Here is a place to let your words do your talking for you.
That's horrible.
"It was a stupid and ignorant sort of argument anyway."
It may be stupid and ignorant, but it's not harmless if this is what is being taught to kids in school. Geez, I hope they get their facts straight sometime in the next hundred years. They're creating a bunch of ignorant people.
I mean, we all know God just, poof, created man. WHat are they teaching the children?
Look at the image. Do you stand by that as fact?
Come on...
I stand by science, which is the best way to understand reality.
They also have Haeckel's embryo images posted on that site. Do you think those are accurate and should be placed in a textbook to be taught in schools?
I guess we posted at the same time there...
Another question: you think that those images represent "science"?
Hint: you may want to check out the photos again...look carefuly now.
" I stand by science, which is the best way to understand reality."
I stand by the pursuit of knowledge of the truth and the application of systematic thought so far as is possible.
There are some scientists who reject scientia as the pursuit of the truth in exchange for a vain pursuit of Naturalism. Their vanity is clear as they craft mythological narratives of Naturalism.
"I mean, we all know God just, poof, created man."
Before you try to reduce something as complex as the human brain into the mythological narratives of Naturalism I think that we ought to reduce that sentence to the biochemical state of your brain.
I mean, we all know that you didn't just poof, create that sentence as if it is something of your sentience, your pattern/image.
If you could create a self-replicating sort of code/text and bind up your symbolism in it, that would be rather interesting. It would be more interesting than anything your mind is capable of.
There would be plenty to study because doing something like that is doing a lot more than just writing "poof."
But anyway, " I stand by science..."
No you don't, you seem to support frauds and the indoctrination over education that is typical to proto-Nazis. Using Haeckel's frauds is especially apposite.
"The contribution of the actual scientific tradition to this ethos was exemplified by the quintessentially German figure of Ernst Haeckel, that formidable biologist and convert to Darwinism..."
(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide
By Robert Jay Lifton :441)
Say, he was a biologist...that might be your cue to bow down, bow down before the scientist! They are scientists, so they know.
It is ironic that evolutionists engage in a lot of fear-mongering about some little sticky stickers being put on their texts. And they engage in the same sort of fear-mongering when challenged to teach students about any opposing views.
It's little wonder, as those who would indoctrinate have to rely on ignorance and stupidity of a sort that would crumble if the controversy were taught.
Wow! This is better than crack!
"Wow! This is better than crack!"
---------------
Mynym,
You should use this quote as a "blurb" for your site!
Carl
I agree, that would be great advertisement 
Done.
Well, I think that G's comment about science indicates that evolutionists will support fraudulent claims in the name of "science."
Dude! Cool post on one of my favorite subjects! Also, enjoyed your comments today on Evangelical Outpost.
Hey, your sites cool looking, and well thought-out. I can't finish your first post, though--it's off my screen for some reason.
"Cool post on one of my favorite subjects!"
I"m glad you're in this thread and not the one about British orgies.
I have some old posts on the urge to merge around here somewhere. I would put some links to them but it's time for bed.
"I can't finish your first post, though--it's off my screen for some reason."
Odd, if you can see this one.
I guess you already tried clicking reload. I'll probably do a few things tomorrow and wind up republishing the index, maybe that will help.
Then I'm outa here, to go windsurfing. The forecast is for wind...wish I could take my laptop to keep up with things.
Later.
That Larry Lord fella on the Evangelical Outpost...I doubt he likes me.
...and I'm really concerned about that. So concerned!
"...about British orgies.
I have some old posts on the urge to merge around here somewhere."
That doesn't look to good, somehow. It's late! But...ironically enough, it is the same thing. It is placing the physical before the spiritual and then, raise the Asherah poles, put some totems up with merged animal symbolism, etc...
By the urge to merge I meant the one illustrated by evolutionists with their Ape-man, Spider-man and similar comic book level reasoning, not the one illustrated by the Brits as their civilization declines.
Comic book level reasoning such as, "Hey, this looks like that." [morphology...big word, pretty small concept in some ways] "Well....you know, maybe it shares a common ancestor or somethin'."
Larry Lord disturbs me, honestly. He seems like a very, very, very angry person.
