Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!

[LogGrad98]

But what if I love my bicycle?

 

[LogGrad98]

Ridiculous illustration of what we actually mean by "decency." Your higher learning has produced another pseudo-intellectual! And by the way, there were more than just a few "decent" people who knowingly housed Jewish people from the state.

Everything we say depends on definitions. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[babe]

I like how some folks want to act like the world is falling apart. The world is as good now as it has ever been.

In fact, ever since the U.S. came into existence as a secular state the world has been progressing at a break-neck pace.

Long live secularism and the peace and harmony it fosters.

ya gotta be joshing here. . . .

secularism, like any other philosophical methodology, has nothing to do with "peace", or "harmony", which are affective conditions of static societies.

If people are not seeking something better, or are indolent, lazy, indifferent, and in any other aspect unwilling to strive for a better life, we will have "peace" and "harmony".

Anybody with a new invention, a new idea, or a better way to do something, who actually tries to implement it, or present it to others, is going to disturb the status quo, bring in contention, unrest, and political ferment.

 

[One Brow]

...who are these "young-earth creationists" you speak of? Do they believe that the creative "days" described in Genesis chapter 1 are 24 hours long? (Not true!) Do they believe that the first human couple were Adam and Eve? (This is absolutely true!) Who are these "guys?"

Pick any one you want, including the WTBTS. They all acknowledge, for example, that antibiotic resistance is a real issue and the result of evolution.

The "method" we subscribe to is similar to the expression made by biologist and Harvard professor Louis Agassiz who wrote that the living world shows “premeditation, wisdom, greatness” and that a major purpose of natural history is to analyze “the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe.”

None of that is science.

...exactly WHAT methods do you subscribe to in the evolutionary "process?"

The usual physical/chemical/biological reactions are all that is needed.

Is "evolution" really scientific? The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Yes.

....I really wanted to sink my teeth into this one....but it seems you did it for me! So if humans cannot produce there own vitamin C....but can get it from a large variety of fruits and vegetables easily assessable on our planet earth, doesn't that argue for intelligent design?

The reason we can not ingest Vitamin C is that our gene for Vitamin C is broken. It's broken in the exact same way for every species of primate (all lemurs, all monkeys, all apes). By contrast, it's broken in a completely different way for guinea pigs. Why would your intelligent designer create this identical break in every primate, and a different one in guinea pugs?

 

[Gameface]

ya gotta be joshing here. . . .

secularism, like any other philosophical methodology, has nothing to do with "peace", or "harmony", which are affective conditions of static societies.

If people are not seeking something better, or are indolent, lazy, indifferent, and in any other aspect unwilling to strive for a better life, we will have "peace" and "harmony".

Anybody with a new invention, a new idea, or a better way to do something, who actually tries to implement it, or present it to others, is going to disturb the status quo, bring in contention, unrest, and political ferment.

I might have been acting like a smart ***, but I wasn't joking.

I said secularism fosters peach and harmony. I think sectarian conflict and/or sectarian regimes are especially horrific.

Peace does not exclude progress. Not at all.

Harmony (working together in mutually beneficial ways) absolutely does not imply stagnation.

So, my question is, are you joking here?

 

[carolinajazz]

Everything we say depends on definitions. What the hell are you talking about?

...well, what YOU seem to be talking about is there is no such thing as "absolute truth!" You must be an advocate of "relativism” and not surprising since your a product of "higher learning!"

Allan Bloom wrote in his book The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Bloom found that if he challenged his students’ conviction on this matter, they would react with astonishment, “as though he were calling into question*2 + 2 =*4.”

...do you believe that 2+2 = 4? You're telling me/us that "decency" is relative....when in fact, it's not!!!

In his book The Art of Thinking, Professor V.*R.*Ruggiero expresses his surprise that even intelligent people sometimes say that truth is relative. He reasons: “If everyone makes his own truth, then no person’s idea can be better than another's. All must be equal. And if all ideas are equal, what is the point in researching any subject? Why dig in the ground for answers to archeological questions? Why probe the causes of tension in the Middle East? Why search for a cancer cure? Why explore the galaxy? These activities make sense only if some answers are better than others, if truth is something separate from, and unaffected by, individual perspectives.”

 

[LogGrad98]

...well, what YOU seem to be talking about is there is no such thing as "absolute truth!" You must be an advocate of "relativism” and not surprising since your a product of "higher learning!"

Allan Bloom wrote in his book The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Bloom found that if he challenged his students’ conviction on this matter, they would react with astonishment, “as though he were calling into question*2 + 2 =*4.”

