Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 16 of 457 (707510)
09-27-2013 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
09-27-2013 4:33 PM


Re: You tolerate and pity them and continue to try to help them.
Yes Virginia, such people exist and all you can do for them is treat them kindly, try to protect them, have pity on them and never stop trying to educate them.
Yea but its like Sisyphus labour.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Click if you dare!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-27-2013 4:33 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 457 (707511)
09-27-2013 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by New Cat's Eye
09-27-2013 5:07 PM


Re: so much for smarts
No point in pursuing THIS war of subjective opinionizing any further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2013 5:07 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 457 (707512)
09-27-2013 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by frako
09-27-2013 6:36 PM


Re: so much for smarts
You got "data" and "evidence" for your wild statistics about half the human race believing such and so? Funny you didn't supply any in your post, just hyperbolically opined away as if you were making any sense. As I said, all you have is your own opinion based on your own fallible mind, you showed no evidence for anything you said.
I challenged you to show that your wild accusation has any truth to it, which I know it doesn't, and you come back asking me to define the theory of evolution? BAAAAD debate form there.
Which version of the ToE would you like me to spell out, Darwin's or Dawkins' or whichever one is current at EvC designed to suit whatever issue they want it to answer?
The people in Weston Wisconsin do rather represent a tribelet tucked away in the Himalayas, that is, that belief system is not held by very many people, and most of them are not Christians by the way, proving you wrong that great numbers can be smeared with the accusation of a failure to grasp germ theory, but you are also wrong to suggest that THEY deny germ theory too; they merely believe that God is sovereign over germs. Which I believe also. Where I differ with them is in refusing to assume that God will heal according to my directives and override ordinary means. I also believe that God in His mercy guided humanity to the understanding of germ theory as well as all the LEGITIMATE scientific knowledge we possess. Which is most of it, mainly excluding the ToE.
The objections to global warming as I understand it have absolutely nothing whatever to do with spiritual or religious ideas and are argued entirely from scientific facts. You simply disagree with those arguments. This is pure opinion against opinion. Since you are convinced of the global warming scenario you can demonize those of a differing SCIENTIFIC persuasion as bringing calamity on the world, but you are lumping together all kinds of things that don't belong together. I personally do not have a settled opinion on this matter but I don't think those who disagree with global warming should be dismissed as not thinking scientifically. This is a TRUE case of differing views of actual EVIDENCE.
Your "rational explanations" for the supernatural experiences people KNOW they have had are just your own hot air, Frako. There are plenty of falsifications, frauds and deceptions of course, but there is also the real thing and all you are doing with all those IQ smarts is blowing smoke in the service of your own prejudices.
Biblical Creationism does not belong in the same category with all the other phenomena you are talking about. Your whole approach to the issues is stupid and irresponsible.
That's just plain lying slander to say that medical progress is put at risk by those who know that evolution is a fraud. NO Christian denies medical progress. It has nothing to do with evolution, that's a mental trick you all pull on yourselves. Stupid lying slander. The kind that DOES call for Inquisitions against people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by frako, posted 09-27-2013 6:36 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 09-27-2013 8:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 20 by Diomedes, posted 09-28-2013 11:45 AM Faith has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(3)
Message 19 of 457 (707513)
09-27-2013 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
09-27-2013 7:34 PM


