>On 8/20/2012 3:32 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <r5Cdnaq9kq_ZwqzNnZ2dnUVZ_redn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
>> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> writes
>>> On 8/18/2012 2:32 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:28:07 -0300, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <n...@na.ca>:
>>>>>> includes the following:
>>>>>> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it
>>>>>> does not rule out any possibilities."
>>>>>> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or
>>>>>> does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>>>>>> (just being the devil's advocate here)
>>>>>> Nick
>>>>> "Accommodating all possibilities also makes a theory exactly useless."
>>>>> And the ToE is exactly that.
>>>> No theory except Creationism (which isn't actually a theory
>>>> or even a hypothesis, but an assertion or belief)
>>>> accommodates all possibilities - "God did it" accommodates
>>>> anything imaginable and thus is evidence for nothing.
>>> Only for those theological doctrines that assume an omnipotent,
>>> omniscient God. A *limited* God would not accommodate anything
>>> imaginable.
>> A *limited* and *specified* God could not accommodate anything
>> imaginable. If you don't specify the God, then the combination of
>> differently limited Gods potentially accommodates anything possible.
>Some Muslims conceive of a God--Allah--Who is not only omnipotent but >isn't even bound by His own logic. For example, in this conception, God >can make a covenant with Abraham and then break His word the very next >day. (There's an obvious ulterior motive here; this is what would >enable God to change His mind and make the Muslims, rather than the >Jews, His chosen people.)
A nit: breaking one's word has nothing to do with logic, but
with honesty.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
> >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
> >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
> >> (just being the devil's advocate here)
> >> Nick
> >Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation? Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that share a common ancestor with a fish, that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago? The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
> You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like
> that.
> >oxfordictionaries.com
> >science
> >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:
> >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda
> <YAWN>
> > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
> Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected
> against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which
> makes that a Good Thing (c).
> But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually
> beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot
> to mention that.
> >Another lol
> Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'.
> >thing, go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified. Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
> I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things
> came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
Wiki abiogenesis
Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
> > >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
> > >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
> > >> (just being the devil's advocate here)
> > >> Nick
> > >Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation? Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that share a common ancestor with a fish, that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago? The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
> > You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like
> > that.
> > >oxfordictionaries.com
> > >science
> > >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:
> > >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda
> > <YAWN>
> > > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
> > Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected
> > against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which
> > makes that a Good Thing (c).
> > But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually
> > beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot
> > to mention that.
> > >Another lol
> > Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'.
> > >thing, go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified. Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
> > I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things
> > came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
> Wiki abiogenesis
> Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
> I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
And it's nice to see that you approach the question with a thoughtful
attitude and a willingness to learn.
> Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
That's an odd way to phrase it. All life on earth clearly does share a
common ancestor (or possibly ancestors depending upon the extent of
lateral transfer in the early stages of evolution). But if you want to
push that back to include non-replicating matter (organic and
inorganic specifically refer to the presence of carbon compounds, and
can be confusing in this context) to which we would not refer as
"life," then you start to lose some of the distinctions and meanings
that help frame the question in the first place.
> As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
Did you come here to learn about evolutionary biology or is your beef
with atheists? You can find defenders of the science here from either
the theist or atheist camp, but the evidence so far (including the
word salad just above) suggests you need to learn a lot more about
both science and atheism before engaging either meaningfully.
> > >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
> > >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
> > >> (just being the devil's advocate here)
> > >> Nick
> > >Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation? Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that share a common ancestor with a fish, that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago? The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
> > You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like
> > that.
> > >oxfordictionaries.com
> > >science
> > >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:
> > >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda
> > <YAWN>
> > > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
> > Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected
> > against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which
> > makes that a Good Thing (c).
> > But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually
> > beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot
> > to mention that.
> > >Another lol
> > Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'.
> > >thing, go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified. Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
> > I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things
> > came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
> Wiki abiogenesis
> Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
> I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
> Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
> As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
Cool word salad, dude.
You do realize, I hope, that the origin of life, and the subsequent
development of life, are two separate issues, right?
Life did, in fact, have a beginning--whether we understand the process
or not.
Life has, in fact, developed and changes since then, and that fact we
understand quite well. Nested hierarchies, deep homologies, and
shared derived characteristics, all point toward the
common descent of life on the planet.
