Question From "Traditional man and country"

[hipeter924]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

The way I look at it, they can hate evolution. But in the end they are pathetic hypocrites, they use the medicine built from evolutionary science. The fact is that the vast majority of medicine today has come from evolutionary science. They hate technology developed from scientific advancement under the scientific method even though the so called 'evolution haters' use television and email to manipulate their followers. If they want to go back and live in medieval Europe and die of the plague its up to them...but they can stay the hell away from me.

[jgk3]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

So you're saying that had Darwin (and the scientific movement he gave birth to) never been born, we would not have our medicine or internet?

How does knowledge about DNA help engineers build the microprocessors and transformers we take for granted when we go on our computer?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

The way I look at it, they can hate evolution. But in the end they are pathetic hypocrites, they use the medicine built from evolutionary science. The fact is that the vast majority of medicine today has come from evolutionary science. They hate technology developed from scientific advancement under the scientific method even though the so called 'evolution haters' use television and email to manipulate their followers. If they want to go back and live in medieval Europe and die of the plague its up to them...but they can stay the hell away from me.

What makes you think the plague wasn't developed by evolutionary scientists? Weren't scientists responsible for the atomic bomb? We're not talking about using our knowledge of biology to further mankind, we're talking about using the Theory of Evolution to erase the history of mankind and take us back into the dark ages.

[Yeznik]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

The way I look at it, they can hate evolution. But in the end they are pathetic hypocrites, they use the medicine built from evolutionary science. The fact is that the vast majority of medicine today has come from evolutionary science. They hate technology developed from scientific advancement under the scientific method even though the so called 'evolution haters' use television and email to manipulate their followers. If they want to go back and live in medieval Europe and die of the plague its up to them...but they can stay the hell away from me.

Who is hating evolution?

[VartanK]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

It seems that Anonymouse is speaking about macro-evolution and that VartanK is speaking about micro-evolution.

Yes. That's one way of putting it. I have repeatedly said it, but he either did not get it, or did not want to admit his confusion.

But how can one discuss macro-evolution with a person who does not understand micro-evolution 101? His replies made it obvious that he has no clue how scientific theories are created and evolve, and his ignorance of Biology, Math, Logic etc. is too obvious. I just don't understand how he can be so pretentious and self-assured in his statements?
The guy has read publication or two, maybe vulgarizations, on epistemology and/or evolution and thinks that he has what it takes to properly understand evolution, micro or macro. In my book, he's just a pretentious charlatan.

[VartanK]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

Precisely. That is the distinction which VartanK does not realize

This is from my reply to your first post:
"Let's not confuse the simple principles of Biology with evolutionism that uses the concept of evolution to explain the history of mankind and our planet. It's irrelevant what were the actual phases of mankind's evolution and whether all living creatures have the same ancestor or 32784 different ones, that's "poetry" as Popper and other epitemologists would have said."
"Again you're confusing the concept of evolution, and it's usage to explain the history of mankind."

yet he keeps jamming about something, I don't know what.

Because I kept explaining why I started this thread, but you kept ignoring it and continued with your drama. I did not start the thread to discuss what you have in mind, can you understand that?
In any case, you have neither the knowledge nor the discipline to discuss evolutionism.

I have repeatedly said that there is no dispute about anything observable or testable which can be amply verified.

And I have repeatedly asked you what justified your drama and why you're not stopping it

For someone who is not perturbed, you sure do a good job of showing that you are not, by making me the subject and accusing me of distortions when you yourself committed the distortion because of either (a) misunderstanding the distinction I was making, or (b) understanding the distinction but yet continuing to force your issue X when I am talking about YZ, for some reason which I don't know why (If the latter is the case, then what's your point? I have nothing to discuss with you regarding that). In conclusion, your whole argument here has been a non-issue.
....
It took you several posts to realize the distinction I was making here:

I think that you're simply trying to manipulate and turn around the situation just like a politician.
This is from my reply to your first post:
"Let's not confuse the simple principles of Biology with evolutionism that uses the concept of evolution to explain the history of mankind and our planet. It's irrelevant what were the actual phases of mankind's evolution and whether all living creatures have the same ancestor or 32784 different ones, that's "poetry" as Popper and other epitemologists would have said."
"Again you're confusing the concept of evolution, and it's usage to explain the history of mankind."