Hey, the permalink worked--found it through google.
What you don't understand is that science is not a "set of facts" to compete against your "set of facts"--it is a method for observing reality as objectively as possible. You, on the other hand are all about twisting a set of facts to support a religious text. Sorry, no cigar.
I know you don't want it to be that simple, but it just is that simple. You do not understand what science is and why it is a better way to evaluate the natural world than to rely on logical games ad infinitum with no way to reach a conclusion.
I suppose you are standing by the images of the embryos as being scientific and thus, in your mind true. Be careful. Not all that poses as 'science' is true. That's where you have to use your logic instead of looking at all 'science' in a sort of be all end all. 'Science' as put forth by falible man can be in error, as it obviously has been in error in the past. Just look at the images of those embryos which are obviously frauds. The sad part is that these frauds are being taught in schools and, because they are under the guise of being 'scientific' people such as yourself believe them.
"You, on the other hand are all about twisting a set of facts to support a religious text. Sorry, no cigar."
Take a look at the images of embryos which are masquerading as 'science.'
"You do not understand what science is and why it is a better way to evaluate the natural world than to rely on logical games ad infinitum with no way to reach a conclusion."
I think you have a very skewed view of what is true and what is not. Logic is a big part of percieving what is truth and what are lies in any field of study. Maybe the reason you can't see that the images of the embryos are frauds is because you are not using logic?
Just replying to your post on my blog. I do not understand exactly what you are trying to get at. One set of images does not tear down the theory of evolution, and theory in scientific terms means a hypothesis that has been proven through rigorous testing.
I explained my entire belief on this matter in the post, yet you took half of one sentence, turned me into something I am not, and ignored the rest of my writing. If you want to criticize my ideas, go ahead, but do it completely, not just seizing on one sentence. It's dishonest to do that, just as it is dishonest to tear down the idea of evolution using one set of images.
I'll have a post up soon about where our idea of science is leading us.
"You, on the other hand are all about twisting a set of facts to support a religious text."
So, where have I done that?
"You do not understand what science is...
I see, so you know what science is? If you have a broad enough perspective and enough knowledge to understand all that science is, or is not, then why are you writing as if the extent of your knowledge is some simple little memes?
"...why it is a better way to evaluate the natural world than to rely on logical games ad infinitum with no way to reach a conclusion."
The best irony of all is that the components of evolutionism such as natural selection are not scientific in the least. They do not fit into the systematic type of thought that science relies on. What adaptations has natural selection predicted and tests verified? What falisifies natural selection? How do you test a tautology such as, "Things that survive, well, they're the ones that survived!" How can Naturalism be falsified?
And so on.
I am interested in more than science because the answer from the systematic thought of science is Socratic and a certainty of uncertainty. But it is quite ironic that the staunchest believers in scientism have little to no idea of the systematic thought that science relies on, and how much of what people call the "theory of evolution" does not fit into it in the least. Yet every schoolboy thinks that their ignorance is somehow on a level with the Socratic answer of coming to know, that you cannot know.
Notice how they don't really say anything based on knowledge and instead engage in some murmuring about "science" or "religion," even as they seem to know little enough of either.
"...it is dishonest to tear down the idea of evolution using one set of images."
What's the idea of evolution? Do you know?
I tear down some stupid and ignorant ideas because that is what they are. The pollution of language known as "evolution" that can mean anything from, "Hey, things reproduce and stuff..." to "The common ancestor of all life on earth...was a puddle of mud!" is not science.
All these science thumpers. I've always been more interested in what is true than what is scientific. If you think that what has been "scientific" throughout history has a good track record of being true then you don't know much history. But then, it is also ironic that for all the science thumping, the pollutions of thought and language subsumed under the buzzword "evolution" are not scientific in the least. They're a hodgepodge of naturalistic narratives that explain everything, and therefore explain nothing. If something explains one set of facts, yet also explains the exact opposite set of facts then it is untestable, unfalsifiable and has not explained anything.
Example: "natural selection"
"I do not understand exactly what you are trying to get at. "
Uh huh.
You begin your post with your main point.
"In what is either a giant remake of Inherit the Wind or a giant joke, Kansas is holding six days of hearings....
