|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Arrogance of Elitism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Mike! This is perceived humorously....but would be funnier if it were not true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
They are forced to use the scientific method, they cannot reason freely. And what benefit have you gotten from reasoning freely? "Science" has put a freakin' man on the moon! To me, it seems that science is better than free reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
From another thread:
The scripture say not to cast your "Pearls" (words of wisdom) before "Swine", (unbelievers) This is arrogance - the staunch belief that you're right regardless of any evidence one way or another, that your conclusion is factual and any evidence to the contrary has been "incorrectly interpreted," and that if your "words of wisdom" go unheeded, the reason is not the weakness of your argument but rather that unbelievers are "swine." It's not arrogance to make an argument based on evidence and, when your conclusion ahs been tested and shown to be accurate, to in fact claim that it is accurate. Arrogance is saying "I don't care how much evidence and testing you have. You don't understand God, you're a worthless swine unworthy of my great wisdom, and you're going to Hell."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
meh... I think Muslims and Jews could muster the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
meh... I think Muslims and Jews could muster the same. Yeah, and Mormons and Scientologists, and I'm sure other religions I've never had contact with. See why I usually don't change my subtitle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
See why I usually don't change my subtitle? I do! Butcha better what out... you don't want to get Moosed, do ya?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research? Sounds more like indoctrination or totalitarianism. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
How to tame such a beastie I do not know, but from my 10 years of experience in debating evolutionists, it is useless to address the people themselves, they simply do not have the freedom to reason. I have to agree to a degree. I think it is futile talking to them to an extent, as they seem impervious to reason. Science itself is an illusion to a degree in the sense that what is testable and proven is present and tangible in this age of technology, but I simply don't see how that is the same thing when it comes to the ToE because it is largely history and hypothetics. Two things you shouldn't be anything other than TENTATIVE about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I find it interesting that you, like Syamasu, see honesty, integrity and a care for the truth as things that get in the way of mindlessly accepting your opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Mike,
Syamsu was permanently suspended sometime last month. Suspension is what the little red Science itself is an illusion to a degree in the sense that what is testable and proven is present and tangible in this age of technology... Science is an illusion that is present and tangible? Do you want to rephrase this?
...but I simply don't see how that is the same thing when it comes to the ToE because it is largely history and hypothetics. You opened this thread addressing atheists, now you're talking about evolution. Do you equate evolution with atheism? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
You opened this thread addressing atheists, now you're talking about evolution. Do you equate evolution with atheism? It's a good question Percy. My bouts of web access leave me with little memory of which topic is which so I just try and add an opinion or two when I can. Nowadays I do equate evolution with atheism, in the sense that the general populas is exposed to a consensus that evolution is 'true', or 'the norm', or - and I paraphrase the typical response; 'they know where we came from now', in response to theism. That last one is very prevailent in the public attitude. I do think atheists base their lack of faith on evolution, because what would they base it on? The power of evolution is that it isn't just a science, but that it has religious implications albeit to very specific beliefs such as biblical creationism. But what worries me is that evolution itself makes the ignorant person assume a great many thing against the facts. Such as - the equivocation of natural selection as a fact, with the FULL claims of the ToE. They are not told that natural selection removes information, and that lots of micro equal lots of micro, BECAUSE we have not been shown even one new design information. Mico=macro is false because -3 + 2 does not equal 5. It is an EXCUSE for the lack of mutations. Where are the experiments showing mutation-DESIGNS. (Don't show me flagellum, that proves nothing because it is not the claim of the ToE, which states that morphology can be changed with M + NS.) It hides the fact that abiogenesis is assumed, when 100% of the evidence shows that lifeforms come from lifeforms. You only get organisms because of information. Isn't it even a little convenient to your mind, that you require exactly ZERO evidence of a lifeform coming from nothing? (Don't state that our existence proves it, as that is fallacious.) So evolution stemmed from atheist naturalists within the system. It is not even particularly special itself, the ToE, it's the great many things that are automatically assumed. THAT is the impressive deception that would only come from the master of deception. REMEMBER - objective logic REQUIRES that see thing unbiasedly. So it should concern you that 100% organisms come from other organisms. Pretend evolution doesn't exist in your mind, and THEN ask these questions about information. Pretend you've only ever been shown facts such as deformity and disease. Ask yourself - are there any other facts other than disease, deformity, and natural selection? Look at the facts ONLY, and get back to me. But why should the public think like this, when they have never been taught to think about it. THAT SHOULD STINK to you, with your knowledge of what science is. ( A tentative journey, which works well because it does not claim great things). It's a mistake to just see it as a theory. That is just one aspect of it. It's what comes from it. I don't mind evolution as a hypothetic, but I think people should be shown a balanced picture, because in fairness, people have a right to decide if they want to believe it, and it is deceptive to use natural selection, and pretend that evolution has been observed. NS acting on advantageous traits is observed. Breeding dogs infinitely will get you dogs. Untill you can show a new limb, or a species that stems from a mutational change, you are not aware that you are part of a deception. Atleast think about it Percy. Can I request that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I do think atheists base their lack of faith on evolution, because what would they base it on? My lack of belief is based on the lack of evidence for proposed deities. It isn't based on having scientific explanations for how things happen. Rather, it is based on the lack of any evidence for the supernatural. Right now we lack an explanation for the origin of the universe and the origin of life. This has no effect on my atheism.
REMEMBER - objective logic REQUIRES that see thing unbiasedly. So it should concern you that 100% organisms come from other organisms. No one has ever shown that 100% of all organisms that have ever lived came from other life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 639 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: While it might be you equate atheism and evolution, that is not a good equate. There are many fine believers that accept evolution, and the basis for atheism is not evolution, but rather the lack of evidence of any deity. While evolution makes atheism more intellectually satisfying, it does not mean there is no god, nor does it mean there is a god. When it comes to 'abiogenesis', that is the logical fallacy of 'moving the goal posts' and bringing up red herrings. It is, of course one of the standard tactics of anti-science groups.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5045 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Mike says
'Such as - the equivocation of natural selection as a fact, with the FULL claims of the ToE. They are not told that natural selection removes information, and that lots of micro equal lots of micro, BECAUSE we have not been shown even one new design information. Mico=macro is false because -3 + 2 does not equal 5. It is an EXCUSE for the lack of mutations. Where are the experiments showing mutation-DESIGNS.' Hi Mike. There are experiments where mutation has added 'new functionality' to an organism. One example is in this April's Scientific American ('The evolution of primate color vision'). Primates have developed 3-color vision, which appears to have arisen by duplication and mutation of a gene to produce a new light-absorbing pigment. This enables primates to distinguish more colours. The experimenters wondered whether a mutation like this would be enough to allow animals to see the colours by itself, or whether there would need to be changes in the brain to enable this to happen. So, they genetically engineered a mouse (which has 2 colour vision) by adding a gene for a human light absorbing pigment. The mouse was then able to perceive more colours than a normal mouse - showing that there was no need to change anything in the brain. This shows that duplication and mutation of a pigment gene is sufficient to give new functionality to an organism. Rich
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
So, they genetically engineered a mouse (which has 2 colour vision) by adding a gene for a human light absorbing pigment. The mouse was then able to perceive more colours than a normal mouse - showing that there was no need to change anything in the brain. This shows that duplication and mutation of a pigment gene is sufficient to give new functionality to an organism. Hi Peepul, and welcome. I think your example is a very clever little experiment. lucky mice. I think though, that my position is that you still have to argue that the information came from mutation in the past. Don't forget, you are using information already present in another organism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024