tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4609306906421157008..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Survival of the Fittest or Altruistic Suicide?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44688913605490125772010-08-17T00:53:16.731-07:002010-08-17T00:53:16.731-07:00Troy
"You're a nutcase. "
=========...Troy<br /><br />"You're a nutcase. "<br />=====================<br /><br />Interesting, now you want to use the old favourite fall back when you don't like the answers - definitions shells games.<br /><br />Have fun in life TroyEocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24046678333551900222010-08-16T13:16:31.972-07:002010-08-16T13:16:31.972-07:00Eocene:
"Now what would you say the presence...Eocene:<br /><br />"Now what would you say the presence of the scientist/s conducting the experiemnt represents ??? Now there are only two answers.<br /><br />1) blind, pointless , pitiless indifference with undirected forces with no purpose or intent.<br /><br />2) An intelligent Designer"<br /><br />The scientists are obviously the intelligent designers of the experiment. But, equally obviously, that doesn't imply that the kind of chemical reactions that occurred during the experiment can only happen due to the presence of intelligent designers. You must also believe then than when I torch a piece of wood, it implies that forest fires are intelligently designed. <br /><br />You're a nutcase.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61826607567251139472010-08-16T12:43:42.182-07:002010-08-16T12:43:42.182-07:00Troy snarked:
"Eocene is apparently one of t...Troy snarked:<br /><br />"Eocene is apparently one of those idiots who think it's impossible in principle to model anything as a process without "intelligent" intervention, since there's always a human somewhere down the line who created the model, or who programmed a computer to create the model. I wonder if he also adheres to the famous. Sadly, this is the kind of idiocy we're up against here.<br /><br />========================<br /><br />Here you go Troy, this is a sort of hands on real world simulation if you like. (No computers whatsoever) It's about Miller's mythical primitive Earth experiment meant to simulate how the building blocks of life magically came about. I've asked this question to others, but thus far they refuse to answer.<br /><br />In the Miller-Urey experiments of the primitive Earth scenario, water contained certain elements Miller thought represented the prebiotic sea. CO2, Methane, etc represented the primitive atmosphere of the Earth and of course the electric arc represented Thunder Storms or Volcanoes which gave the spark of life. So every componant represented something. Now what would you say the presence of the scientist/s conducting the experiemnt represents ??? Now there are only two answers.<br /><br />1) blind, pointless , pitiless indifference with undirected forces with no purpose or intent.<br /><br />2) An intelligent Designer<br /><br />Now the rules don't allow for goalpost movement or changing definitions to fit the dogma. However, let's say I add a 3rd answer.<br /><br />3) Aliens (Extraterrestrial sources) Panspermia<br /><br />If you select the 3rd answer, then you need to answer yet another question.<br /><br />If life's beginnings come from an extraterrestrial source (aliens, microbes hitching a ride on a comet or meteor, whatever) , then on what valid bases do you have for not including God (who would be an extraterrestrial source)???Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54796894172359785032010-08-16T09:02:36.384-07:002010-08-16T09:02:36.384-07:00Eocene is apparently one of those idiots who think...Eocene is apparently one of those idiots who think it's impossible <i>in principle</i> to model anything as a process without "intelligent" intervention, since there's always a human somewhere down the line who created the model, or who programmed a computer to create the model. I wonder if he also adheres to the famous GilDodgen-philosophy-of-simulation, which holds that in order to properly simulate mutation and natural selection, one has to mutate the hardware on which the simulations run. As if properly simulating an earthquake requires violently shaking the computer. Sadly, this is the kind of idiocy we're up against here.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61083344859185687332010-08-16T07:23:31.145-07:002010-08-16T07:23:31.145-07:00Eocene said...