But notice how uncomfortable you became at the mere thought of disagreement to the point where you got personal back in jgk3's thread.

What was personal in my posts? You called me "smart alec" and "smart ass" simply because I found your "unwritten, unconscious rule" confusing, and I got personal?
Can it be that you became uncomfortable when I questioned your statement in the jgk3's thread, so you "cleaned up" the thread labeling it as "off-topic"?

As things go, once you get personal, you lose.

Win and lose? So that's what it it is about, for you? How mature.

We aren't talking about the same thing now that you are admitting you "have never said or suggested that the concepts of evolution in Biology "indicates, demonstrates, conclusively verifies or establishes that we somehow morphed and mutated over time from simple organisms into complex ones".

I have said the same many times and in many different ways, you can only blame yourself if you did not get it the first time.

Now that you yourself admit we are talking about different things it seems you have dug yourself into a hole and in order to come off as not having looked like you committed a blunder by creating an intellectual boomerang that came back to haunt you, you are still forcing the non-issue of protein synthesis, DNA replication and molecular binding. What is your point? In the process you have committed a fallacy.

Another manipulative attempt to turn the situation around.
It was not a "non-issue" and as, I've said before:
I started this thread to state that:
"Unless you show that the principles of Molecular Biology are totally wrong than there will be evolution as long as there is life.

Red herring

Me: Topic YZ is under discussion.
You: Topic X is discussed as somehow pertinent to topic YZ.
Therefore, addressing topic YZ is avoided.

Straw man

Me: My argument is there is no evidence for YZ in the grand scheme of XYZ.
You: There is evidence for X.
Therefore, XYZ must be true if X is true.

Again, this is just simply mapping out two of the more glaring fallacies you've committed. Is logic not a pre-requisite for biology?

You amuse me when you use words that you can't understand like logic, correlation, causation, falsifiability, evolution etc as if you were an expert, when your posts suggest the contrary. You sound like a kid who is trying to impress grown ups, is so proud of using words he hardly understands and is so sure of himself, but you're not a kid and it's a bit sad to see you do it.
Let me share with you my equation: Ignorance + Pretense + Drama = Charlatan

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

Unless you show that the principles of Molecular Biology are totally wrong than there will be evolution as long as there is life. Evolution is more than a concept. Evolution is more likely to happen than the sun rising again.

Would you care to tell us why the principles of Molecular Biology are wrong?

I think what you fail to understand is that Anonymous isn't disagreeing with the principles of Molecular Biology, he's disagreeing with the "then there will be evolution as long as there is life" part. It's like saying as long as there is life, organisms will continue to reproduce and grow. Calling this phenomenon as "evolution" and claiming it's how life "evolves" is the part that is in doubt.

[VartanK]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

I think what you fail to understand is that Anonymous isn't disagreeing with the principles of Molecular Biology, he's disagreeing with the "then there will be evolution as long as there is life" part. It's like saying as long as there is life, organisms will continue to reproduce and grow. Calling this phenomenon as "evolution" and claiming it's how life "evolves" is the part that is in doubt.

Why do you think that the principles of Molecular Biology are not enough to state that "there will be evolution as long as there is life"? Can you explain?

I've already gave three basic concepts/processes to support my statement. If you still think that molecular binding/protein synthesis/DNA replication are not sufficient enough to state that there will be evolution as long as there is life, then you don't understand those concepts/processes. To be honest, I don't think that you do. Now I understand better what Siggie meant.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

Why do you think that the principles of Molecular Biology are not enough to state that "there will be evolution as long as there is life"? Can you explain?

I've already gave three basic concepts/processes to support my statement. If you still think that molecular binding/protein synthesis/DNA replication are not sufficient enough to state that there will be evolution as long as there is life, then you don't understand those concepts/processes. To be honest, I don't think that you do. Now I understand better what Siggie meant.

I don't think you understand that I don't absorb everything that is taught to me like a sponge without doubting the validity of the teaching. I'm a skeptic, sue me.

I'll tell you what, if within my lifetime I see a whale with legs roaming around on land, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[iFemale]

Re: Question From "Traditional man and country"

I'll tell you what, if within my lifetime I see a whale with legs roaming around on land, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.