You discuss evolution some and then reiterate your point.
"My point here is that evolution can be and is fully compatible with a belief in God. Kansas, and any others trying to ban evolution, would do well to act like it."
Since you are incorrect, I corrected you.
It may well be a repeat of Scopes,
http://www.themonkeytrial.com/
And trying to correct known frauds is not the "banning of evolution" or any other inane fear mongering that you might come up with.
"I explained my entire belief on this matter in the post, yet you took half of one sentence, turned me into something I am not, and ignored the rest of my writing."
You made your point. It is wrong. So it ought to be corrected.
"If you want to criticize my ideas, go ahead...
I did critize the point of your post because your "idea" of what is happening in Kansas and what happened in Scopes is wrong and ignorant.
You still don't get it.
I trust scientific sources because they are far more credible than you are. WHy are they more credible? Because they need evidence to support claims and they try to release themselves from previously held bias. Does that mean they always succeed? No. But they have a process to deal with poor science. it is called the scientific method and peer review. Experts checking experts. Poking holes, filling them up.
They are more credible than you are. That is my argument. And it is a logical argument given what I know about science.
"They are more credible than you are. That is my argument. And it is a logical argument given what I know about science."
Credibility is not an argument, it is identity politics. I am more knowledgable than you are. And since you are ignorant, you have nothing to say that is relevant. That would be my argument as far as "credibility" goes.
I would hate to see you placed in times when phrenology, alchemy or eugenics were the science of the day. They were each based on scientism, the failure to be aware of limitations to science. It seems obvious that you would be one of those sitting around murmuring about how you will blindly trust scientific sources. It seems so, because so far you have failed to engage in any of the science or knowledge brought up.
My concern with you or anyone else's feelings about my credibility approaches nil. You can either answer or understand knowledge symbolized in language, text or code by another mind or you cannot. I've noticed that science thumpers do not seem to actually know much scientific knowledge, although they seem to venerate a few of the methods. It's rather like a Bible thumper who thumps the method (This is divine revelation!) without really knowing much about it. So what if it is? So what if the scientific method is a good path to truth? (This was reviewed by some peering peers!) If you don't have the knowledge, then you cannot bear witness to it, because you don't know the wit. Instead, you are just another thumper.
"And it is a logical argument given what I know about science."
So far you haven't made any logical and relevant argument based on the scientific issues at hand (e.g. Haeckel's embryos being used in science texts.)
If you can't deal with empirical observation vs. fraud, then it does not matter how many times you murmur science or shift to dealing with credibility, mine, your own, or anyone elses. The fact remains that the empirical facts sit there unchanged. It was the same thing with eugenics and other junk science, no matter how much peer reviewed junk science there is (and there were hundreds of articles, all peer reviewed by some peering peers), if a viewpoint goes against a valid understanding of the empirical evidence and systematic thought layed down in text then it should be shredded by skeptics. Fortunately, there are those who do not take the Herd mindset that relies on identity politics and claims of credibility.
Of course, the skeptics and mavericks who don't run with the scientific Herd will be condemned, as they typically are. But sometimes they are right, and the whole Herd is wrong. After all, where did the Herd learn what it feels it knows? It learned it in the science textbooks, and look at some of the frauds in them.
If you have something to write about the issues based on facts, logic and evidence, as well as the systematic thought of science, then I'll read it.
What knowledge have you demonstrated here that is actually relevant to evolution and Haeckel's embryos?
You still cannot deal with the fact that creationism is not supported by serious scientists or serious scientific inquiry. You may not like it, but you are engaging in meaningless intellectual masturbation. If you really think that you have some genuine ideas, you should pursue a degree in biology and test some of this stuff. But, no. You continue to quote philosophical/religious texts and put them in competition with scientific consensus.
You are just irked that I am calling bullshit on that. Sorry. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
"You are just irked that I am calling bullshit..."
No, I don't care what you write one way or another if it has no factual, logical or evidential content.
"Sorry. Bullshit bullshit bullshit."
That's alright, little one. I thought you had nothing of substance to write that is relevant to the topic of Haeckel's frauds, etc., and apparently you do not. If you think that scientists are some telepathic mystics that don't actually write down their thoughts, in texts, then you are mistaken.