Thorton mused:
"Scie...<i>Eocene said...<br /><br /> Thorton mused:<br /><br /> "Science is searching for life on planet Vulcan?? This is Eocene's brain on drugs. "<br /> =======================<br /><br /> Thorton<br /><br /> Where in the world do you think Hollywood gets some of it's best material in the first place ??? In the whole history of the world, the best storytelling, fable making and myth creation has come from modern day self appointed geniuses.</i><br /><br />So that's where you get your "science" from. Self appointed geniuses like Dembski, Behe, Ham and Hovind. That explains a lot of your blithering. <br /><br /><i>Thorton faith insisted:<br /><br />"No, they didn't create the algorithms. They wrote a program that duplicated the processes found in nature, but at a much faster rate."<br />=======================<br /><br />Absolutely untrue Thorton. DNA when we discuss the processes of what it is, how it functions, and what it accomplishes is always extremely slowed down for our benefit and understanding.</i><br /><br />Genetic algorithms don't work by duplicating the specific functions of DNA. They use the larger overall feedback process of changes filtered by selection. And they work.<br /><br />You need to take some more drugs. The ones you're on aren't helping you.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75614370267666072010-08-16T00:40:18.335-07:002010-08-16T00:40:18.335-07:00Thorton mused:
"Science is searching for lif...Thorton mused:<br /><br />"Science is searching for life on planet Vulcan?? This is Eocene's brain on drugs. "<br />=======================<br /><br />Thorton<br /><br />Where in the world do you think Hollywood gets some of it's best material in the first place ??? In the whole history of the world, the best storytelling, fable making and myth creation has come from modern day self appointed geniuses. They're the modern day Shamans standing on a rock telling a mystic tale that has all the faithful mesmerized like ignorant gullible tribesman around a campfire and all accepting it as a etched in stone truth based, not on any facts personally experienced by them, but on faith that the witchdoctor (scientist) knows what he's talking about. To make the tale more believable the Shaman (scientist) employs the shaking of rattles (Shaking the Darwinian scriptural texts in their faces), tossing that magic dust into the campfire creating an explosion of fire and smoke (use of bioinformatic animations and catoons that make anything seem possible) which creates a shock and awe effect in the listeners.<br /><br />-----------------------<br /><br />Thorton faith insisted:<br /><br />"No, they didn't create the algorithms. They wrote a program that duplicated the processes found in nature, but at a much faster rate."<br />=======================<br /><br />Absolutely untrue Thorton. DNA when we discuss the processes of what it is, how it functions, and what it accomplishes is always extremely slowed down for our benefit and understanding. In the real world DNA works far more faster than supercomputer speeds, more efficiently and without a single traffic jam more than any ego hailed computer model NASA or any other Science gang could ever hope to replicate and that's assuming they know everything about DNA's incredible functions in the first place (they don't). As stated in other subjects here in Cornelius' blog, DNA also has super sophisticated error correction mechanisms and cell suicide kill switches, something a billion Microsoft error pathes could never hope to accomplish. DNA can also run simulations with ability not to repeat the previous already tried programming which is hardly random mutation in which eventually something LUCKY pops out as if by magic. We've also discovered information on the "Code within a Code" which came out earlier this year. They have ONLY slightly scratched the surface (despite what their egos allow them to believe, i.e. Junk DNA, Vestigial organs, etc) of what information is contained in DNA and how it is guided. Instead we get mere speculations, assertions, assumptions in such discussion room venues such as this one and admittely from it's from both sides.<br /><br />On another note, we don't completely understand every single function of how DNA works including these algorithms. This year numerous articles have shed light on how far more the complexity and sophistication of DNA really has than we ever imagined possible. At best NASA developed a program, using the intelligence of scientists for creating a system of possible scenarios creation, all of which were also rigged for a possitive outcome for which <br />ever applicational goals NASA wanted. From what I saw in one documentary, they only get close to a possible beneficial program or model and even then it only gives the scientists a close idea of what direction to take and the scientist him/herself has to once again use his/her intelligence to clean it up into a workable solution. Seriously, I sat here early this year watched this expert explain how they used it and it's not exactly perfecto as the hype and fanfaire promote it. But it is nevertheless a tool and every tool with a purposed goal driven functon that we know of was invented by an intelligent mind. The only thing NASA did to associate any of this with evolution by simply a mere act of giving it a TITLE "Evolutionary Algorithm" as mandated by their already biased official rules which are not allowed to be broken. *wink*Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77828811734306043512010-08-15T20:16:53.524-07:002010-08-15T20:16:53.524-07:00Eocene said...
