The lunacy of the Darwinists

You appear incapable of flaming and abiding by the house rules....

Member Conduct Rules
1) As an interactive computer service, we are provided immunity by the United States Congress in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 from being held responsible for material published to our site by users of our services. As a user of this site, you will be held solely responsible for the content of any message that you post. If you post libelous, defamatory, slanderous, or otherwise untruthful remarks about a person or company, you could be putting yourself in legal jeopardy.
2) By posting information in any chat room, message board, ratings system or other interactive service that may be available to you through this site, you are not to upload, post, or otherwise distribute or facilitate distribution of any content -- including text, communications, software, images, sounds, data, or other information -- that:
• contains excessive profanity or vulgar language;
• is insulting or argumentitive without merit, unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of another's privacy, tortious, contains explicit or graphic descriptions or accounts of sexual acts (including but not limited to sexual language of a violent or threatening nature directed at another individual or group of individuals), uses vulgar language in the creation of a user name or otherwise violates Elite Trader's rules or policies or these Rules of User Conduct;


Quote from Ricter:

That was a mistake that began in the previous thread. Environmental stress does not cause an adaptative mutation, that's the hypothesis of acquired characteristics, which has been disproven. No, the mutations occur randomly still, and the ones that work tend to get passed on.

And Z, who cares how the article sounds? Informed people know that it is science, therefore it is still hypothesis. And of course it's subject to change, new evidence has come in.

What if someone condemned you for having severe mental retardation (a hypothesis), and then new evidence (highly unlikely, I'll admit) came to light demonstrating that you were not mentally retarded? You'd want the hypothesis revised or thrown out, wouldn't ya?
More...
 
So? Cry more. As soon as you begin to lose your "argument" in this thread, you'll start with the ad hominems as well. We've seen you in action, remember?

Anyway, I guess you missed the "what if" part, huh? How'd you do that?

Now answer the question: in light of new evidence concerning yourself, you'd want previous views revised, would you not?

Or do you consider that question stupid too? ROTFLMAO.
 
I would think you might know by now, I have zero interest in responding to what I think are stupid questions from you....

The most recent question falls right into the same category as the other questions I think are stupid.

Does the fact that I think these questions of yours are stupid constitute a conclusion by me that you are in fact stupid?

Not necessarily.

As far a "losing" an argument, well you can get in line with kent who has appointed himself the judge of such matters....



Quote from Ricter:

So? Cry more. As soon as you begin to lose your "argument" in this thread, you'll start with the ad hominems as well. We've seen you in action, remember?

Anyway, I guess you missed the "what if" part, huh? How'd you do that?

Now answer the question: in light of new evidence concerning yourself, you'd want previous views revised, would you not?

Or do you consider that question stupid too? ROTFLMAO.
More...
 
Quote from drmarkan:

There is no reason for a creationist to have to disprove this. The basis of creationism is that instead of the big bang just happening by chance, God set the wheels in motion for evolution to occur.
More...

And that makes it religious dogma not part of science. Scientific theories all have the element of disprovability or they are not science.

Also, Darwinism last I read about it, is agnostic regarding how life first began. Rather it is the theory of how life developed after the first life formed however that may have happened.

DS
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I would think you might know by now, I have zero interest in responding to what I think are stupid questions from you....

The most recent question falls right into the same category as the other questions I think are stupid.

Does the fact that I think these questions of yours are stupid constitute a conclusion by me that you are in fact stupid?

Not necessarily.

As far a "losing" an argument, well you can get in line with kent who has appointed himself the judge of such matters....
More...

Posting a thread entitled "The lunacy of the Darwinists," seems pretty "insulting and argumentative," "without merit," to me. Not even the Roman Catholic Church regards evolutionary theory as "lunacy," so it would seem that your position on the subject is rather fringe.

Maybe you ought to read the site rules that you post so as to shame others into compliance just a little more carefully, and then see if you can't apply them to your own conduct.
 
Are you suggesting that there is no lunacy among the Darwinists?

I think you would be hard pressed to find the Catholic Church supporting of Darwinism as representative of the actuality of the origin of man, as commonly understood that man evolved by random ignorant chance from lower species without any input or design of God, or need I remind you of what Darwinism essentially is?