What is your excuse for failing to make any sort of argument about the truth with respect to origins, let alone the systematic thought of a scientific argument? Do you feel that science thumping makes you scientific and thefefore correct? If you have a scientific argument then make it. If you are relying on science thumping, then I suppose there is nothing left for you to write about other than some mistaken sort of scientism. Perhaps that is you are reduced to the childish level you are at now, which can be amusing.
"...you should pursue a degree in biology and test some of this stuff."
It's the Information Age and all sorts of knowledge that has been tested is available. But you'll notice how this has virtually nothing to do with the topics brought up here. Haeckel's embryo drawings are frauds, and as it is the Information Age virtually anyone who knows what they're doing on a computer can bring up Haeckel's images vs. what is observed empirically.
It's the same situation on many issues.
"But, no. You continue to quote philosophical/religious texts and put them in competition with scientific consensus."
For other readers I note this,
It seems to take a long time for a science thumper to gain any sort of perspective, if they ever do. I doubt this one could. I.e., gain a historical, philosophical or religious perspective, something or other that touches on the metaphysical. Ironically, the systematic thought typical to science itself could lead to some perspective, at least to the Socratic conclusion of knowledge about not knowing. That is not the ignorance of any schoolboy, as by the time the journey is done, a lot of knowledge has been accumulated. Yet the end is the Socratic end of knowledge about not knowing. One example of how the systematic thought typical to science indicates this is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
The indication is that to overcome that incompleteness of knowledge one would have to transcend the physical system. And so on. Science itself leads to the conclusions about its own limitations. Yet those who believe in scientism have demonstrated through history that they tend toward accepting many things in the name of "science," from eugenics, to phrenology, to alchemy, etc.
And in some sense I think that the Naturalist's mind is folded in on itself, so they cannot think through their brains very well and engage in much systematic thought. Instead they slide through the same memes over and over, which results in their science thumping over and over, and maybe some little chants and things too. It's a rather repetitive mode of folded thought, as the mind seems to be folded into the brain fairly tightly.
"...creationism is not supported by serious scientists or serious scientific inquiry."
The post was about the fraudulent claims of evolutionists in highschool biology texts, serious scientists that they are.
Some aspects of creationism are not scientific and some are, same thing with some of the narratives of Naturalism subsumed under the term "evolution."
Not claiming to be a scientist. And your arguments about eugenics ring hollow because eugenics is thouroughly discarded now through the exact process I support: the scientific method.
For the dense, which you are, I am talking about a method of evaluating claims. Science is our best way of evaluating claims about the nature of the natural world.
Look, again. I am not claiming to be a scientist. I am far more interested in politics. But, I trust the scientific community far more than I trust creationists. And that is not based on "myths" as you suggest--it is based on the fact that the scientific method is a great way to examine claims and then have experts check experts. You can't defend your view.
The funny thing is that you think you are winning this debate because eugenics was bad. But the eugenics error and the subsequent discarding of it actually proves my point--that science is self-correcting. What is the mechanism in your worldview by which you would wholely discard creationism?
You have none because you are full of bullshit. It is remarkable that people even listen to you.
"...your arguments about eugenics ring hollow because eugenics is thouroughly discarded now through the exact process I support: the scientific method."
That's just factually incorrect.
It's all revisited in sociobiology. Besides, what scientific discoveries have falsified the eugenic sort of notions that are now revisited in sociobiology? There will be none, as long as Naturalism smothers all dissent. There are some evolutionists who try to argue, yet they begin to sound exactly like creationists, yet then they turn around yet again in support of evolutionism.
The believers in scientism are still working based on a false form of knowledge, in the past they were opposed by literary giants like G.K. Chesterton and other servants of the Word, with a few priests of language like Karl Kraus also. They are the writers that support civilization against the New Paganism of the science thumpers.