Thorton Asserted as FACT:
...<i>Eocene said...<br /><br /> Thorton Asserted as FACT:<br /><br /> "That's funny, since the NASA Evolvable Systems Group does it all the time. They've even flown the resulting designs on space missions. But I'm sure you know more about it than NASA scientists do."<br /> ==============<br /><br /> Get a clue Thorny. They developed their Algorithms program using intelligent design with real human intelligence. </i><br /><br />No, they didn't <b>create</b> the algorithms. They wrote a program that <b>duplicated</b> the processes found in nature, but at a much faster rate. And the results seen are exactly what the natural processes produce - increased complexity, "irreducibly complex" systems, optimization of the fitness in a given environment, symbiotic relationships, predator/prey "arms races" etc. All those things the IDiots claim can't happen by natural processes <b>did</b> happen by natural processes.<br /><br />The ridiculous "men created the computer program, so the process being modeled must be intelligently designed too" is every bit as stupid as saying since men design lawn sprinklers, rainclouds must be intelligently designed.<br /><br /><i>Why do you think they waste vast amounts money on proving the existance of life on the planet Vulcan, when our planet is barely able to survive ???</i><br /><br />Science is searching for life on planet Vulcan?? This is Eocene's brain on drugs.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70195258050592588282010-08-15T09:19:35.247-07:002010-08-15T09:19:35.247-07:00Eocene -
No Ritchie, it's because it's ...Eocene - <br /><br /><b><br />No Ritchie, it's because it's the same tired old blather...<br /></b><br /><br />I do not claim to be making entirely original points. Just ones you don't seem to be able to answer. Ignore whatever points you wish, but your silence speaks volumes.<br /><br /><b><br />Unfortunately the majority of those claiming to be Journeymen are nothing more than apprentices who refused to follow the rules<br /></b><br /><br />Science only advances thanks to new scientists testing new ideas and hypotheses. If everyone just sat down and learnt the current scientific knowledge and did not strike out with their own ideas or research, there would be no scientific progress.<br /><br /><b><br />You don't find much research out there with only but a few scientists working for non-profit foundational research groups.<br /></b><br /><br />??? What? Every month there are scientific journals published chock full of new research and work done 'out there'. If you think there isn't any then that attests only to your own obliviousness.<br /><br /><b><br />Again, most SCIENCE = BIG-BIZ is a power and wealth driven animal and PROFIT$$$ are what drive most science, not any moral obligation they feel towards their fellow man.<br /></b><br /><br />The butcher and baker work for profit, not out of some altruistic desire to provide people with food. Yes, much scientific work is funded rather than performed by volunteers, but so what? You can no more accuse science of being bad because it is not done out of altruism than you can accuse a baker's bread of being bad because it was not made out of altruism.<br /><br /><b><br />most medicine invented by Big-Pharma is nothing more than trying to synthesize already existing elements manufactured by plants/nature,<br /></b><br /><br />Let's imagine strawberries help cure Condition X. That would be because they contain a chemical (let's call it Chemical C) which cures/eleviates Condition X. Now, you cannot just precribe someone with Condition X a course of strawberries - strawberries are not completely identical. For one thing, some are bigger than others, so some will contain more Chemical C than others. Perhaps strawberries contain more Chemical C depending on their ripeness. Also, perhaps some of the other chemicals strawberries contain are poisonous to those suffering with Condition X. The bottom line is that two courses of strawberries will contain rather different amounts of Chemical C. Perhaps the patient will not get enough to cure their condition. Or perhaps they will overdose on it.<br /><br />What is needed for an effective medicine is to identify Chemical C, and to produce it in isolation in controlled doses. Which is exactly what medical drugs are.<br /><br />This is not some scandalous secret - it is exactly how medicines are supposed to work!<br /><br /><b><br />find a fix-it-pill for aids. don't touch on changing behavioral issues because that's judgemental and bigoted.<br /></b><br /><br />Medical doctors are constantly making the public aware of sexually transmitted diseases, and recommend the use of condoms as sexual protection. That is as far as the role of a resposible doctor should go.<br /><br /><b><br />when it comes to my personal healthcare, I opt for what I know in real (not VooDoo) Herbal research.<br /></b><br /><br />How do you discriminate between real and 'VooDoo' herbal research, exactly?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6029752447528174632010-08-15T05:23:25.085-07:002010-08-15T05:23:25.085-07:00Ritchie ASSUMED:
"By which yoy mean you don&...Ritchie ASSUMED:<br /><br />"By which yoy mean you don't have a response to my other points. Not that you will face up to that of course..."<br />======================<br /><br />No Ritchie, it's because it's the same tired old blather that's been hashed and rehashed over and over before here. Nothing New.<br /><br />----------------------<br /><br />Ritchie made EXCUSES:<br /><br />"It is not the hammer's fault if the carpenter does a bad job. Science is a tool, nothing more. I'm not saying the world is a perfect place but it is entirely inappropriate to just blame 'science'."<br />===================<br /><br />Righto Ritchie, science is ONLY a tool. Unfortunately the majority of those claiming to be Journeymen are nothing more than apprentices who refused to follow the rules and go ahead and do things their own way. Kinda like stubborn rebelious children who have to learn things from the school of hard knocks. Unfortunately when science screws up, it's the innocent who suffer and not the clod who blew the whole thing in the first place. <br /><br />---------------------------------<br /><br />Ritchie snarked:<br /><br />"What do you do, I wonder, when you get sick? Nothing? Turn to witchdoctors and prayer? Or do you rely on medicines and all the advantages modern medical science has to offer, while all the while hypocritically pouring scorn on the very procedures which are helping you? "<br />=====================<br /><br />Funny, when I was a kid I was fascinated by the Native American's use of the surrounding available plants for medicinal purposes and I was intrigued by it. From there I took up Botany and scientific discovery of various alkaloids these plants manufacture and their benefits, not only to humans, but did you know also to each other ??? Are you even remotely aware that all different forest ecosystems around the planet are interconnected by a mycorrhizal underground grid which not only trnsports and shares water ( H2O ) from specific plants close to it's source to surrounding neighbours, but also most all species of plants manufacture numerous elements that other plants don't make but need and all plants share these elements with their nieghbours through this same mycorrhizal grid system ??? No of course you didn't know that and neither do most scientists. You don't find much research out there with only but a few scientists working for non-profit foundational research groups.<br /><br />Again, most SCIENCE = BIG-BIZ is a power and wealth driven animal and PROFIT$$$ are what drive most science, not any moral obligation they feel towards their fellow man. Proof is that most medicine invented by Big-Pharma is nothing more than trying to synthesize already existing elements manufactured by plants/nature, but there isn't as much profit in it. Monsanto is trying to change that.<br /><br />Yet another failing of Marxian Science (defintion = lack of any moral obligation or responsibility for their actions) is that they pursue medical research from a "Fix-it-Pill" profit oriented symtom treating perspective as opposed to dealing with the cause. So let's treat the consequences of peoples actions not the cause.<br /><br />Example, find a fix-it-pill for aids. don't touch on changing behavioral issues because that's judgemental and bigoted.<br /><br />Treat with a "Fix-It-Pill" Sclerosis of the liver, lung cancer, emphazema, etc, but don't teach moderation because that's judgemental or even abstinance of substances because that is judgemental, bigoted and ruins people's freedom to pursue a good time.<br /><br />Now as for my personal pursuit of medical help ??? Yes I go to doctors like I did two months ago with a knee operation. But when it comes to my personal healthcare, I opt for what I know in real (not VooDoo) Herbal research. There are many things in the southwestern deserts of the USA which work wonders with cancer erradication as opposed to the usual money making radiation. But then again that's my personal choice based on real personal research and experience.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53128310976631317822010-08-15T04:32:51.816-07:002010-08-15T04:32:51.816-07:00Eocene -
"Well there is only one thing that ...Eocene -<br /><br />"Well there is only one thing that remotely begs to be addressed."<br /><br />By which yoy mean you don't have a response to my other points. Not that you will face up to that of course...<br /><br />"Don't you ever watch the daily news reports..."<br /><br />It is not the hammer's fault if the carpenter does a bad job. Science is a tool, nothing more. I'm not saying the world is a perfect place but it is entirely inappropriate to just blame 'science'.<br /><br />What do you do, I wonder, when you get sick? Nothing? Turn to witchdoctors and prayer? Or do you rely on medicines and all the advantages modern medical science has to offer, while all the while hypocritically pouring scorn on the very procedures which are helping you?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43166505141433574842010-08-15T04:07:31.053-07:002010-08-15T04:07:31.053-07:00Thorton Asserted as FACT:
