The lunacy of the Darwinists

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Belief in God, and belief in a Godless evolution are not compatible.

What nonsense. You are saying this simply because you can't face the possibility that it's not true. There are plenty of Christians who are fine scientists, including evolutionary theorists. They are real thinkers, not like certain posters on this thread who are not thinkers but dogmatists whose main aim is not the pursuit of the truth but the evasion and denial of information which would shatter their carefully constructed fantasies.

Here are some quotes to illustrate what I am talking about. Consider this convenient bit of rubbish

quote from Z10
Design theory doesn't require specifics in the same way as logical deduction, as it is the result of a logical induction process. The specifics themselves and their behavior are the facts

There are several of these littered among Z's ad hominem attacks. I will post as many as I have time for.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I am yelling that everyone's arguments are "stupid"....???

Take some midol, and when you calm down try again.

Would you like me to provide a link to every post in your last evolution thread where you called someone's argument 'stupid' and said that for that reason, you wouldn't respond to it?

Here are a few from your various threads. When you encounter a question you can't deal with, you start yelling that everyone is stupid. Right? Or am I wrong?

I have acknowledged that it is a question...though quite stupid in my estimation, and as such I see no reason to answer this stupid question.....Not answering a stupid question is not evasion in my "book."

Oh, I do very much object to your question, on the grounds of stupidity.....

My momma taught me that I didn't have to answer stupid questions.....no matter how demanding the inquisitor was....

I think your question sucked, so why should I answer it? p.s. Oh, and in a court of law, when an attorney objects to a question so that his client need not answer the unnecessary and/or irrelevant/illegal question, it is not an act of evasion, it is an act of maintaining jurisprudence.....

You have your story, a stupid one

I don't agree with your conclusion of having failed to address any qualified challenges. I believe I have addressed any qualified challenges. The insipid challenges are not something I will likely respond to.

Tell me frankly.. do you not hate the fact that all this stuff is in the permanent record? Isn't that just a bitch for you?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Sorry about your mental situation, clearly reading my posts seems to exacerbate it.

Quote from traderNik:

Would you like me to provide a link to every post in your last evolution thread where you called someone's argument 'stupid' and said that for that reason, you wouldn't respond to it?

Here are a few from your various threads. When you encounter a question you can't deal with, you start yelling that everyone is stupid. Right? Or am I wrong?



Tell me frankly.. do you not hate the fact that all this stuff is in the permanent record? Isn't that just a bitch for you?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Sorry about your mental situation, clearly reading my posts seems to exacerbate it.

lol - this thread has fallen into the same pattern as the last one

Z asserts

Other posters challenge by quoting Z directly

Z accuses challengers of mental instability.

or.....

Z engages in ad hominem attack

Others challenge him by quoting these attacks directly

Z tries to change the subject

Must be peaceful and calm in your world Z. Too bad dogmatists like you are responsible for so much grief and sorrow in the world.

Thread closed.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Now you think you are a moderator with the ability to close a thread.

Fascinating....

Quote from traderNik:

lol - this thread has fallen into the same pattern as the last one

Z asserts

Other posters challenge by quoting Z directly

Z accuses challengers of mental instability.

Must be peaceful and calm in your world Z. Too bad dogmatists like you are responsible for so much grief and sorrow in the world.

Thread closed.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Now you think you are a moderator with the ability to close a thread.

Fascinating....

lol...no Z, that was sarcasm.

Here are the quotes in which you tell us that you will not be explaining the contradictions in your positon because you think the questions are 'stupid'

I wanted to repost this just in case anyone missed it the first time.

Here is Z responding to apparent contradictions in his posts on the other evolution thread. I found a few more, which I have included

I have acknowledged that it is a question...though quite stupid in my estimation, and as such I see no reason to answer this stupid question.....Not answering a stupid question is not evasion in my "book."

Oh, I do very much object to your question, on the grounds of stupidity.....

