RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

subjected2006 -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/14/2006 6:05:09 PM)
About those moths. That wasnt one of those hoaxes to try to prove evalution was it? We have to be so careful about what we "swallow" here. And on the other side,, It's like all those years ago a scientist putting "Lucy " together, erroneously making her "stooped."

dcnovice -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/14/2006 7:17:43 PM)
quote: ok, this thread has been going on for i don't even know a time period, but 23 pages, it will probably go on another 23. So, my question, has this, and all have presented their cases, has this changed anyone's opinion as to evolution or creationism? I doubt it.

mnottertail -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/14/2006 8:07:29 PM)
I think at the end of the day, all you can really change peoples minds about is Kansas. Ron

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/14/2006 8:43:22 PM)
I'm really surprised so many people here are trying to debate this topic with seeksfemslave. All you need to do is read a couple of his posts and it's clear he just pulls stuff out of thin air as if it's factual evidence. In addition (and I've already tried this many times), ask him to answer a simple, direct question and none of his follow on replies will go near it. They may approach the topic obliquely but what you will get is just more gibberish that muddles the subject. At best, he falls back on points that cannot be substantiated conclusively and offers them as proof that the side he's arguing against is wrong while ignoring that it also calls his own position equally into question at the same time. The really simple, no-brainer points he ignores entirely. seeksfemslave is clearly a nice, jolly fellow but he's is not debating anything here...he just enjoys rankling everyone's sense of reason for his own amusement. It's really quite laughable...really it is. On a more sober note, I find his B.S. disgusting when you think of all the people in history who have suffered, been tortured, or put to death in the name of religion for doing nothing more than try to illuminate our understanding of this world. If everything was left to people who think like him, we would all still believe the bubonic plague was caused by a disturbance in the skies that caused the sun to overheat the oceans near India and noxious vapors began rising from the sea. The remedy for which is to stop bathing, employ the use of enemas, and remain chaste while avoiding olive oil, poultry, and fatty meats (and yes, this is what was commonly believed). anthrosub

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 12:21:07 AM)
Anthrosub said....... On a more sober note, I find his B.S. disgusting when you think of all the people in history who have suffered, been tortured, or put to death in the name of religion for doing nothing more than try to illuminate our understanding of this world. Anthro, in all of the posts I have made on this subject I challenge you to to find one where I advocated a religious viewpoint. At the moment we are at an historical junction where fundamentalist religious belief is set to unleash even more mayhem. I am referring to the Islam/Christian conflict that is boiling up quite nicely. Nevertheless, Evolution by Natural Selction is wrong, and does not explain the existence of life as we know it. Another point, secular regimes eg Stalin's Russia, have in fact eliminated quite a lot of people , so maybe its the intent of the individual/group rather than the philosophy to which they adhere that is the problem !

Amaros -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 6:11:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave When the existence of an Almond that is not poisonous is used as an example of evolution by chance processes I feel the N_essers have lost the case. Just admit it thats all. Its still an Almond you know. You will notice that when evos are cornered what they do is launch an attack on intelligent design. Regardless of how Intelligence has been used it is still rare, which intuitively one would not expect if Natural Selection really existed and provided a route to improvement. The simple answer is that Natural Selection is a fallacy and only vested interest is sustaining it ! Define intelligence.

thompsonx -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 7:06:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Anthrosub said....... On a more sober note, I find his B.S. disgusting when you think of all the people in history who have suffered, been tortured, or put to death in the name of religion for doing nothing more than try to illuminate our understanding of this world. Anthro, in all of the posts I have made on this subject I challenge you to to find one where I advocated a religious viewpoint. At the moment we are at an historical junction where fundamentalist religious belief is set to unleash even more mayhem. I am referring to the Islam/Christian conflict that is boiling up quite nicely. Nevertheless, Evolution by Natural Selction is wrong, and does not explain the existence of life as we know it. Another point, secular regimes eg Stalin's Russia, have in fact eliminated quite a lot of people , so maybe its the intent of the individual/group rather than the philosophy to which they adhere that is the problem ! You may want to include the genocide commited by christian nations in the name of christianity. I am thinking here of christian Spain, christian Britain, christian USA ...clearly there are insensitive people in the world that do not mind murdering others to further their own agenda. The I belive in god gang say it is because god told them to, the I don't believe in god gang says it is because you are breathing my air. thompson

