees with the claim that the ape-tio-man theory is dead. When one is feeling cornered, it's easier just to go looking for some grounds you can sell to yourself as "moral outrage," so you can feign righteousnes, storm off, and stop thinking about the dawning realization that you need to shift your basic theory, at least somewhat. So the ad hominem becomes very attractive as an option. It seems to offer relief from the necessity of decision and revision.

That's because none of us finds it easy to shift a basic theory. It's like having the ground move under one's feet...very unsettling and concerning.

But from experience I can tell you that I think you will also find that you are not going to fool the little voice inside you that easily. Or if you do, then God help you: because that little voice is actually the sound of the truth.
You ARE trolling here. This is a philosophy forum. Discussion and debate presumes the charity of people's potential misunderstanding or even one's potential mental dispositions where people are being sincere. You do not lack mental capacity and can argue. But when one is proving you wrong logically, you appeal to lies with CLEAR intention whereby one cannot even use logic to argue.

You do a disservice to whatever religious or political views here FOR the sincere Christians or debaters you claim to be onside with. As such, by denying the obvious regardless of ANY proof to the contrary, you ...

(A) ...are not actually a Christian but pretending to be one. Given you are arguing for a fundamenalist Christianity which asserts a belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible, you break the 9th rule: Thou shalt not bear false witness..., for consistent lying about the actual scientific oppinions regarding man's coevolution with the rest of the Earth's living things.
Thus, this proves you are also lying about being of any Judeao-Christian views

(B) ...are not of any Western political view that favors the virtue of free speech because you abuse the charity of the intent to be actually expressing a real opinion of your own. As such, you are disrespecting the virtue of free speech and creating doubt of others unable to determine when or where you are being sincere.

(C) And since you are here anonymously, you have the extra burden to demonstrate honesty and integrity or you must be representing a SPAMMER here not for sincere debate but for some deceptive means by unknown sources.

As such, I am going to propose that you be censured (and potentially censored) by reporting this to the administration here. The evidence is spelled out above and proves you are an actual TROLL by definition. You at least should require being sincere to the facts or you prevent actual means to debate logically.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:46 pm You do a disservice to whatever religious or political views here FOR the sincere Christians or debaters you claim to be onside with. As such, by denying the obvious regardless of ANY proof to the contrary, you ...
You've given me no proof at all of the "Ascent/Descent of Man" theory, which is the case in point here. So I can't "deny" anything: nothing's been provided.
...you are...
There it is! Right on cue. The ad hominem.

Scott, it's entirely irrelevant what the speaker "is." What's relevant is whether or not what he says to you is true. You don't fix the message by shooting the messenger.
And since you are here anonymously,
As is almost everyone, and as everyone should be. We live in a censorious "cancel culture," in which people frequently attack others for no other reason but that they don't like the other person's opinion. It's sort of the ultimate "ad hominem," but taken to a higher level. So anonymity is wise when a person is online: and particularly when they are likely to run into people who are prone to pogroms and witch hunts.
I am going to propose that you be censured (and potentially censored) by reporting this to the administration here.
:D :D :D

Well, now, you go right ahead. What they'll find is that I have done absolutely zero to attack, defame or insult you, and that I have stayed scrupulously on topic. So I'm quite happy for you to do that.

Funny -- I didn't have you begged as one of the folks who would lose perspective and go on a purge. But I guess the argument cuts deep here. If it's too much for you, I'm content to let it go. My point has never been to be unkind to you, and the only issue I have is with the monkey-to-man theory, which, as you already know, is a proven fraud. So I guess we'll see if your appeal for censure goes anywhere...

I suspect not.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

Internet Toll definition:
In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others' perception. This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion or harm to other users online, for no reason at all.[3]

References by the numbers above:
1. "Definition of troll". Collins English Dictionary. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
2."Definition of: trolling". PCMAG.COM. Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc. 2009. Retrieved 24 March 2009.
3. Buckels, E.E.; Trapnell, P.D.; Paulhus, D.L. (2014). "Trolls Just Want to Have Fun: (520722015-006)".

Note that "purposely causing confusion" is indifferent to "Gaslighting"
Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse that’s seen in abusive relationships. It’s the act of manipulating a person by forcing them to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them. A victim of gaslighting can be pushed so far that they question their own sanity.
...
Gaslighting, whether intentional or not, is a form of manipulation. Gaslighting can happen in many types of relationships, including those with bosses, friends, and parents. But one of the most devastating forms of gaslighting is when it occurs in a relationship between a couple.
The present online misinformation campaign is permitting a social psychological form of 'gaslighting' that undermines the virtue of 'free speech' in online forums and social media.