My momma taught me that I didn't have to answer stupid questions.....no matter how demanding the inquisitor was....

I think your question sucked, so why should I answer it? p.s. Oh, and in a court of law, when an attorney objects to a question so that his client need not answer the unnecessary and/or irrelevant/illegal question, it is not an act of evasion, it is an act of maintaining jurisprudence.....

You have your story, a stupid one

I don't agree with your conclusion of having failed to address any qualified challenges. I believe I have addressed any qualified challenges. The insipid challenges are not something I will likely respond to.

It is clear that you are very stupid, and I don't have to answer such stupid questions.

Another stupid question

These can all be found in the other thread

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So nice to see someone so dedicated to their mission, normally you don't find that type of zealousness....

Quote from traderNik:

lol...no Z, that was sarcasm.

Here are the quotes in which you tell us that you will not be explaining the contradictions in your positon because you think the questions are 'stupid'

I wanted to repost this just in case anyone missed it the first time.

Here is Z responding to apparent contradictions in his posts on the other evolution thread. I found a few more, which I have included



These can all be found in the other thread

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I am not saying God did or did not set nature in motion (evolution is of course a natural process). I believe nature as we know it is a product of God, but that is my opinion and faith only.

Randomness? God could have programmed randomness, but such perceived randomness would then be part of God's plan and God's creation, a consequence of God's programming.

Some people think God takes Himself out of the picture, but where does God, God who is omnipresent, then go? Outside of His own universe? God is everywhere, there is no outside or inside for God.

(Perceived randomness is of course a crucial factor, as what is perceived as random by one person, can be seen as a pattern by another. We really don't know if "mutations" are random or not, we can only say we don't see a pattern, but we cannot say a pattern or programming didn't create these "mutations.")

Evolution as a process is not known to be a result of God's handiwork, or some non God accidental unplanned unprogrammed phenomena.

So it should be taught that we have no idea why, when we don't really know why, we shouldn't say why.

In other words, teach what we know, not what is speculative, and beyond a test of proof.

I don't insist at all what God should do, or what His plan is or was, I simply believe we do not live in a Godless universe. Others may believe we do live in a Godless universe.

However, neither belief system has any business in a science class, nor does a theory that man evolved from lower species.

The facts of evolutionary process of biological organisms can be observed, and understood without any speculative theory used to indoctrinate into a particular "ism."

Science should be free of "isms" and that includes Darwinism.

The only person who has used the term "Darwinism" in this thread is you. It isn't used in the article that you post, and I don't use that term. You speak of Darwinism as if it were an acknowledged sect.

But, let's assume that it is for a moment. Apparently you define Darwinists as those who believe in a godless universe where everything happens by random chance.

Now, let's assume that there is another sect called "Scientists." They observe that change in the universe appears as the result of randomly distributed events.

And, let's further assume that there is a third sect called "Theists" who believe that in a God directed universe, where everything is programmed in advance.

So, the difference is that the Darwinists infer that evolutionary change is the product of random chance, Scientists merely describe that evolutionary change occurs as a randomly distributed event, and Theists believe that the evolutionary change is programmed.

Sounds great to me...except for one tiny little detail: that's not what most theists believe now is it?

Most theists generally believe that evolutionary change doesn't occur at all, and that biological change is the product of instantaneous "materialization from pure potentiality."

That really is the crux of the issue. The issue is not about whether or not randomness in the universe is real or only perceived. The issue is that a very large group of religious fundamentalists reject all scientific observation and inference in favor of a blind adherence to the belief that God routinely enters this universe and makes changes that could not occur, but for the introduction of magical/miraculous/supernatural force.

Your last post here suggests that you have modified your position, that you now accept evolutionary change as de jure, rather than "lunacy," and that your only disagreement is over the force behind the change, rather than the change itself.