Re: so much for smarts
You got "data" and "evidence" for your wild statistics about half the human race believing such and so? Funny you didn't supply any in your post, just hyperbolically opined away as if you were making any sense. As I said, all you have is your own opinion based on your own fallible mind, you showed no evidence for anything you said.
Yea i think i gave you a link about how many Americans believe in creationism, as for the other population of earth some 20% Britons believe Conan the Barbarian was a real person and then you have the Muslims world that denys evolution, or the mixing of salt and fresh water, a whole lot of the world population denys climate change ..... Half of the world being mentally ill was a best guess it could very possibly be worse.
Do "they" really in fact "get lost" or what does this mean anyway? [Do you have some examples of this "they" by the way or are we just required to believe you that a whole bunch of "they's" do in fact "get lost" whatever that means?]
HMM ok you have been here for a while can you in your own words explain what the theory of evolution is.
I challenged you to show that your wild accusation has any truth to it, which I know it doesn't, and you come back asking me to define the theory of evolution? BAAAAD debate form there.
Which version of the ToE would you like me to spell out, Darwin's or Dawkins' or whichever one is current at EvC designed to suit whatever issue they want it to answer?
Yea you kind of proved my point thnx.
The people in Weston Wisconsin do rather represent a tribelet tucked away in the Himalayas, that is, that belief system is not held by very many people, and most of them are not Christians by the way, proving you wrong that great numbers can be smeared with the accusation of a failure to grasp germ theory, but you are also wrong to suggest that THEY deny germ theory too; they merely believe that God is sovereign over germs. Which I believe also. Where I differ with them is in refusing to assume that God will heal according to my directives and override ordinary means. I also believe that God in His mercy guided humanity to the understanding of germ theory as well as all the LEGITIMATE scientific knowledge we possess. Which is most of it, mainly excluding the ToE.
You do know that if you exlude evolution half of modern medicine goes down the drain with it for example we keep making stronger antibiotics because germs are evolving resistance to the ones we use. Without Evolution we dont need to make new antibiotics
The objections to global warming as I understand it have absolutely nothing whatever to do with spiritual or religious ideas and are argued entirely from scientific facts. You simply disagree with those arguments. This is pure opinion against opinion. Since you are convinced of the global warming scenario you can demonize those of a differing SCIENTIFIC persuasion as bringing calamity on the world, but you are lumping together all kinds of things that don't belong together. I personally do not have a settled opinion on this matter but I don't think those who disagree with global warming should be dismissed as not thinking scientifically. This is a TRUE case of differing views of actual EVIDENCE.
Yea 99% or roughly so agre that climate change is caused by man, A lot of those that disagree with those scientists not all do so because god would not let that happen, or simply because god is the guy who controls the weather.
Or from the mouth of one of your flock believing in climate change is an insult to god.
Your "rational explanations" for the supernatural experiences people KNOW they have had are just your own hot air, Frako. There are plenty of falsifications, frauds and deceptions of course, but there is also the real thing and all you are doing with all those IQ smarts is blowing smoke in the service of your own prejudices.
Ok pick a supernatural event and il rip it apart its hard to rip them appart all at once.
Biblical Creationism does not belong in the same category with all the other phenomena you are talking about. Your whole approach to the issues is stupid and irresponsible.
Yes it belongs on the shelf with Zeus, Thor, and the Cracken.
Because our observations, objective measurements, and experiments have showed it dint happen that way and not 6000 years ago.
That's just plain lying slander to say that medical progress is put at risk by those who know that evolution is a fraud. NO Christian denies medical progress. It has nothing to do with evolution, that's a mental trick you all pull on yourselves. Stupid lying slander. The kind that DOES call for Inquisitions against people.
Ok say we make a virus that attacks cancer cells and only cancer cells uses them like any other virus turns them in to a factory of viruses that spread to other cancer cells. Without the TOE this would be a fabulous idea, cancer cured. With the TOE its a potential disaster if the virus that only attacks cancer cells should ever mutate to attack normal cells too.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : Lapsus

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Click if you dare!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 09-27-2013 7:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 09-28-2013 11:51 AM frako has not replied
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 2:24 PM frako has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(3)
Message 20 of 457 (707544)
09-28-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
09-27-2013 7:34 PM


Re: so much for smarts
That's just plain lying slander to say that medical progress is put at risk by those who know that evolution is a fraud. NO Christian denies medical progress. It has nothing to do with evolution, that's a mental trick you all pull on yourselves.
Incorrect. There are Christians who have already been arrested and charged with manslaughter because they denied medical treatment for their children in favor of 'prayer'. Several cases have made the news of late. Additionally, there are numerous Christian sects that have various views regarding the type and nature of medical treatment they receive.
Regardless, the theory of evolution has been at the forefront of numerous advances in modern medicine. There is even a topic page dedicated on Wikipedia called 'Evolutionary Medicine'.
So I am sorry, but in deference to your earlier statement, denying evolution is tantamount to denying medical progress. Pure and simple.