<img src=http://members.cox.net/stockdevil/APE-MAN.gif.jpg>

Quote from kjkent1:

Posting a thread entitled "The lunacy of the Darwinists," seems pretty "insulting and argumentative," "without merit," to me. Not even the Roman Catholic Church regards evolutionary theory as "lunacy," so it would seem that your position on the subject is rather fringe.

Maybe you ought to read the site rules that you post so as to shame others into compliance just a little more carefully, and then see if you can't apply them to your own conduct.
More...
 
An alternative view...some food for thought...

Authoritive sources say that species are evolving themselves. This is a very cosmic view that some people can't contain in their brains. Coincidentally, I subscribe to the view that everything in the dense, "physical" environment is here by choice of thinking beings. Archetypes (species) are invented, used, and changed by consensus intent, by the beings most closely associated with the archetypes invention, upkeep, use, and purpose . The work of creation is not finished as even the thinking beings involved with dense evolution are evolving themselves...and as they evolve, so does the whole...and the source of all. This is a view of a highly delegated set of intelligent beings, driven by curiosity and an appetite for experiences in order to learn and grow. Imagine an artist who paints a picture, and then enters the picture to live and experience what he has created. This is the basic viewpoint (theory) that can carry us foreward toward solutions rather than this endless back and forth about God (individual dictator) or non-God randomness. We are the creators of this consensus environment...unlimited beings having limited experiences...if only for the sake of having experiences. But most likely with a worthy purpose oriented toward the growth of the entire. As such, we are all gods and goddesses, experiencing what it's like to be so stupid as not to even remember who or what we are anymore.

The best representative of this point of view I have found to be Seth as channeled by Jane Roberts. Jem will be glad to know that Seth was once a Pope in the second century or so, albeit "not a very good one". Back in the 70's, Seth was already talking about stem cells....cells that have the ability to become anything. Thought and intent drives the cells to become what they become. So to me, Seth is an authoritive source, and good enough for me. The main thing is to begin with a decent theory so that progress can be made. Currently, in this thread and in the mainstream, there are no decent, all encompassing theories.


JohnnyK
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Are you suggesting that there is no lunacy among the Darwinists?

I think you would be hard pressed to find the Catholic Church supporting of Darwinism as representative of the actuality of the origin of man, as commonly understood that man evolved by random ignorant chance from lower species without any input or design of God, or need I remind you of what Darwinism essentially is?
More...

Your comments imply, not that some Darwinists are lunatics, but rather that Darwinists, as a group are lunatic. Don't try to change your definition to make your premise seem rational.

In my view, you have suggested that others are insulting and argumentative without merit, and that this is a violation of ET's Rules of Conduct, within the context of a thread which you opened under an unmeritorious, insulting and argumentative title.

I find your position highly hypocritical, and this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory or Darwinism. It's just a comment about your debating methods.
 
You are of course entitled to your take and spin....

Since this article was not about all Darwinists but rather about a specific situation that spoke of some Darwinists, not all Darwinists, I believe your conclusions about my position are invalid. Now if all Darwinists act like lunatics, then of course it would be logical to state that "The lunacy of the Darwinists" applies globally to all Darwinists...but that was not what this article was about, nor were my comments about all Darwinists.

I am sure there are reasonable Darwinists, just as there are reasonable theists, who both understand quite clearly the difference between their respective practices of faith and the practice of dogmatically indoctrinating people into scientific belief systems or non scientific belief systems...and they both understand that while they may personally believe in something, that their personal beliefs are in no way to be presented as anything more than that. That some Darwinists act like lunatics, seems to be human nature, just as some theists act like lunatics, some right wingers act like lunatics, and some left wingers display lunacy....

That's just my opinion though...

Oh, and I would give my opinions of your debating tactics, but I am trying to keep this civil, and G rated, and within the guidelines of the mods.

You can now of course self promote yourself once again to the level of judge and claim some shallow empty victory....if it makes you happy....


Quote from kjkent1:

Your comments imply, not that some Darwinists are lunatics, but rather that Darwinists, as a group are lunatic. Don't try to change your definition to make your premise seem rational.

In my view, you have suggested that others are insulting and argumentative without merit, and that this is a violation of ET's Rules of Conduct, within the context of a thread which you opened under an unmeritorious, insulting and argumentative title.

I find your position highly hypocritical, and this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory or Darwinism. It's just a comment about your debating methods -- which I find highly disingenuous.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top