Is that true? If it is, then we no longer have anything to argue about.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

So nice to see someone so dedicated to their mission, normally you don't find that type of zealousness....

yes, it is the mission of free thinkers everywhere to expose bigotry and hatred and dogmatism wherever we find it, and to shout down those who would have our children turned into chanting zombies who aren't capable of thinking for themselves.

Have a great day

PS - discrediting you is as easy as spending 10 minutes a week cutting and pasting from you rants. You seem to no longer be interested in even the pretense of objectivity. I am happy to do it.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from kjkent1:

The only person who has used the term "Darwinism" in this thread is you. It isn't used in the article that you post, and I don't use that term. You speak of Darwinism as if it were an acknowledged sect.

Are you having a problem with the term Darwinism?

From Webster's Dictionary:

Dar"win*ism (?), n. (Biol.) The theory or doctrines put forth by Darwin. See above. Huxley.

Again, as I have done before, when this image is seen by most people....the term Darwinism and/or evolution comes to mind:

<img src=http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ape-man-line-up.jpg>

But, let's assume that it is for a moment. Apparently you define Darwinists as those who believe in a godless universe where everything happens by random chance.

Okay, you can assume whatever you like.


Now, let's assume that there is another sect called "Scientists." They observe that change in the universe appears as the result of randomly distributed events.

A sect of scientists, nice assumption.

And, let's further assume that there is a third sect called "Theists" who believe that in a God directed universe, where everything is programmed in advance.

Yes, programmed, including anything that appears random to man.

So, the difference is that the Darwinists infer that evolutionary change is the product of random chance, Scientists merely describe that evolutionary change occurs as a randomly distributed event, and Theists believe that the evolutionary change is programmed.

Scientists do much more than describe their observations. If they left it at observations, there would be no controversy.

It is when they take their observations, and then spin their yarns....

Sounds great to me...except for one tiny little detail: that's not what most theists believe now is it?

I have little concern for what theists believe, as long as they don't bother me, and leave me free to practice mine.
When they want to push their beliefs on others, then I take issue.

Most theists generally believe that evolutionary change doesn't occur at all, and that biological change is the product of instantaneous "materialization from pure potentiality."

I can't speak for most theists, but I think they do believe that the changes that occur in biological organism ultimately are programmed by God.

Can you quote with links to some theists who say that biological change is the direct product of "materialization from pure potentiality" and not the processes of biological that organisms go through are born of natural law, natural law of course a creation of a Creator.

That really is the crux of the issue. The issue is not about whether or not randomness in the universe is real or only perceived.

From Merriam Webster:

random
One entry found for random.
Main Entry: 2random
Function: adjective
1 a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern

Logically, there either is a plan, pattern and purpose...or their isn't.

The issue is very much whether or not the universe is planned and purposeful.

The issue is that a very large group of religious fundamentalists reject all scientific observation and inference in favor of a blind adherence to the belief that God routinely enters this universe and makes changes that could not occur, but for the introduction of magical/miraculous/supernatural force.

I am not concerned with a large group of religious fundamentalists and their beliefs, nor scientific fundamentalists and their beliefs.....except when they attempt to push their beliefs onto others and use methods of indoctrination in the public school systems in a political approach to shape the thinking of others.

Your last post here suggests that you have modified your position, that you now accept evolutionary change as de jure, rather than "lunacy," and that your only disagreement is over the force behind the change, rather than the change itself.

I never questioned that organisms attempt to survive, that they desire to live, that they will attempt to adapt in order to do so.

However, the word evolution carries much more with it than the adaptive and survival nature of living organisms.

Darwinism is synonymous with evolution:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=darwinism

Main Entry: survival of the fittest
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: theory of evolution
Synonyms: adaptation, Darwinianism, Darwinism, evolution, evolutionism, law of the jungle, natural law, natural selection, Neo-Darwinism, organic evolution, phylogeny, punctuated equilibrium, social Darwinism, social evolution

Is that true? If it is, then we no longer have anything to argue about.

If you see it that way, who am I to argue with you about that. It is not the way I see it though....