> On Aug 19, 11:30 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 4:10 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 19, 9:59 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 19, 9:29 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > Reading through your combative insanity,
> > > > ...you must have read a different post that the one I put up...
> > > > I_knew_ you would not read what I posted, certainly not the whole
> > > > thing...and I _knew_ you would not understand it. I said so, in
> > > > writing.
> > > > Thanks for keeping my expectations of you so very low...
> > > > >you score a single point in
> > > > ...in your totally subjective opinion, concordant with nothing in
> > > > known space...
> > > > > that you correctly say that love is subjectively identified.
> > > > ...which I have said all along, and regarding which you have told lie
> > > > after lie (surprise) about my opinion, the actual content of which you
> > > > never bothered to determine...and still manifestly do not understand.
> > > > > You still fail at:
> > > > Little boy, you are not qualified to judge me. The very best you can
> > > > say, is that , in the unflushed public toilet that you use instead of
> > > > a mind, you are of the totally subjective opinion that _my_ opinions
> > > > do not agree with yours. (A fact for which I am humbly grateful.)
> > > > > - confirming subjectivity is an act of free will, that subjectivity
> > > > > requires alternative results available in the moment
> > > > > - having a category name for all what is subjectively identified
> > > > > - attributing what is subjectively identified to what chooses, love
> > > > > and hate are owners of choices
> > > > ...in your totally subjective opinion, concordant with nothing in
> > > > known space...
> > > > Prove me wrong. Provide an actual citation to a realspace source (no,
> > > > I will not accept the stupidwiki you keep bragging about controlling)
> > > > that agrees with, or supports, your take on these things.
> > > > Since you cannot, all these things are your totally subjective
> > > > opinions, and you are welcome to them--but you do err when you pretend
> > > > that _I_, or anyone else, should or "must" agree with you.
> > > > You don't understand the nature of subjective opinions at all, do you?
> > > > > Conclusion: Slow Vehicle is still
> > > > Tell me something: what in the name of a Marmot-stalkiing Stephenson
> > > > do you _think_ you are achieving with the third person narrative
> > > > style? Do you think it makes you look less stupid? Do you think it
> > > > lends an air of authority to your obvious delusions?
> > > > *snerk*
> > > > > a con-artist
> > > > ...in your totally subjective opinion, concordant with nothing in
> > > > known space...
> > > > >who sides with those who consider love an objective matter of fact, and
> > > > > against those who consider love a categorically subjective issue.
> > > > ...I _knew_ you were not capable or reading, or understanding, my
> > > > post...
> > > > >He simply uses the same logic for objectivity as he does for
> > > > > subjectivity,
> > > > ...you say that like it's a bad thing... thanks for noticing...
> > > > >in saying that love is subjectively identified.
> > > > *snerk*
> > > > Don't you have tube socks to fill over at the Klubhaus?
> > > I suggest you not use your personal life to experiment on which view
> > > works best.
> > Who's else is he going to use?
> > > Just think this view on an abstract level....and it shows
> > > generally religionists knew what they were doing conceptually
> > In your subjective opinion. You do understand that "abstract" in that
> > context means "imaginary", right?
> > > in
> > > positing a subjectively identified spiritual domain doing the chosing.
> > And there's the "hidden" meaning of your screed. The thing
> > "subjectivily identified spiritual domain doing the choosing" is your
> > "god" thingy. That is one reason to reject your demands on "properly
> > acknowledging the subjective", as you want it used, right there.
> It's not the case, the spiritual domain is just a category name, much
> like the material domain.
No. The "material domain" can be observed and measured. There is no
evidence of a 'spiritual domain", and at best can be placed in the
catagory of "imaginary".
> There aren't only planets in the material
> domain, and it is not neccessarily the case that only God is in the
> spiritual domain, although it is possible to believe this.
It's also possible to believe in the Tooth Fairy, the FSM, IPU, and
Last Thursdayism. "Beliving'" in something without evidence is an act
of personal faith. Your problem is you *DEMAND* that one must
"subjectively identify the spiritual domain" in order to "proprly
acknowledge subjectivity". You have no right to demand that anyone do
such thing.