These are some of the reasons that you are just factually wrong:
"The contention that ‘relative class differences in early mortality rates do not reflect class differences in environment' has re-emerged, as also has the investigation of the social class distribution of gene pools.’ The revitalized debate about the heritability of IQ is well-known (see Rose’ Rose et al.’ the invention of sociobiology also returns the discussion of the dominance of biological factors to an earlier mode.’ Within the natural sciences a new genetics is being bred, which, like its parents, limits the trail of individual differences to their supposed source in the gene — in the time of the founder of eugenics, Francis Galton, an abstract concept, but now one with a definable chemical meaning. Recent scientific work in the domain of reproduction holds up a new vision of the scientific control of the quality of life which would have warmed the hearts of the early eugenists, and, like their earlier visions, unceremoniously disregards the ethical concerns of ordinary people, including women as the major recipients of repro ductive techniques (see Corea’
At the same time as these developments have occurred, the intellectual and practical activity of sociological research on health is being cut back. The medicine of the social, evolved into a sociology of the medical (and importantly also of health) is the victim of several related trends, including the ideological and financial investment in ‘pure’ science...."
(Eugenics, Social Medicine and the Career of Richard Titmuss in Britain 1935-50
By Ann Oakley
The British Journal of Sociology
Vol. 42, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), pp. 189)
I'll put a post up about the sociobiologists.
"The funny thing is that you think you are winning this debate because eugenics was bad. But the eugenics error and the subsequent discarding of it actually proves my point--that science is self-correcting."
No it isn't. If those with the urge to merge into Nature were not opposed by mathematicians, philosophers, ID types, creationists, etc., then they would have destroyed civilization even more than they already have. They use oligarchic methods to do so, which is typical.
The term fascist comes from bundles of sticks, each weak and ignorant mind is bound up in the bundle of memes, as it is just following leaders with no care given to history, philosophy, text, facts, logic and evidence. It's easy that way, as then they do not have to think or seek and find knowledge.
It is ironic that they do not followthe systematic thought typical to science either. They'd be much more uncertain if they did. Instead, they are quite the science thumpers. Thump, thump!
"What is the mechanism in your worldview by which you would wholely discard creationism?"
The very things that you seem to have an aversion to, history, facts, logic, evidence, philosophy, text, and so on and so forth. It is a whole texture of texts and words. This is the only way to think. Try thinking without language, a simple test that proves the point.
"You have none because you are full of bullshit. It is remarkable that people even listen to you."
The reason I think I am winning this debate is because you began by murmuring about science and you still are not demonstrating knowledge, scientific or not. If the method of inquiry and way to knowledge that you support is so great and powerful, then why aren't you demonstrating knowledge? You did not deal with the original topic and now you cannot seem to deal with anything else that comes up with respect to your scientism, based on facts, logic and evidence. Instead, you shift to talking about credibility and so on. If we are to be so concerned with credibility then you have little, as you make statements that are factually incorrect based on your veneration of science.
I don't look to credibility. What you write is either correct or incorrect. Credibility can be a way that someone can build themselves up by dealing with easy forms of knowledge ("Things reproduce and stuff. This is a fact, I tell ya!") to lend their ignorant and stupid statements a false credibility (All life has a common ancestor in rocks and minerals that dissolved in a puddle of mud. This is the same sort of fact as things reproducing and stuff, just like gravity!).
What is the equation used to quantify natural selection and what adaptations have been predicted by it? Isn't it like gravity or somethin'?
There, I made the accurate picture of the embryos bigger. So in "theory," everyone should be able to see that a fraudulent claim is being taught to students as "science" by biology teachers.
Someone thought that evolutionists did not take the time to actually look at it or somehow missed seeing it.
More likely, there are some minds that are not going to see much no matter what. Instead, listen, as they seem to be murmuring....
"Science....but the science...now this, this is all scientific or somethin'!"
God is a fucking fairy tale. Get over it. IGNORANT MOTHER FUCKERS!
It seems that another Darwinist crybaby is upset about his cognitive dissonance.
Darwinism was based more on frauds and anti-theistic arguments than it was based on empirical evidence.
I'm curious as to whether this thread is still alive or not. You willing to talk, mynym? Hopefully I can give you some argument that stands up a bit better. I do know my stuff, and can cite if necessary (note: if I do cite, there's a good chance they'll be picked off of talk.origins. Fair warning.)
Commenting by HaloScan