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 7:17:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Another simple little point... Intelligence is probably the most advantageous characteristic one can imagine. Yes ? No. About twenty percent of the oxygen that a human consumes - thus twenty percent of the energy used - is consumed by the human brain. That is a huge, disproportionate drain on resources. Thus a large, highly active brain - i.e. intelligence - in itself is not the most advantageous characteristic one can imagine. Especially not when such a brain produces erroneous suppositions and erroneous conclusions. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Regardless of how Intelligence has been used it is still rare, which intuitively one would not expect if Natural Selection really existed and provided a route to improvement. The simple answer is that Natural Selection is a fallacy and only vested interest is sustaining it! The simple answer is that intuition occasionally sucks. Indeed, a route to improvement has been provided by the Creator: it is called evolution by natural and/or sexual selection.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 7:32:01 AM)
Amaros asks me to define intelligence.....It is characterised by high level cognitive reasoning power, the ability to think creatively, abstractly and deductively drawing positive, not necessary morally good, conclusions. Only a minority of the dominant species posess it at the highest level and no other species as far as I know has it at all. Why, given the iron law of Natural Selection ? It ought to be a Natural Tendency. The same shortcoming caused by lack of sophisticated language in all species except humans is another weakness of NS.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 7:42:05 AM)
With regard to the existence of a Creator and Intelligent Design I believe them to be far more plausible than NS. Organised religions are an attempt to connect with this Deity who unfortunately seems to be singularly unresponsive and possibly not even interested !

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 7:59:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Organised religions are an attempt to connect with this Deity who unfortunately seems to be singularly unresponsive and possibly not even interested! I am interested and I will respond when asked the right questions at their proper time by people who are not deaf to my answers.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 11:41:09 AM)
With regard to Rule's position in the cosmos I will bear it in mind and try to think of the right question. As for Anthrosub, I hope he finds the Lady of his dreams and she refuses to domme him. he he he he

meatcleaver -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 11:49:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave With regard to the existence of a Creator and Intelligent Design I believe them to be far more plausible than NS. A creator is a convenience until the question is asked, who created the creator? It's one of those infinite questions that can't be answered but if there was nothing before a creator came into being, why does the universe need a creator to exist? No doubt those that believe in a creator will say he/she/it always existed but that is a cop out too. I'm glad you recognoize seek, that if there is a creator he doesn't give a monkey's toss about his creation.

meatcleaver -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 11:52:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I'm glad you recognoize seek, that if there is a creator he doesn't give a monkey's toss about his creation. Hmm Maybe the creator does give a toss but we are of no importance to his creation.

Sinergy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 2:22:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subjected2006 mmm I think almonds were actually "developed" the way most indiginous species of plants were.. distributed by animals..a nut falling from a tree can only grow up to choke out its parent and sibling trees. but carried elsewhere there is a chance for it to mature fully. right? so it's in the trees best interest to be good and good for ya.. I think the almond did fine with out "our" intervention just suggesting.. . Sure, wild almonds did just fine. I was talking about domesticated almonds which human beings made into a new species. If you dont believe me, read the chapter on it in the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, and then go in and research his source material. Otherwise, I would be interested in seeing your empirical research to suggest that domesticated almonds evolved naturally. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 3:22:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Nevertheless, Evolution by Natural Selction is wrong, and does not explain the existence of life as we know it. I would invite you to once again provide a shred of empirical evidence from any credible source to support any of the wildly ignorant claims (like the one quoted) you enjoy making, seeksfemslave. It is painfully obvious to me that you are never going to actually provide evidence, and are going to continually state your opinion as if God had won the lottery, left you his job, and gone to be a rasta in Jamaica. Sinergy

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 3:43:48 PM)
As previously stated, seeks will not answer any direct questions posed to him by anyone on this board because he can't answer them with any credible substance. This is not my opinion...it's there for anyone who reads this thread to plainly see. Seeks does not seem to understand the difference...at all...between saying something is wrong (in this case, evolution) and saying he thinks it's wrong. This is just one of his demonstrated disabilities. If I were asked to characterize seeks, I would say he's someone who's stubbornly looking for something he can't find...and will never find...because he has it in one of his pockets but has already convinced himself they are empty and there's no need to double check. Seeks...there is a world of difference between thinking you know something and actually knowing it. Only when you begin to explore the nature of this phenomena will you shed your blinders. If you're curious why I post in response to your presence on the boards it's simply because I detest ignorance, no matter the person; so don't think I dislike you personally because I actually think you're a well meaning guy. anthrosub

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (11/15/2006 3:48:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave With regard to the existence of a Creator and Intelligent Design I believe them to be far more plausible than NS. Organised religions are an attempt to connect with this Deity who unfortunately seems to be singularly unresponsive and possibly not even interested ! Here, you are advocating the positon held by organized religion by default...so you do support the religious view after all. You just don't claim membership. It amounts to the same thing either way. anthrosub

Page: << < prev 20 21 22 23 [24]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.515625E-02