Intentionally asserting what others' authorized positions are in direct and obvious opposition to the facts is also a form of "slander". Also, "copyright" references are not permitted to be maligned by misreprenting formal works' content.
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
stevie
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:43 am

Re: Evolution

Post by stevie »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:12 pm
stevie wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:10 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:44 pm
No, actually.

Logic is not an "artifact of evolution," and certainly not a temporary one. Like the laws of mathematics, logic transcends any such process...be it real or imaginary. Laws of logic would stil be true if there were no world, in fact. Arguably, those laws might even be true in any possible universe...at least none of us can imagine a universe in which they would not be.
Well, be happy with your beliefs that I do not share.
You don't believe in logic? :shock: That's like saying, "Well, I don't believe in mathematics, so for me, 2+2+5."

All it signals is that the speaker has no idea what "mathematics" or "logic" actually is.
As said "be happy with your beliefs that I do not share." That doesn't exclude that a certain type of conventional logic may be useful at times as is the case with mathematics. Every convention (like the types of logic known and mathematics) has evolved because of being able to serve a purpose given a particular period in evolution. So "convention" and "artifact of evolution" may be used interchangably.
Last edited by stevie on Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:03 am
Funny -- I didn't have you begged as one of the folks who would lose perspective and go on a purge. But I guess the argument cuts deep here. If it's too much for you, I'm content to let it go. My point has never been to be unkind to you, and the only issue I have is with the monkey-to-man theory, which, as you already know, is a proven fraud. So I guess we'll see if your appeal for censure goes anywhere...

I suspect not.
Example of the abuse is underlined. Feigning that I "already know" that man has not evolved from the same root as the primemates is SEVERELY ABUSIVE and falsely expresses some agreement that is just the complete opposite of the actual professional Evolutionists' position including my own. Pretending that you are my friend is just playing to (some) gallery as though you are being sincere when you declare that I agree to facts that I don't.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Scott Mayers »

stevie wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:16 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:12 pm
stevie wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:10 pm

Well, be happy with your beliefs that I do not share.
You don't believe in logic? :shock: That's like saying, "Well, I don't believe in mathematics, so for me, 2+2+5."

All it signals is that the speaker has no idea what "mathematics" or "logic" actually is.
As said "be happy with your beliefs that I do not share." That doesn't exclude that a certain type of conventional logic may be useful at times as is the case with mathematics. Every convention (like the types of logic known and mathematics) has evolved because of being able to serve a purpose given a particular period in evolution. So "convention" and "artifact of evolution" may be used interchangably.
See my above post on his tactics. He is a proven troll as I laid out above and I cannot determine whether he's doing so because he is retarded or playing some pretended game of war to create chaos.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Evolution

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:03 am
There it is! Right on cue. The ad hominem.
IC it's entirely irrelevant what the speaker "is." What's relevant is whether or not what he says to you is true. You don't fix the message by shooting the messenger. ( why are you so attached to the ''ad hominem'' cliché? ) :roll:

Why are you so concerned with the 'ad hominem' cliché if you've already worked it out in your mind that it is irrelevant?

Spoiler alert: One simply cannot shoot the messenger, only the message. If you insist on there being a messenger separate from the message then that's what's known to intelligent people as a mind-body dualism. That version, now often called substance dualism, implies that mind and body not only differ in meaning but refer to different kinds of entities. Thus, a mind-body (substance) dualist would oppose any theory that identifies mind with the brain, conceived as a physical mechanism.

So Are there two of you IC ? :lol:

Which one are you, the one who can be shooted at, or the one who can't be shooted at? :?

If you are the one who can't be shooted at, then why are you even concerned about the one who can, it's irrelevant remember? or are you losing your memory again?

You are obviously concerned about who you are perceived by others to be, else you wouldn't be bleating on and on about ''ad hominem's'' like some demented man-child.

Why do you keep tripping over which self you are supposed to be, why not just embrace your real self, that's if you know it as well as you think you do.

I know you are but what am I ?

.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:03 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:46 pm You do a disservice to whatever religious or political views here FOR the sincere Christians or debaters you claim to be onside with. As such, by denying the obvious regardless of ANY proof to the contrary, you ...
You've given me no proof at all of the "Ascent/Descent of Man" theory, which is the case in point here. So I can't "deny" anything: nothing's been provided.
...you are...
There it is! Right on cue. The ad hominem.