"That's funny,...Thorton Asserted as FACT:<br /><br />"That's funny, since the NASA Evolvable Systems Group does it all the time. They've even flown the resulting designs on space missions. But I'm sure you know more about it than NASA scientists do."<br />==============<br /><br />Get a clue Thorny. They developed their Algorithms program using intelligent design with real human intelligence. They hijacked the observation of brilliant mechanisms at work and assumed evolution based on a bigoted and biased official mandate. The lable/title attaching ploy is only there because Evolution is an official idealogical mandate which colours and directs what research course they take. Why do you think they waste vast amounts money on proving the existance of life on the planet Vulcan, when our planet is barely able to survive ??? It's called religion and idealogy.<br /><br />This is the same debate and arguement that has been rusting for over a year here on Cornelius' blog comments section. Goal directed nformational systems directing and driving machinary for a purposed outcome is hijacked by philosophers for the purpose of promoting their church and nothing more. The are no evolutionary algorithms for koolaid cupcake religious belief, No!, Genetic algorithms for adaptation to environmental stress and beneficial traits within an ordered kinds/types/species, Yes!<br /><br />Nice try tho.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25082421358495714302010-08-15T03:04:51.660-07:002010-08-15T03:04:51.660-07:00Well there is only one thing that remotely begs to...Well there is only one thing that remotely begs to be addressed.<br /><br />----------------------<br /><br />Ritchie stated:<br /><br />"For one thing, it is not. Science is by FAR the most reliable and accurate tool for understanding the world around us and thus finding answers for the issues that face us."<br />======================<br /><br />Do you ever watch all these daily world news reports about the catastrophic events now taking place for which this world's leadership (Religious, Scientific =Big Biz, & Political) bare the brunt of blame for things going wrong with our planet ???<br /><br />No I didn't think so. You're too busy surfing the Net getting your scientific education and slanted understanding from infidels.org.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53068871956326572122010-08-14T08:18:34.486-07:002010-08-14T08:18:34.486-07:00Eocene -
"Once again it is blind faith which...Eocene -<br /><br />"Once again it is blind faith which is the underlying motive for such hijacking of observed FACTS."<br /><br />No, not blind faith, it is hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Which is how science works. Don't you understand this at all?<br /><br />"Once again, genius, look at our planet and tell me why Science is inept at finding answers to save it."<br /><br />For one thing, it is not. Science is by FAR the most reliable and accurate tool for understanding the world around us and thus finding answers for the issues that face us. What alternative would you suggest? Divine revelation?<br /><br />And for another, you forget your own argument. Is it that the theory of evolution is not science, or that science itself is inept and impotent? You seem to have a great mistrust of the whole world outside your tiny comfort zone of understanding.<br /><br />"All genetic algorithms without exception are examples if Ingelligent Design."<br /><br />Only because we have to write the programmes which the computers use. Beyond that they are left to run themselves. The designs are not tweaked by people. They, in a non-biological sense, progress through evolutionary means which mirrors natural selection very closely.<br /><br />"Guess that's why Abiogenesis is always a Taboo-Voodoo subject."<br /><br />What? No it isn't. It is an exciting and rapidly developing field of scientific study.<br /><br />And your watch analogy fails to represent the process of evolution for many reasons. Do you really need me to point them out?<br /><br />"And you sir are as religous as an evo-jihadist as they come."<br /><br />Lol! What is an evo-jihadist? Are you just making up scary-sounding insults? How cute.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2474468864674060572010-08-14T06:13:07.641-07:002010-08-14T06:13:07.641-07:00How in the world could any scientist create an exp...<i>How in the world could any scientist create an experiment that works from an experimental system that runs off random errors only hoping to get something right ???</i><br /><br />That's funny, since the <a href="http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/" rel="nofollow">NASA Evolvable Systems Group</a> does it all the time. They've even flown the resulting designs on space missions. But I'm sure you know more about it than NASA scientists do.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14074022661534259172010-08-14T06:08:52.075-07:002010-08-14T06:08:52.075-07:00Eocene said...