> Assigning
> God to the spiritual domain only says the existence of God is a matter
> to be chosen, and not to be evidenced.
If by that, you mean a belief in God is a matter of unsupported faith,
yes it is.
> You can see ofcourse, that when
> you don't support belief in God as logically valid subjectivity,
> regardless of whether you agree with belief in God or not, then your
> support for subjectivity is unconvincing.
A belief, or non-belief, in God has ZERO to do with subjectivity with
my "support of subjectivity". Nowhere, except in you warped little
mind, is a belif in God important to subjective opinions.
> Saying one can believe any
> fool thing does not equal support for subjectivity, it is denigrating
> subjectivity.
No it isn't. Not in the least bit. It's a matter of exercising one's
freedom of choice (though, some are so brainwashed in their youth,
they do not have the mental balls to make their own choice).
On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:43:06 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 02:51:45 UTC+10, jillery wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT) > > wrote: > > > > >On Thursday, 16 August 2012 14:37:52 UTC+10, nick humphrey wrote: > > >> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001: > > >> > > >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html > > >> includes the following: > > >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities." > > >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"? > > >> (just being the devil's advocate here) > > >> Nick > > > > > >
> Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation?
A 'change over time' can be explained by a 'change in allele frequencies over time'.
Genetic drift is a MECHANISM of evolution - one allele can come to dominate the population purely by luck.
Mutation adds variation for selection to work upon, which is evolution (mutation/variation is the 'fuel' for the 'engine' of evolution).
Speciation can be an end result of evolution.
You seem considerably and willfully ignorant and confused ...
> Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees,
Given the REAL WORLD DATA, and knowledge of what is possible in biology, that is a sane and rational deduction.
> that share a common ancestor with a fish,
Given the REAL WORLD DATA, and knowledge of what is possible in biology, that is a sane and rational deduction.
> that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago?
All life has a common ancestor that existed about 3.5 billion years ago - as deduced from REAL WORLD DATA.
That ancestor arose from ORGANIC MATTER - chemicals based on carbon.
From what festering orifice did you pull the 'idea' that life arose from INorganic matter ? Or are you too ignorant of basic chemistry to know there is a difference ?
> The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
REAL events can leave OBSERVABLE EFFECTS. Just because something happened in the past does not mean it is untestable.
And the real world data supports common ancestry of all life, and that it arose about 3.5 billion years ago.
> > > > > > You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like > > that. > > > > > > > > >oxfordictionaries.com > > > > > >science > > > > > >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT: > > > > > >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda > > > > > > <YAWN> > > > > > > > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
Selection reduces VARIATION, which can increase information - the 'functional information' in a system depends on how functional it is and how many sequences can perform that function.
If you start with many, poorly functional sequences and apply selection, you end up with few (or just one) very high performer. 'Functional information' has increased.
Creating genetic 'information' is trivially easy, as there are many known mechanisms that do so.
Mutations restock variation - in fact, one of the 'fingerprints' of a recent selective sweep is LACK OF VARIATION. As generations go by, variation increases.
You seem to have the silly idea that ALL mutations are lethal. They are not. Most are neutral, but of those with OBSERVABLE effects, the majority are deleterious. But beneficial mutations do exist.
> > > > > > Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected > > against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which > > makes that a Good Thing (c). > > > > But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually > > beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot > > to mention that. > > > > > > >Another lol > > > > > > Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'. > > > > > > >thing, > go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified.
'Spontaneous generation' was the idea that oily rags DIRECTLY turn into mice, or rotting meat DIRECTLY turns into maggots, or nutrient broth DIRECTLY turns into bacteria. THIS IS NOT ABIOGENESIS.
> Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
Define 'life' on the molecular level.
> > > > > > I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things > > came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
> Wiki abiogenesis Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
Life comes from ORGANIC matter - chemicals based on carbon. Only someone completley ignorant of the subject would make so simple a mistake.
> I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
The greatest delusion in history is Young Earth Creationism. Wrong when written thousands of years ago, still wrong today.
> Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
All life has a common ancestor that arose from ORGANIC matter about 3.5 billion years ago, based on all available real world evidence.
> As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
You seem to have the rather silly delusion that ANYONE that accepts the validity of evolution (and real world science as well) MUST be an atheist.
