Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked... - Page 6

No, you absolutely didn't. You questioned my grasp of rhetoric. You made no attempt, anywhere, to answer the question.

You find it difficult to answer the question "Do you not agree that putting a man on the men helps to define America's greatness?"

It's an easy question to answer.

The problem is that if you answer "yes", then suddenly America's greatness is down to its tyranny.

If you answer "no", you're... fucking insane.

You argue you're living in a tyranny. You can't bring yourself to admit that you're proud of the fruits of this tyranny. You can't bring yourself to admit that the system of "tyranny" and "stealing" has brought magnificence to your nation, and benefits that the rest of the world has been jealous of, and that you, yourself have enjoyed.

You want to score a political point. You have to turn your back on your nation to do it.

Yes you do, dear.

False dilemma anyone?



Uh huh. That's it.

Right.

Do you believe that putting a man on the moon helps to define America's greatness or not?

One of the right's favorite presidents to hate gave America a big dose of painful truth. Looking back on his words, he had amazing foresight. I wish he were wrong, but we followed the wrong path as a nation.


And another choice excerpt...

If you're getting pleasure about pissing people off then perhaps you should see a psychologist. That's the most basic symptom of psychopathy. Seriously.

Pleasure? No. Not pleasure. I just think it's funny. It's funny (and amazing) how easily and quickly those on the left begin to go apoplectic and start frothing at the mouth when someone doesn't see it their way. The moment someone they're arguing with has the temerity to suggest that the way they see the world and assume it to work isn't quite how they think and things start to short circuit. It's really quite astonishing actually. Seriously.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/.../15151061.html

Interesting article about skinks going from egg-laying to live-birthing.

And better than a video game. I get it. Not pleasure. Right.

Meanwhile, I think it's sadly indicative of one who is truly blinded by single mindedness when I see them resorting to patronizing smilies and one-liners as their only source of retort.

What does this have to do with Left vs Right ???
I thought we were discussing the merits of Science (Evolution) vs Fantasy (creationism).

My second sentence there should tell you how I feel about the topic in THIS thread... but I'm fairly certain you'd consider my politics to be pretty far "right".

Yeah, usually I can't stand what KoSH has to say because it embodies such a selfish fiscal ideology. But at least he doesn't live in fairy tale land. I feel sorry for you, man. It always sucks ending up on the same side as people who are...far less than intellectual...in basically every other topic.

Well, at some point, patronizing smiles are the only response that's warranted. \

Yes. We were discussing the pseudo-science that is Evolution. But those, particularly of the leftist leaning, tend to get a bit discombobulated when you don't fall into line on the Evolution dogma.


There are exceptions of course.

...when you don't have any real argument other than conjecture.

Well, yes, that's one instance. The other, of course, is when the one your chatting with starts frothing at the mouth and spewing all sorts of insulting nonsense. At that point the discussion is over. BTW, "when you don't have any real argument other than conjecture" is exactly when the frothing at the mouth and spewing of insults starts too. Interesting that.

I agree. Both types of response are equally as immature and ignorant.

Hmmm...I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the equality in maturity of the two approaches.

Errors of thought in the BBC interpretation of Evolution:

Natural Selection vs. Opportunity in Macroevolutionary Patterning of the Fossil Record
Posted on: August 25, 2010 8:49 AM, by Greg Laden


"But new research identifies the availability of "living space", rather than competition, as being of key importance for evolution." (Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims--23 August 2010 Last updated at 17:26 ET)



http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...utm_medium=rss

THEREFORE THE ONLY THINGS THAT ARE DEBUNKED IS THE BBC ARTICLE AND THIS THREAD---GONE--BYE BYE

Obviously.

Completely unsurprising result. Typical non-scientific overreaction by people desperately wishing they lived in a world where their fairy tales are true.

MJ1970, you seem to find the question difficult. Everyone else in the world thinks that this a great achievement, worthy of praise, one of the most extraordinary things our species has done.

Why can't you take one second to type 'yes' or 'no'?

Do you really believe that Americans should not be proud of this extraordinary thing?

This should be simple.

Reaching out toward the stars is the single greatest achievement our species has ever made. Our future depends on us uniting and reaching outward. We can't keep all our eggs in one basket.

I'm damn proud of what we did. You're right Mumbo, it's quite a simple question.

I'm proud of what we did, as well. But further high-budget non-commercially applicable space exploration is something that should be put on hold until we can afford it, at least for a little while. When Kennedy did it, we were not in the middle of a great recession.

Pushing out to space improves our lives here at home, as well. There's a lot of jobs in aerospace if we're making a serious push out there. And the advancements in technology we get as a byproduct have already benefited our society and would continue to do so in the future.

And if anything can make us forget our petty differences for a little while, it would be the images of the first human to set foot on another planet.

Yes, which is why we should continue our pursuit when we can afford it.

Except that a Mars landing will not happen for at least 25 years if we start right now with full budget.

Right, BR.

Human beings landed on the moon. If I were American, I might point to this achievement and say "This defines my nation's greatness."

Do you not agree with this, MJ1970?

So what are we waiting for? Slash defense spending. Send a chunk over to the space budget.

Slash defense spending, fix the budget without killing the poor and/or firing teachers and/or shooting the crime rate through the roof, and then send a chunk over to the space budget.

You keep mixing and muddling two things and it's bizarre that you do not see it.

Was putting a man (several actually) an extraordinary achievement of human ingenuity, engineering, science and general human endurance and risk? Absolutely. I agree with that.