You actually want a discussion abo...<i>Eocene said...<br /><br />You actually want a discussion about the virtues of companies like Monsanto and Big Pharma again Thorny ????</i><br /><br />Would that be the same Monsanto that invented the magic 'genetic barrier' you claim prevents macroevolution from occurring? The Monsanto 'genetic barrier' you were too cowardly to discuss when questioned on what Monsanto actually did?<br /><br />That Monsanto?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48131808780755687592010-08-14T06:06:29.847-07:002010-08-14T06:06:29.847-07:00Well this is the only part of your diatribe worth ...Well this is the only part of your diatribe worth addressing and just barely.<br /><br />Ritchie ASSUMED:<br /><br />"And as for your claim that evolutionary biology has done absolutely nothing, well that is beyond laughably ignorant. For all practical purposes, modern biology IS evolutionary biology. We owe entire fields of science to evolutionary biology including genetics, and modern medicine. The theory of evolution helps us to understsnd how viruses spread and adapt, how to maximuse crop yields, how to conserve endangered species and much more. It has even led to evolutionary algoriths, which can create designs which trump human engineering in efficiency, can predict stock market fluctuations, etc. And that is to say nothing of our increase in understanding of the history of life on Earth. I appreciate YOUR understanding may not have been much increased. Frankly you are making that rather painfully obvious with your graphic displays of ignorance. But that is just a comment on you, not humanity in general. <br />==========================<br /><br />Once again it is blind faith that is the underlying motive for such hijacking of observed FACTS.<br /><br />Evolutionists insist that the brilliant informational systems and machinery which drive and sustain life though looking as if intelligently designed are never-the-less Evolutionary. <br /><br />Evolutionary philosophy as defined by the good Reverend Richard Dawkins is blind, pointless, undirected, indifferent, certainly not goal oriented, just a bundle of copying error mistakes which just so happen to turn out to be lucky comprimises. NEVER are these brilliant nano machinery systems ever explained how they evolved in the first place. They just did and you're an idiot if you don't blindly accept this without question from the ego-driven Phd that says so.<br /><br />How in the world could any scientist create an experiment that works from an experimental system that runs off random errors only hoping to get something right ??? You cannot hijack brilliant informational systems and the nano-machines they drive and simply attach Evolutionary LABLES to them without showing how such things evolved. So copying designs in nature and replicating these in everyday use doesn't count as a wonder of evolutionary biology. <br /><br />Once again, genius, look at our planet and tell me why Science is inept at finding answers to saving it ??? Tell me why it's main consentration is on money making activity for the Big-Business Pimps that hire the scientific prositutes under the rewards of fame, glitter and glory. Science is a selfish power and wealth driven machine and that is about as close as you're going to get to the true Darwinian/Dawkinian evolutionary principles used in science.<br /><br />And I love the hijacking of the original term "Genetic Algorithm" to the politically correct version of "Evolutionary Algorithms". All Genetic Algorithms, without exception, are examples of Intelligent Design. And the more cleverly designed they are, the more useful the results that they produce, which translates to better understanding on the part of scientists. Only the Evo-Religiously motivated see no more value than mere hijacking of a goal oriented program creating piece of machinery and claiming it as their own without any FACTUAL impirical proof of how it itself evolved in the first place. Guess that's why Abiogenesis is always a Taboo-Voo-Doo subject.<br /><br />If you truthfully want to use true evolutionary biological philosophical ideas to drive a scientific experiment based only on pure unadulterated evolutionary Darwinian beliefs, then jumble around multiple watch parts inside an accordian, pump it and see if a watch turns out.<br /><br />And you sir are as religious as an evo-jihadist as they come.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43960318886399075762010-08-14T05:20:29.404-07:002010-08-14T05:20:29.404-07:00Eocene -
You are right - you didn't mention 9...Eocene -<br /><br />You are right - you didn't mention 9/11. Sorry, I must have scan read your post and got that idea for some reason.<br /><br />Unfortunately for you, that seems to be as far as you get with being right. Atheism leads to no particular political ideology. You yourself seem to lump the crimes of Fascism and Communism - two diametrically opposed political systems - at atheism's door. The reality is, of course, that atheism does not necessarily lead to either. So how you can blame atheism for such crimes beats me. The atrocities committed in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia or Mao's China have far more to do with the fact that they were run by dictatorial regiemes led by tyrants who would slaughter anyone who stood in their way.<br /><br />Has atheism itself ever led one person to kill another? Frankly I can't really picture it somehow. Why would not believing in any gods lead you to want to kill? By contrast, killing infidels and heretics is (or at least was) common currency among the religious. Religion itself has the capacity to sanction murder in a way that atheism just doesn't.