"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 09-27-2013 7:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 2:28 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 457 (707546)
09-28-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by frako
09-27-2013 8:25 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Ok say we make a virus that attacks cancer cells and only cancer cells uses them like any other virus turns them in to a factory of viruses that spread to other cancer cells.
Silly Frako. You know that Fundies have explanations for this stuff so that they can continue taking modern medicines and still avoid a fiery hereafter. When microorganisms mutate that is mere micro-evolution because the resulting organism is still of the germy kind. Perfectly allowable. As long as only ark animals undergo macro-evolution, and then only to the extent allowable to counter a scientific argument against the Flood, that's cool too.
What I cannot understand is how many Fundies avoid the urge to visit Jesus in prison or to feed and shelter a hungry illegal immigrant Jesus, or to not cast the first stone. It's almost as if only the Torah matters...
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 09-27-2013 8:25 PM frako has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 457 (707561)
09-28-2013 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by frako
09-27-2013 8:25 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Look, your OP was simply a mess of misrepresentations and wild assertions. You are wrong about anyone denying germ theory, so admit it, and you are wrong about believers in whatever you are mistaking for religious principles, which is beyond me to sort out, denying the value of medical advances, which Christians thank God for. You are ignorant, Frako, of the thinking of your opponents in all the areas you are so blithely claiming to know what you are talking about.
Yes, as No Nukes says, most of evolutionism's ridiculous charges against creationists can be easily answered if you'd just recognize that we have no problem with "microevolution" or in other words, NORMAL VARIATION through sexual recombination. You just refuse to understand the thinking of your opponents and go on and on misrepresenting us. What does that accomplish for you? A false pride at least. AND WE ALSO are aware of the dangers of mutations, so what's your point about the virus attacking cancer cells? Sheesh, at least learn something about the terms of the argument you are so wildly carrying on about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 09-27-2013 8:25 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 2:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 457 (707563)
09-28-2013 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Diomedes
09-28-2013 11:45 AM


Re: so much for smarts
The assertion Frako made was that believers in faith healing DENY GERM THEORY and this has not been shown and I know for a fact that it is not true in all the cases of believers in faith healing I'm aware of. So stick to the subject.
And sorry back to you, but evolution has NO bearing on the advances in medicine, that's just an article of faith you guys bow down to. Sorry sorry sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Diomedes, posted 09-28-2013 11:45 AM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2013 2:39 PM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 24 of 457 (707564)
09-28-2013 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
09-28-2013 2:28 PM


Re: so much for smarts
...evolution has NO bearing on the advances in medicine, that's just an article of faith you guys bow down to.
Ever hear of the essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution?" Give it a try:
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml
And your little comment about "an article of faith" is nothing more than projection. Scientists don't need faith--we have evidence. It is those who lack evidence who must rely on faith.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 2:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 3:55 PM Coyote has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 25 of 457 (707565)
09-28-2013 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
09-28-2013 2:24 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Look, your OP was simply a mess of misrepresentations and wild assertions. You are wrong about anyone denying germ theory, so admit it, and you are wrong about believers in whatever you are mistaking for religious principles, which is beyond me to sort out, denying the value of medical advances, which Christians thank God for. You are ignorant, Frako, of the thinking of your opponents in all the areas you are so blithely claiming to know what you are talking about.
Yea thats the problem you thank god for medical advancements while it was the scientist who made those advancements. And faith healing is a denial of germ theory, as is praying for healing.
U.S. death toll among infants and children: In 1998-APR, Dr. Seth Asser, a critical-care pediatrician at Methodist Children's Hospital in San Antonio, and Rita Swan, head of the advocacy group Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty (CHILD) authored a paper in the professional journal Pediatrics. Asser studied 172 reported deaths of infants and children between 1975 and 1995. Deaths were found in 34 states among members of 23 religious groups. They belonged to families of Christian Scientist, Faith Tabernacle, Faith Assembly and several other religious groups that practice faith healing. He compared the cause of death with the expected survival rates if the children had received routine medical care. They found:
bullet 140 children would have had a 90% chance of surviving if they had been treated medically.
bullet 18 children would have had a 50 to 90% chance of surviving
bullet 11 children would have received some benefits from medical care
bullet 3 would not have been helped from medical care
From The effectivenss of faith healing
Yea they dont deny medical advancements because of their foolish beliefs. I guess when Jesus said "Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well" he wasn't talking about those 150 kids.
Yes, as No Nukes says, most of evolutionism's ridiculous charges against creationists can be easily answered if you'd just recognize that we have no problem with "microevolution" or in other words, NORMAL VARIATION. You just refuse to understand the thinking of your opponents and go on and on misrepresenting us. What does that accomplish for you? A false pride at least. AND WE ALSO are aware of the dangers of mutations, so what's your point about the virus attacking cancer cells? Sheesh, at least learn something about the terms of the argument you are so wildly carrying on about.
The problem is you dont get it there is no micro or macro evolution that was made up by creationist its only evolution.
Let me try to give you an example of what you are saying. Eating too much for a short time will make you gain weight but eating too much for a long time will not make you fat.
Its insane what you are proposing. Totally out of touch with reality and reason.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Click if you dare!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 2:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 3:24 PM frako has replied
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 3:32 PM frako has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 26 of 457 (707566)
09-28-2013 2:50 PM


deleted
Edited by Tangle, : stupid

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 457 (707574)
09-28-2013 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by frako
09-28-2013 2:48 PM