...do you believe that 2+2 = 4? You're telling me/us that "decency" is relative....when in fact, it's not!!!

In his book The Art of Thinking, Professor V.*R.*Ruggiero expresses his surprise that even intelligent people sometimes say that truth is relative. He reasons: “If everyone makes his own truth, then no person’s idea can be better than another's. All must be equal. And if all ideas are equal, what is the point in researching any subject? Why dig in the ground for answers to archeological questions? Why probe the causes of tension in the Middle East? Why search for a cancer cure? Why explore the galaxy? These activities make sense only if some answers are better than others, if truth is something separate from, and unaffected by, individual perspectives.”

The funny thing is CJ that, if you would pay attention, mostly I support your position in these debates, at least I provide a counterpoint on that side to your often insane point. In this case I made the comment entirely tongue in cheek. It was an OBVIOUS play on the time-worn yet effective "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". You were the only one on the board who didn't catch that and took it literally and then extrapolated from that single comment an entire personal life philosophy for me, counter to actual comments I have made many times on this board openly, and in direct conflict with my attempts to temper these conversations with some humor and at the same time give some minor level of support to the creationist standpoint. Dude, flat out, you are insane or brain-washed or both.

First rule of successful conversation: listen to understand, not simply to respond.

 

[silesian]

Living in caves

....but this statement of fact is true: " Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4)

Were caves intelligently designed?

 

[LogGrad98]

Were caves intelligently designed?

 

[carolinajazz]

The funny thing is CJ that, if you would pay attention, mostly I support your position in these debates, at least I provide a counterpoint on that side to your often insane point. In this case I made the comment entirely tongue in cheek. It was an OBVIOUS play on the time-worn yet effective "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". You were the only one on the board who didn't catch that and took it literally and then extrapolated from that single comment an entire personal life philosophy for me, counter to actual comments I have made many times on this board openly, and in direct conflict with my attempts to temper these conversations with some humor and at the same time give some minor level of support to the creationist standpoint.

....well, then, I hope you accept my apology! However, it wasn't so "obvious" to me that your were not stating your firm position on the definition of "decency".....which is why I took the offensive on this issue. Again, my deepest apologies!

 

[LogGrad98]

It's all good. But at the same time different groups do have different definitions for subjects like that. Differences in That kind of basic thought on human nature habe spurred wars and mistreatment for centuries.

 

[PearlWatson]

I said secularism fosters peach and harmony.

I love peaches.

 

[PearlWatson]

Sure.
Not sure why you're doing this, seeing as this in no way refutes that you asked me to inquire my professor on a particular question.
Well, I am sure why you're doing this-- trying to shift attention away from your idiocy. I get it.
Pearl walks in with all the confidence of a 5 year old going to kindergarten for the first time, but then forgets the basic tenets of reading comprehension.
Tell me, PearlSapa: where did I ever say that I would be showing my professor these posts in order to reply to you? Even if I was serious with these posts, I would simply let him read through some of the posts at the absolute most.
I didn't say anything of the sort, because I had no desire to involve him in these discussions. He has better things to do than carry conversations with you. Why should he stoop down to your intellect (or lack thereof)?
Special caveat: I said I would show this conversation to an evolutionary biology-- but when you implored me to ask a professor about my post regarding the significance of the "PhD", I asked my research supervisor.
He doesn't have a PhD in Evo-Bio. I work in a prostate cancer research lab. He has a PhD in Cell Biology.
So, as always, you lose.

It is so adorable every time you declare yourself winner of our retarded internet exchanges.
It doesn't matter which of your real or imagined Ph.D. bffs you assure us agrees with you 100% to discount their own degree; I was just using your silly pronouncement that you were going to read through this thread with your "evolutionary biology" professor as an opportunity to mock "evolutionary biology."

 

[Deleted member 848]

It is so adorable every time you declare yourself winner of our retarded internet exchanges.

I'm beginning to feel bad for you.

It doesn't matter which of your real or imagined Ph.D. bffs you assure us agrees with you 100% to discount their own degree

Discount their own degree according to you. I'm sure no one really cares what you have to say pertaining the intricacies of academia, for a plethora of reasons.

I was just using your silly pronouncement that you were going to read through this thread with your "evolutionary biology" professor as an opportunity to mock "evolutionary biology."

No, you're trying to distract attention away from the fact that you're getting clowned in this thread.






Swing and miss. Par for the course I'm afraid.