But you then make the leap to say that "This defines my nation's greatness." You want to say that the various things you have listed are what makes America great. I don't agree. Some of them are great achievements, but these are not what makes American great or defines America's greatness.

What makes America great, what defines America's greatness was its love and championing of freedom...not putting a man on the moon. The end value of putting a man on the moon is debatable. But the end value of championing and protecting freedom is much less debatable (to me anyway). Then we are now in the realm of opinions rather than objective facts.


Now, having said that, I think we should get back to why it someone like BR (and perhaps others also) advocate the forced government schooling of kids if their parents won't teach them what he (and perhaps others also) thinks they should teach them (e.g., the pseudo-science of Evolution).

Why do you find it so difficult to agree with the idea that putting a man on the man might be an emblem of your country's greatness?

Very strange.

Is it because this magnificent achievement was paid for by taxes?

That must be it.

Beating fascism in the Second World War. Do you think you have any reason to be proud of that?

Evolution is not pseudo-science, by the way. "Evolution" is grounded in excellent, exhaustive research spanning over a hundred and fifty years. In fact, "evolution" depends on the many different sciences (genetics, archaeology, anatomy, geology and anthropology among them).

It should be taught in schools because it's the best solution to the question of "how did we get here?"

It's the only answer that fits the evidence and does not depend on myth.

I want it taught to my children. They can learn about your Book in religious studies class, as they should.

Why do you want to tell my children that myth is truth? Can't you keep your fundamentalist nonsense to your own children? It's not 1859 anymore.

Putting a man on the man is an abomination!

Yikes.

Are you turning into my conscience or something?

It's sort of... working.

Right.



I'd be more proud of it if we didn't then subsequently (or in parallel) adopt fascism (and socialism) in this country. And more proud of it if the actions of this country's government didn't help lead up to and foster the things that happened in Europe in the 1st and 2nd world wars.



Good for you. So let me ask this: Do you, as does BR, advocate the forced government school of children whose parents don't teach them what you think they should be taught?



I'm not doing anything to anyone else's children. Including yours.



Thanks Einstein. I know that.

Well, what else should I think?

Taxes are "stealing". When society takes decisions collectively that's "tyranny."

The Second World War was one tyranny fighting another. Your victory was a victory for tyranny. I understand. It's nothing to be proud of. You've made yourself clear.


Well, it should be law, yeah, that children should go to school unless there's a damn good reason for them not to. But I suppose it should be possible for you to teach your children any old shit you like if you really insist.

The age of the universe and the age of the earth aren't in any serious debate in any university on this earth or among any naturalists or geologists or anatomists or geneticists or in fact scientist anywhere. There are exceptions, but there is no serious evidence that they're right.

The case has been proven so comprehensively and conclusively, so absolutely, so totally, that to deny it is to enter a world where myth is more important than evidence.

In this world, the world in which we all live, the science of evolutionary theory is by far the only explanation that makes sense. There are mythical explanations (Christians and Muslims and Hindus and animists and worshippers of Obtatala all have one) and they're all equally as likely, which is, not likely at all. Myth is myth.

Of course the science should be taught. It's the only explanation with any evidence. And that evidence is so overwhelming, so conclusive, that to even compare it to the mythical explanation is completely retarded.

It's not a question of 'forcing' anyone. There's no debate that it's right. The only people who object are religious fundamentalists, and to deny our children a view of the world so clearly correct is verging on child abuse, in my opinion.

Although each to their own.

So you do reluctantly support some degree of liberty. Well that's a good start. Congratulations!



You can save the sermon for someone else.



Actually, in my discussion with BR at least, it seemed he was quite uncomfortable with the idea that anyone wouldn't be teaching the faith to which he (and you) subscribes and that parents should not really be allowed to do that. He appeared to be advocating forcing kids to be taught (in government schools of course) what he thinks they should be taught. So, in that sense, it is about forcing someone.



Well, obviously there is. Just because you dismiss it, doesn't make it go away.



You truly crack me up!

Oh, honeybee. Sweetheart.

I'm asserting that we have a moral obligation to teach our children about the world as it's understood by observation and evidence.

You'd rather they learn myth.

"You truly crack me up!", my snookums, is not perhaps the most cogent argument to the discussion I've ever read.

If you want to argue the points you make, think a bit, love.

I don't know if Mumbo does. But I'm sure you do, don't you? If parents were teaching their kids how to build bombs and neglecting to teach them how to read, wouldn't you want the government to step in? Or would you prefer to have the government let them be? Do you think home schooling permits should be required? Do you think parents of home schooled kids should have minimum education requirements? Do you think it's alright, for instance, if an illiterate single immigrant decided to keep her kid out of school? Do you think the minimum curriculum of the three r's should be required? Perhaps annual testing?

You don't get it. Nothing BR, Mumbo and I think should be taught in schools has anything to do with "faith". Science is not "faith". It is fact or theory supported by physically measurable evidence and, most importantly, open to challenge when more evidence appears (which it does on a regular basis). That's the distinction.

Of course that's not true.



No, it isn't. I didn't say it was.

News flash. Evolution is Science. Global Warming? Science. Age of the Earth? Science.

All of those are based on physically measurable data. All of them can also be challenged as new data arises.

Let's see here...

Evolutionism refers to a theory of evolution, specifically to a widely held 19th century belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves...
Wikipedia.org

NO REFERENCE TO SCIENCE THERE, JUST THEORY!

A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations...
Merriam-Webster On-Line

NO REFERENCE TO SCIENCE THERE, JUST THEORY!

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form...
Free On-Line Dictionary

NO REFERENCE TO SCIENCE THERE EITHER!