"Atheists" WRITE the actual literature twit !
REAL events can produce REAL, OBSERVABLE EFFECTS - the fact something happened in the past does not mean it cannot be studied or investigated.
Neofunctionalization HAS BEEN OBSERVED TO HAPPEN - an enzyme changing the substrate it works on is an example of this. Plus many, MANY others you are too willfully ignorant to look up or understand.
That chromosomes can fuse is A KNOWN FACT, and it leaves OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE BEHIND when it does.
Telomeres, for instance, occur on the ends of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 has telomeric sequence INSIDE the arms - exactly what sane and rational people would EXPECT from a chromosomal fusion.
Plus the FACT that it has the remnants of a second centromere, the exact same genes in the same proximity to each other as seen in chimps, etc.
The sane and rational deduction is 'human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes that occurred millions of years ago'.
Your 'explanation' is what again ?
Oh, right : 'DE WUZ KREATED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE SIX THOUSAND YEAERS AGO !!!!!'
> > >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
> > >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
> > >> (just being the devil's advocate here)
> > >> Nick
> > >Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation? Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that share a common ancestor with a fish, that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago? The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
> > You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like
> > that.
> > >oxfordictionaries.com
> > >science
> > >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:
> > >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda
> > <YAWN>
> > > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
> > Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected
> > against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which
> > makes that a Good Thing (c).
> > But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually
> > beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot
> > to mention that.
> > >Another lol
> > Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'.
> > >thing, go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified. Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
> > I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things
> > came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
> Wiki abiogenesis
> Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
> I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
What a coincidence! I'm also interested in the psychological
underpinnings of seemingly mature adults who still believe in bronze
age creation mythologies.
>> >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
>> >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>> >> (just being the devil's advocate here)
>> >> Nick
>> >Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation? Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that share a common ancestor with a fish, that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago? The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
>> You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like
>> that.
>> >oxfordictionaries.com
>> >science
>> >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:
>> >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda
>> <YAWN>
>> > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
>> Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected
>> against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which
>> makes that a Good Thing (c).
>> But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually
>> beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot
>> to mention that.
>> >Another lol
>> Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'.
>> >thing, go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified. Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
>> I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things
>> came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
>Wiki abiogenesis
>Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
You conveniently missed this part:
"In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life
on Earth may have arisen. "
So abiogenesis isn't associated with the kind of spontaneous
generation Pasteur disproved.
There was a time when life didn't exist. Now it exists in profusion.
Therefore, there necessarily was a time of first life. Unless you
insist life always existed. Do you so insist? Because that would be
contrary to most biblical interpretations as well.
Now, how about that biblical life from dust thingie?
>I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
That would be The Bible.
>Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
"common ancestor with inorganic matter" is a meaningless statement.
>As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
I might as well play your trump card: Were you there? How do you
know?
Short version: nobody is going to take you seriously as long as you
continue to spew unsupported gibberish. At least try to support the
gibberish you spew.
> >> >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
> >> >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
> >> >> (just being the devil's advocate here)
> >> >> Nick
> >> >Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation? Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that share a common ancestor with a fish, that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago? The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
> >> You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like
> >> that.
> >> >oxfordictionaries.com
> >> >science
> >> >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:
> >> >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda
> >> <YAWN>
> >> > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
> >> Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected
> >> against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which
> >> makes that a Good Thing (c).
> >> But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually
> >> beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot
> >> to mention that.
> >> >Another lol
> >> Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'.
> >> >thing, go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified. Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
> >> I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things
> >> came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
> >Wiki abiogenesis
> >Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
> You conveniently missed this part:
> "In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life
> on Earth may have arisen. "
> So abiogenesis isn't associated with the kind of spontaneous
> generation Pasteur disproved.
> There was a time when life didn't exist. Now it exists in profusion.
> Therefore, there necessarily was a time of first life. Unless you
> insist life always existed. Do you so insist? Because that would be
> contrary to most biblical interpretations as well.
> Now, how about that biblical life from dust thingie?
> >I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
> That would be The Bible.
> >Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
> "common ancestor with inorganic matter" is a meaningless statement.
> >As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
> I might as well play your trump card: Were you there? How do you
> know?