Scott, it's entirely irrelevant what the speaker "is." What's relevant is whether or not what he says to you is true. You don't fix the message by shooting the messenger.
And since you are here anonymously,
As is almost everyone, and as everyone should be. We live in a censorious "cancel culture," in which people frequently attack others for no other reason but that they don't like the other person's opinion. It's sort of the ultimate "ad hominem," but taken to a higher level. So anonymity is wise when a person is online: and particularly when they are likely to run into people who are prone to pogroms and witch hunts.
I am going to propose that you be censured (and potentially censored) by reporting this to the administration here.
:D :D :D

Well, now, you go right ahead. What they'll find is that I have done absolutely zero to attack, defame or insult you, and that I have stayed scrupulously on topic.
But the topic is 'Evolution', correct?

If yes, then what does the word 'evolution' mean or refer to, to you?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:03 am So I'm quite happy for you to do that.

Funny -- I didn't have you begged as one of the folks who would lose perspective and go on a purge. But I guess the argument cuts deep here. If it's too much for you, I'm content to let it go.
But you have NOT provided a sound, valid argument. And, they are the ONLY ones that Truly matter.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:03 am My point has never been to be unkind to you, and the only issue I have is with the monkey-to-man theory,
But you just said you "have stayed scrupulously on topic". What does the "monkey-to-man" THEORY have to do with 'evolution' itself.

This would be like suggesting that the 'adam and eve just plonked on earth from some outside source' THEORY has some thing to do with 'creation' itself. The FOOLISHNESS to BELIEVE or think either THEORY has ANY thing to do with evolution or creation speaks for itself.

By the way, did you provide us with what the word 'evolution' actually means or refers to, to you, yet?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:03 am which, as you already know, is a proven fraud.
The claim that the Universe was created and began is ALSO a PROVEN fraud.

But some people continue BELIEVE this FRAUD.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:03 am So I guess we'll see if your appeal for censure goes anywhere...

I suspect not.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Evolution

Post by Dontaskme »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:31 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:03 am
Funny -- I didn't have you begged as one of the folks who would lose perspective and go on a purge. But I guess the argument cuts deep here. If it's too much for you, I'm content to let it go. My point has never been to be unkind to you, and the only issue I have is with the monkey-to-man theory, which, as you already know, is a proven fraud. So I guess we'll see if your appeal for censure goes anywhere...

I suspect not.
Example of the abuse is underlined. Feigning that I "already know" that man has not evolved from the same root as the primemates is SEVERELY ABUSIVE and falsely expresses some agreement that is just the complete opposite of the actual professional Evolutionists' position including my own. Pretending that you are my friend is just playing to (some) gallery as though you are being sincere when you declare that I agree to facts that I don't.
He's a gaslighting narcissist only interested in his own opinions, to the point that only his opinions matter. He doesn't know he is a narcissist until someone else points it out to him. That's the dangerous thing about narcissistic people, they are not even aware of the impact they have on other people with what they say, they are only interested in making other people wrong in their obsession to be right. That's the only way to be right about anything regarding self-awareness, is to make some other self-awareness wrong.

It's like you cannot know you have egg on your face until someone else points it out to you, or you look in the mirror and see for yourself what you were not aware of. A mirror is essential for any self-knowledge, awareness of self, to be recognised at all.

IC doesn't understand that the objective, external world is sourced only from his own direct mirror reflection, he actually believes the reflection of himself in the mirror to be the one who is looking at the mirror. He doesn't quite yet understand reflections cannot see or know anything. In his frustration, everyone else is wrong because in his deluded belief, he's always right. It's a typical narcissistic phenomena playing out here.

I can argue his 'misunderstandings' under the table with him, which are obvious to all with half a brain cell, and he knows it, that's why he always runs away from arguing with me, in favor of calling me out for being a dramatist. It's a subtle form of ad hominem, the irony is hilarious, since he also loves to play the game of wack-a-mole. He can give it, but he can't take it, just like his best friend JP.

.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:54 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:48 pm
That's obvious. It's because there's a plausible alternative. Whenever that's the case, we need evidence on both sides in order to decide the case.
Can you tell me what this 'plausible alternative' is that you also keep denying as religious, please?
There are two alternatives: Evolutionism, and man as a unique creation of God. And whichever one is true is not a matter of "religion," meaning "whatever a person wants to believe," as if believing in God could make it so, or disbelieving could prevent it from being so. It's a matter of truth, of factuality, of reality.

And there's no messing with that. Everybody who tries, loses.
Is this WHY 'you' are losing "immanuel can"?

How many times do you human beings have to be INFORMED that this is NOT a "one or the other" scenario, before you start to even consider this?