<br /><br />It is also a bizarre claim that atheists and evolutionists are religiously motivated. Speaking as someone who is both, I am here because I oppose the spread of scientific illiteracy that such people as Cornelius Hunter take up like a holy cause. It is fundamentally irresponsible to feed our children backward bronze age myth rather than enlightened scientific understanding, which is certainly what the VAST majority of those who oppose evolution would have us do. Does that make me religiously motivated? Surely it makes me motivated by reason.<br /><br />And as for your claim that evolutionary biology has done absolutely nothing, well that is beyond laughably ignorant. For all practical purposes, modern biology IS evolutionary biology. We owe entire fields of science to evolutionary biology including genetics, and modern medicine. The theory of evolution helps us to understsnd how viruses spread and adapt, how to maximuse crop yields, how to conserve endangered species and much more. It has even led to evolutionary algoriths, which can create designs which trump human engineering in efficiency, can predict stock market fluctuations, etc. And that is to say nothing of our increase in understanding of the history of life on Earth. I appreciate YOUR understanding may not have been much increased. Frankly you are making that rather painfully obvious with your graphic displays of ignorance. But that is just a comment on you, not humanity in general.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69443866837374901892010-08-14T05:03:00.442-07:002010-08-14T05:03:00.442-07:00Neal Tedford: John said, "It's a matter o...<i>Neal Tedford: John said, "It's a matter of record that the church opposed Galileo's acceptance of heliocentrism, just as many in the church have historically opposed evolution."<br /><br />"The church" being narrowly defined as the Pope of that time and some Roman Catholic leadership (and also a bunch of Aristotelian scientists). </i><br /><br />If you lived in Galileo's Italy, home of one of the branch offices of the Inquisition (what a show!), Rome was THE church. <br /><br /><i>Let's be clear, Galileo believed in the authority of the Bible and was not irreligious. <br /><br />The truth is that it was not Galileo, with the hard science view, against subborn Bible thumping religionists... It was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science.<br /><br />The church had adopted Aristoles view that dominated for centuries in academia and society in general. It was dominated by Greek philosophy and other things rather than Biblical scripture. Church reformers of the day wanted the church to return to its Biblical foundation. The most committed Christians of the day even opposed "the church" of that era! If anything Galileo didn't agree with how they used a couple scriptures to try to support Aristoles science. Galileo even argued his point using the book of Job!</i><br /><br />It doesn't matter that Galileo was pious, or that the Church got their wisdom from Aristotle or St. Peter. The Church had no business presenting itself as an authority on the natural world. Galileo did not adopt a heliocentric view based on the book of Job, he did so based on the writings of Copernicus, his observations (including Galilean moons orbiting Jupiter) and inferences based on those observations. You can't use science as defense against the Church, you would have to use scripture. Galileo argued that the Bible was useful primarily as a spiritual guide to heaven rather than as a science text.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08653724994545850549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70736812073149977112010-08-14T04:41:10.658-07:002010-08-14T04:41:10.658-07:00Neal Tedford -
Lol! Sometimes it is perfectly rea...Neal Tedford -<br /><br />Lol! Sometimes it is perfectly reasonable to listen to authorities!<br /><br />When 99.999% of scientific community is saying one thing, while the other 0.001%, backed up by scores of completely scientifically illiterate masses, is sayi.g something else, then no, the competeing opinions do not carry equal weight.<br /><br />I could claim that there is no such thing as gravity and that we are tied to the earth by invisible pixies pushing us down. And when presented with the vast amount of evidence for gravity and the entire scientific community arguing against me, I could wave my hand and scoff 'argument from authority'! That wouldn't make my opinion as valid as theirs.<br /><br />Bottom line - if you're disagreeing with the experts, then that's usually a hint that you're the one on the wrong track.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25613111613551785082010-08-14T01:11:07.476-07:002010-08-14T01:11:07.476-07:00THORTON blurted out:
"Yeah, our use of evolu...THORTON blurted out:<br /><br />"Yeah, our use of evolutionary biology in fields like medicine and agriculture sure has wrecked our lives. Not like the "good old days" of the pre-Darwin 18th century when the average life expectancy was less than 40 years, child mortality was 40%, and you could get the church to burn your neighbor at the stake just by accusing her of being a witch. I'm sure you IDiots would love to go back there."<br />=========================<br /><br />Wow, this is some of your most humorous publishings. Agriculture and Medicine have benefitted from Evolutionary Biology ??? LOL<br /><br />You actually want a discussion about the virtues of companies like Monsanto and Big Pharma again Thorny ???? Have you meditated and observed the screwed up condition of our physical planet lately Thorton ??? Have you seen all the present International News items extolling the virtues of mankind's inept custodialship of our planet's natural resources ??? <br /><br />So-Called Evolutionary biology has done absolutely nothing. All that's been done are nothing more than observations of brilliantly put together natural mechanisms and how the goal driven machinery works to recycle and maintain various living ecosystems. These mechanisms have merely been hijacked by attaching evolutionary words/terms/lables on them without proof that they actually are. That is exactly what Cornelius's discussions are without fail always about. <br /><br />I can relate from first hand experience from working with the U.S. forest Service that respecting the natural world couldn't be further from the truth because of politics and their been a making money arm for the USA government. That's not to say there aren't those within it who don't care, there are. But they are ONLY a handful of conscientious individuals anymore.<br /><br />Nice try at pretending to have moral high groundEocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84221205676994921932010-08-14T00:55:41.216-07:002010-08-14T00:55:41.216-07:00Ritchie said: -