> Short version: nobody is going to take you seriously as long as you
> continue to spew unsupported gibberish. At least try to support the
> gibberish you spew.
I think I call POE on that one - the spelling mistakes are of the kind
a not very clever person thinks are done by really stupid people - but
the patterns is way off from reality (e.g. "too" instead of the
shorter "to, while getting some of the more complex words right)
>> >> >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
>> >> >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
>> >> >> (just being the devil's advocate here)
>> >> >> Nick
>> >> >Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation? Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that share a common ancestor with a fish, that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago? The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
>> >> You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like
>> >> that.
>> >> >oxfordictionaries.com
>> >> >science
>> >> >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:
>> >> >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda
>> >> <YAWN>
>> >> > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
>> >> Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected
>> >> against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which
>> >> makes that a Good Thing (c).
>> >> But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually
>> >> beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot
>> >> to mention that.
>> >> >Another lol
>> >> Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'.
>> >> >thing, go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified. Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
>> >> I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things
>> >> came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
>> >Wiki abiogenesis
>> >Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
>> You conveniently missed this part:
>> "In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life
>> on Earth may have arisen. "
>> So abiogenesis isn't associated with the kind of spontaneous
>> generation Pasteur disproved.
>> There was a time when life didn't exist. Now it exists in profusion.
>> Therefore, there necessarily was a time of first life. Unless you
>> insist life always existed. Do you so insist? Because that would be
>> contrary to most biblical interpretations as well.
>> Now, how about that biblical life from dust thingie?
>> >I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
>> That would be The Bible.
>> >Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
>> "common ancestor with inorganic matter" is a meaningless statement.
>> >As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
>> I might as well play your trump card: Were you there? How do you
>> know?
>> Short version: nobody is going to take you seriously as long as you
>> continue to spew unsupported gibberish. At least try to support the
>> gibberish you spew.
>I think I call POE on that one - the spelling mistakes are of the kind
>a not very clever person thinks are done by really stupid people - but
>the patterns is way off from reality (e.g. "too" instead of the
>shorter "to, while getting some of the more complex words right)
> > > > >>>>> includes the following:
> > > > >>>>> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities."
> > > > >>>>> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"?
> > > > >>>>> (just being the devil's advocate here)
> > > > >>>> Of course creationists rule out evolution by natural selection. And they
> > > > >>>> also provide evidence against it.
> > > > >>> Can you provide a cite to the evidence you claim they
> > > > >>> provide?
> > > > > Thank you for your honesty in acknowledging that you cannot provide
> > > > > any evidence against natural selection.
> > > > Wow, what a clever riposte. I didn't expect that kind of intelligence
> > > > from one who can't figure out how to do a google search.
> > > Let's start with a particular example, then.
> > > And yes, I did the Google search, and found a nice little study
> > > (available free as a pdf from Duke University) that points to
> > > evolution via natural selection in genetically inbred lines of a
> > > single species of plant.
On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 04:30:23 UTC+10, Prof Weird wrote:
> On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:43:06 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 02:51:45 UTC+10, jillery wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT) > > wrote: > > > > >On Thursday, 16 August 2012 14:37:52 UTC+10, nick humphrey wrote: > > >> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001: > > >> > > >> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html > > >> includes the following: > > >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities." > > >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"? > > >> (just being the devil's advocate here) > > >> Nick > > > > > >
> > Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation?
> A 'change over time' can be explained by a 'change in allele frequencies over time'.
> Genetic drift is a MECHANISM of evolution - one allele can come to dominate the population purely by luck.
> Mutation adds variation for selection to work upon, which is evolution (mutation/variation is the 'fuel' for the 'engine' of evolution).
> Speciation can be an end result of evolution.
> You seem considerably and willfully ignorant and confused ...
> > Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees,
> Given the REAL WORLD DATA, and knowledge of what is possible in biology, that is a sane and rational deduction.
> > that share a common ancestor with a fish,
> Given the REAL WORLD DATA, and knowledge of what is possible in biology, that is a sane and rational deduction.
> > that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago?
> All life has a common ancestor that existed about 3.5 billion years ago - as deduced from REAL WORLD DATA.
> That ancestor arose from ORGANIC MATTER - chemicals based on carbon.