Re: so much for smarts
There you go with your wild assertions again. Hey, I've many times proposed just HOW microevolution does not become macroevolution. And keep in mind that I resent the terminology as much as you do. "Microevolution" is a term that was spawned out of evolutionist assumptions, that merely describes what was always previously understood to be normal variation within the genome of a Species or Kind. The fact that genomes differ from Species to Species in some pretty clear ways, such as chromosome number for instance, ought to be some kind of clue that there are boundaries involved anyway.
But my argument is that the very genetic processes that bring about phenotypic variations of necessity reduce the genetic potentials from population to population. This is a NECESSARY development, it MUST happen or you will not get new variations, new breeds etc. You have to get rid of the competing genetic material. You aren't going to get a Hereford if the breed contains alleles for Black Angus. Etc. this is elementary. You guys are simply blinded by theory, keep conjuring with pure fantasy instead of looking at reality. Anyway, eventually this NATURAL AND INEVITABLE reduction in genetic diversity (which beneficial mutation would only interfere with by the way) leads through many daughter populations to a condition beyond which no further variation, i.e., evolution is possible. Hey, this works, and it means that evolution comes to a natural end down any line of variation. Wrap your IQ around that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 2:48 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 3:51 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 457 (707576)
09-28-2013 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by frako
09-28-2013 2:48 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Hey, faith healing does NOT deny germ theory, nor is prayer a denial of it. Try learning something for a change. I don't believe in that kind of total trust in faith healing, but I nevertheless don't accuse them of denying simple facts like germ theory. Trust in God to heal, i.e. faith healing expects God to override germ theory, it does not deny germ theory. Also prayer ASKS God to override germ theory, it does not deny it. You are lying about what we believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 2:48 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2013 3:41 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 36 by frako, posted 09-28-2013 7:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 29 of 457 (707577)
09-28-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
09-28-2013 3:32 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Hey, faith healing does NOT deny germ theory, nor is prayer a denial of it.
There's another way to look at faith healing:
Evolution in Action

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 3:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 296 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 30 of 457 (707578)
09-28-2013 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
09-28-2013 3:24 PM


Re: so much for smarts
There you go with your wild assertions again. Hey, I've many times proposed just HOW microevolution does not become macroevolution. And keep in mind that I resent the terminology as much as you do. "Microevolution" is a term that was spawned out of evolutionist assumptions, that merely describes what was always previously understood to be normal variation within the genome of a Species or Kind. The fact that genomes differ ought to be some kind of clue that there are boundaries involved anyway. But my argument is that the very genetic processes that bring about phenotypic variations of necessity reduce the genetic potentials from population to population. This is a NECESSARY development, it MUST happen or you will not get new variations, new breeds etc. You have to get rid of the competing genetic material. You aren't going to get a Hereford if the breed contains alleles for Black Angus. Etc. this is elementary. You guys are simply blinded by theory, keep conjuring with pure fantasy instead of looking at reality. Anyway, eventually this NATURAL AND INEVITABLE reduction in genetic diversity (which beneficial mutation would only interfere with by the way) leads through many daughter populations to a condition beyond which no further variation, i.e., evolution is possible. Hey, this works, and it means that evolution comes to a natural end down any line of variation. Wrap your IQ around that.
Ok wrap your head around this you admitt we can get new breeds. Say a small dog. I take the small dog breed and breed them to be hairless. We get a new breed small hairless dog. I breed the hairless small dog breed further so they have no tails or verry small ones. I breed the hairless small dog with no tail further to get one with giant fangs. I breed the small hairless tailles giant fang dog further to get a breed with a fused back. I breed the small hairless tailles, giant fang, fused spine dog further to get one with a short snout, i breed the small hairless, tailles, giant fang, fused spine, short snout dog further to get short fromt legs, i breed the short hairless, tailles giant fang, fused spine, short snout, short front leg dog further with one with long legs at the back, i breed the short, hairless, tailles, giant fang, fused spine, short snout, short front large back leg dog further ......
Yes it always remains a dog like we will always be apes, and primates, and mammals ....
Thats evolution with man as the selector.
What is stopping me from going further
In natural selection sometimes the selective pressure is not as strong as in other times so the population seems to peak. But these pressures constantly change what was once a huge advantage over other species can be a hindernece like a large size when food is scarce. Or perfect sabre teeth when your pray is extinct ....

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Click if you dare!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 3:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 7:13 PM frako has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024