LOOK, thee irrefutable FACT IS: Absolutely EVERY thing WAS created, AND IS evolving, as has ALREADY been PROVED.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:54 pm
Actually, it does...unless you're prepared to think that all those people were simply fools. You would need to prove, not merely assert, that their beliefs were irrational before you were warranted in calling the entire previous world crazy.
So, with this reasoning, do you think that children are such 'fools' as to not know by default where they came from
Of course they don't know anything about that. :D Good heaven's man...nothing could be more obvious than that a child has no idea at all how he arrived wherever he arrived. That's why you have to explain birth to them, whenever they get old enough to grasp the concept. So yes, they need to be taught stuff.
Society has used PARTICULAR 'fundamentalist' dictations
You mean like Socialism or CRT? Or were you thinking of something else?
You know that your religion is NOT the only one either, right/
That's irrelevant.

There are an infinite number of possible answers a person could give to the question "how many grains of sand are on the seashore." But only one of them will ever turn out to be the truth. The proliferation of false answers tells us nothing about the relative possibility of a true one.

{I'm going to skip a bit here: I just couldn't figure out any logic in the argument. I literally couldn't tell what point you were trying to make.}

Not at all. I'm arguing from the facts that science now admits are true. The "Ascent of Man" scheme was a fraud. You don't need to be religious at all to know that's true. One only has to be an honest scientist or historian.
...just attempting to gaslight others...
Not at all. If you know the current state of Darwinian theory, you know I'm telling you the truth. The monkey-to-man thing is dead as a doornail. it has been for a long time.

Sorry if that comes as a surprise, but I do agree that Evolutionist publicists should have told you already. It's really their job, if they were honest.
Two problems here: one, and a big one, is that you are now arguing in favour of eugenics, which is Hitler's favourite understanding of Darwin.
NO, I am asserting that eugenics IS scientifically valid
Well, unless you're going to go on to say "scientifically valid" things are bad or untrue, then you are indeed promoting eugenics.
Secondly, interbreeding does not show any evolution. That we can breed spaniels and daschunds and get a wiener-spaniel only shows that there is variety WITHIN a "species." It does not show evolution. Showing evolution would require you to demonstrate a dog turning into a squirrel, or a cat into a fish.

Such a thing is still not demonstrable. You've been too easily impressed.
Evolution all domestic dogs came from ONE class of species: the wolf
That is not Evolutionism. "Wolf" is from the genus "canis" or "the canines," if you prefer...same as dogs. What you need is evidence of a wolf turning into an eagle, or an eagle into a fish.
Genetics follows AT LEAST the Darwinian Selection process.
No, Evolutionism was not founded on genetics, which didn't even exist in Darwin's day.
Airplanes evolved from Cars
No, actually...they didn't.

Darwinism has no view of mechanical or technological products. Thus, the use of the word "evolved" there is, at most, metaphorical, and loosely so. It has nothing to do with Darwin.
Evolutionism is not logic. It's argument-by-analogy-and-assumption. No more.
No, evolution is a logical deductive inference for many facts and from many different fields of science.
No, it's still just a theory.

Check out what Nagel says about what Evolutionary Progressivism is doing to limit science now. Nagel's an Atheist.
No, actually. It's confirmed, historical evidence for the defrauding of the public by Evolutionists. And today's scientists agree with me on that, for they have totally abandoned the ape-to-man paradigm. They would now be embarrassed even to profess the old "Ascent of Man" story. They've now gone for "Common Ancestor" instead.

Don't you believe today's scientists about that? :shock: Are you still going to argue, against them, that ape-to-man theory is true? :shock:
Deception again.
No, it's true. But since you don't want to believe me, just check it out for yourself.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Evolution

Post by uwot »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:35 am...He is a proven troll as I laid out above and I cannot determine whether he's doing so because he is retarded or playing some pretended game of war to create chaos.
Far be it from me to defend the Can man, he is in my view a deeply unpleasant individual, an opinion that, but for god Mr Can shares, after all:
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:54 pm...if I were an Atheist, I would know that no moral constraints remain upon we at all, and would very likely take full advantage of that fact, I think.
How anyone defines a troll is up to them, but I think Mr Can is just one of those bumpkins who confuses a valid argument with a sound one. Many people start with an irrefutable but unprovable premise, in Mr Can's case 'god exists', then create a coherent story based on it. Since the story is what Mr Can wishes to be true, it is all too easy for him to believe it. He lives in a world where twerps like William Lane Craig and lightweights like Alvin Plantinga make the same schoolboy error, but are taken seriously largely because they are saying stuff that some people wish to be true. In that environment, argumentum ad populum props up the piffle Mr Can spouts. Retarded is over cooking it, but it's more that than playing games I think.
Post Reply