> From what festering orifice did you pull the 'idea' that life arose from INorganic matter ? Or are you too ignorant of basic chemistry to know there is a difference ?
> > The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
> REAL events can leave OBSERVABLE EFFECTS. Just because something happened in the past does not mean it is untestable.
> And the real world data supports common ancestry of all life, and that it arose about 3.5 billion years ago.
> > > > > > > You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like > > that. > > > > > > > > >oxfordictionaries.com > > > > > >science > > > > > >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT: > > > > > >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda > > > > > > <YAWN> > > > > > > > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
> Selection reduces VARIATION, which can increase information - the 'functional information' in a system depends on how functional it is and how many sequences can perform that function.
> If you start with many, poorly functional sequences and apply selection, you end up with few (or just one) very high performer. 'Functional information' has increased.
> Creating genetic 'information' is trivially easy, as there are many known mechanisms that do so.
> Mutations restock variation - in fact, one of the 'fingerprints' of a recent selective sweep is LACK OF VARIATION. As generations go by, variation increases.
> You seem to have the silly idea that ALL mutations are lethal. They are not. Most are neutral, but of those with OBSERVABLE effects, the majority are deleterious. But beneficial mutations do exist.
> > > > > > > Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected > > against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which > > makes that a Good Thing (c). > > > > But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually > > beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot > > to mention that. > > > > > > >Another lol > > > > > > Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'. > > > > > > >thing,
> > go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified.
> 'Spontaneous generation' was the idea that oily rags DIRECTLY turn into mice, or rotting meat DIRECTLY turns into maggots, or nutrient broth DIRECTLY turns into bacteria. THIS IS NOT ABIOGENESIS.
> > Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
> Define 'life' on the molecular level.
> > > > > > > I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things > > came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
> > Wiki abiogenesis Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
> Life comes from ORGANIC matter - chemicals based on carbon. Only someone completley ignorant of the subject would make so simple a mistake.
> > I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
> The greatest delusion in history is Young Earth Creationism. Wrong when written thousands of years ago, still wrong today.
> > Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
> All life has a common ancestor that arose from ORGANIC matter about 3.5 billion years ago, based on all available real world evidence.
> > As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
> You seem to have the rather silly delusion that ANYONE that accepts the validity of evolution (and real world science as well) MUST be an atheist.
> "Atheists" WRITE the actual literature twit !
> REAL events can produce REAL, OBSERVABLE EFFECTS - the fact something happened in the past does not mean it cannot be studied or investigated.
> Neofunctionalization HAS BEEN OBSERVED TO HAPPEN - an enzyme changing the substrate it works on is an example of this. Plus many, MANY others you are too willfully ignorant to look up or understand.
> That chromosomes can fuse is A KNOWN FACT, and it leaves OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE BEHIND when it does.
> Telomeres, for instance, occur on the ends of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 has telomeric sequence INSIDE the arms - exactly what sane and rational people would EXPECT from a chromosomal fusion.
> Plus the FACT that it has the remnants of a second centromere, the exact same genes in the same proximity to each other as seen in chimps, etc.
> The sane and rational deduction is 'human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes that occurred millions of years ago'.
> Your 'explanation' is what again ?
> Oh, right : 'DE WUZ KREATED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE SIX THOUSAND YEAERS AGO !!!!!'
Thank you all for your incredible incredible ignorance.
Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral
telomere-telomere fusion
Molecular data show evidence that this event must have occurred only a few million years ago (refs. 4 and 5 and the references therein).
This is the standard model for NDM (neodarwinian myth) assign things off into the unobserved and unobservable past because it is contrary to science and common sense. Ie- I make up ANY MYTH ON THE PLANET and just say "Oh it happened millions and millions of years ago of course we dont observe it today"
Written history goes back 6,000 years (recorded history page on wikipedia) Thank you all for your ignorance.
> On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 04:30:23 UTC+10, Prof Weird wrote:
> > On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:43:06 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 02:51:45 UTC+10, jillery wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT) > > wrote: > > > > >On Thursday, 16 August 2012 14:37:52 UTC+10, nick humphrey wrote: > > >> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001: > > >> > > >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html> > >> includes the following: > > >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities." > > >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"? > > >> (just being the devil's advocate here) > > >> Nick > > > > > >
> > > Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation?