"How peculiar that you appar...Ritchie said: -<br /><br />"How peculiar that you apparently blame 9/11 on the theory of evolution when the blame quite clearly lies with those whose believe in an almighty being whose will trumps any human law or morality."<br />======================<br /><br />How funny you bring up an event I never touched on, but since you did, then let's discuss community responsibility more fully. Yes 9/11 had vicious hideous religious motivation, but there is a whole pattern of religious history with regards mankind Churches of going to bed with politicians and supporting whatever Nationist cause they create. Let's stick with the majority of Christendom. From the very beginning starting with the Catholic Church and their Holy Roman Empire they were more interested in power, wealth, social prestige, etc. The Bible was the least of their concerns. Had they obeyed it, they would never have gotten involved in politics in the first place. They would have taken to heart their ever so cherished Lord and Savior Jesus Christ's command to keep separate from the world, but that was the very last thing they did.<br /><br />Protestants came along and separated themselves for mostly political reasons, though it always was under the guise of religious purity, but again nothing could have been further from the truth since they held dearly the same spiritual contaminating pagan religious customs/doctrines the Catholics incorporated into their version of a power house of religious Empire which dominated everything.<br /><br />Now let's look at your side. It's hardly something "pure as the driven snow" now is it ??? The history of Atheistic use of Darwinian principles and beliefs (Even Richard Dawkins refuses to live in a country dominated by these) have caused the murder of countless millions in the 20th century. Nazism/Facism/Communism with it's atheistic iron fisted grip and demand of worship of the state has not faired any better than the other church going ones. Like any Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Mormon, etc, an atheist will ALSO KILL another atheist if the country under which he resides and has pride in demands it. With Nazi Germany attention is always aimed at German hatred and murder of the Jews, but people forget that in WWI, German Jews fought proudly along side other Germans for their beloved Fatherland and they had no problem killing other Jews who weren't German. WWII would have been the same had not the Nazi Party idealogy singled them out. So it goes with your average atheist. <br /><br />You have no moral high ground to stand on there Ritchie. Ever see the Beatles movie, "Yellow submarine" ??? Remember that flying glove ??? Everywhere it flew and went it pointed it's index finger targeting everything in it's path. But notice it always had 3 fingers continually pointing backwards ??? Again, your side is EQUALLY as DIRTY as the Church sides.<br />=========================================<br /><br />Ritchie said:<br /><br />"Claim what you like about the theory of evolution, but it is supported by the vast majority of scientists. ID is by far the minority view, and it consists almost exclusively of the religiously motivated."<br />==========================<br /><br />Ritchie, Evolutionists and many Atheists are also religious motivated, otherwise you and the local gang wouldn't be here prosyletizing trying to save everyone from the false belief.<br /><br />*wink*Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72673204919632693822010-08-13T20:44:26.666-07:002010-08-13T20:44:26.666-07:00Neal Tedford said...
More arguments from auth...<i>Neal Tedford said...<br /><br /> More arguments from authority </i><br /><br />Not authority Tedford, <b>authorities</b> - the 99.9+ % of science professionals who have spent their whole careers studying the evolutionary sciences and who can and do back up their conclusions with positive empirical evidence.<br /><br />That sure trumps your blustering empty arguments from woeful ignorance and religious fundamentalism.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4853816871574908442010-08-13T20:29:52.806-07:002010-08-13T20:29:52.806-07:00More arguments from authorityMore arguments from authorityAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31536134012042113642010-08-13T17:09:23.921-07:002010-08-13T17:09:23.921-07:00Neal tedford -
Claim what you like about the theo...Neal tedford -<br /><br />Claim what you like about the theory of evolution, but it is supported by the vast majority of scientists. ID is by far the minority view, and it consists almost exclusively of the religiously motivated.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35958227669435127152010-08-13T17:03:53.032-07:002010-08-13T17:03:53.032-07:00Eocene -
How peculiar that you apparently blame 9...Eocene -<br /><br />How peculiar that you apparently blame 9/11 on the theory of evolution when the blame quite clearly lies with those whose believe in an almighty being whose will trumps any human law or morality.<br /><br />9/11 was a religiously motivated event.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.com