> > A 'change over time' can be explained by a 'change in allele frequencies over time'.
> > Genetic drift is a MECHANISM of evolution - one allele can come to dominate the population purely by luck.
> > Mutation adds variation for selection to work upon, which is evolution (mutation/variation is the 'fuel' for the 'engine' of evolution).
> > Speciation can be an end result of evolution.
> > You seem considerably and willfully ignorant and confused ...
> > > Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees,
> > Given the REAL WORLD DATA, and knowledge of what is possible in biology, that is a sane and rational deduction.
> > > that share a common ancestor with a fish,
> > Given the REAL WORLD DATA, and knowledge of what is possible in biology, that is a sane and rational deduction.
> > > that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago?
> > All life has a common ancestor that existed about 3.5 billion years ago - as deduced from REAL WORLD DATA.
> > That ancestor arose from ORGANIC MATTER - chemicals based on carbon.
> > From what festering orifice did you pull the 'idea' that life arose from INorganic matter ? Or are you too ignorant of basic chemistry to know there is a difference ?
> > > The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
> > REAL events can leave OBSERVABLE EFFECTS. Just because something happened in the past does not mean it is untestable.
> > And the real world data supports common ancestry of all life, and that it arose about 3.5 billion years ago.
> > > > > > > > You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like > > that. > > > > > > > > >oxfordictionaries.com > > > > > >science > > > > > >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT: > > > > > >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda > > > > > > <YAWN> > > > > > > > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
> > Selection reduces VARIATION, which can increase information - the 'functional information' in a system depends on how functional it is and how many sequences can perform that function.
> > If you start with many, poorly functional sequences and apply selection, you end up with few (or just one) very high performer. 'Functional information' has increased.
> > Creating genetic 'information' is trivially easy, as there are many known mechanisms that do so.
> > Mutations restock variation - in fact, one of the 'fingerprints' of a recent selective sweep is LACK OF VARIATION. As generations go by, variation increases.
> > You seem to have the silly idea that ALL mutations are lethal. They are not. Most are neutral, but of those with OBSERVABLE effects, the majority are deleterious. But beneficial mutations do exist.
> > > > > > > > Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected > > against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which > > makes that a Good Thing (c). > > > > But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually > > beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot > > to mention that. > > > > > > >Another lol > > > > > > Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'. > > > > > > >thing,
> > > go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified.
> > 'Spontaneous generation' was the idea that oily rags DIRECTLY turn into mice, or rotting meat DIRECTLY turns into maggots, or nutrient broth DIRECTLY turns into bacteria. THIS IS NOT ABIOGENESIS.
> > > Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
> > Define 'life' on the molecular level.
> > > > > > > > I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things > > came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
> > > Wiki abiogenesis Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
> > Life comes from ORGANIC matter - chemicals based on carbon. Only someone completley ignorant of the subject would make so simple a mistake.
> > > I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
> > The greatest delusion in history is Young Earth Creationism. Wrong when written thousands of years ago, still wrong today.
> > > Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
> > All life has a common ancestor that arose from ORGANIC matter about 3.5 billion years ago, based on all available real world evidence.
> > > As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
> > You seem to have the rather silly delusion that ANYONE that accepts the validity of evolution (and real world science as well) MUST be an atheist.
> > "Atheists" WRITE the actual literature twit !
> > REAL events can produce REAL, OBSERVABLE EFFECTS - the fact something happened in the past does not mean it cannot be studied or investigated.
> > Neofunctionalization HAS BEEN OBSERVED TO HAPPEN - an enzyme changing the substrate it works on is an example of this. Plus many, MANY others you are too willfully ignorant to look up or understand.
> > That chromosomes can fuse is A KNOWN FACT, and it leaves OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE BEHIND when it does.
> > Telomeres, for instance, occur on the ends of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 has telomeric sequence INSIDE the arms - exactly what sane and rational people would EXPECT from a chromosomal fusion.
> > Plus the FACT that it has the remnants of a second centromere, the exact same genes in the same proximity to each other as seen in chimps, etc.
> > The sane and rational deduction is 'human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes that occurred millions of years ago'.
> > Your 'explanation' is what again ?
> > Oh, right : 'DE WUZ KREATED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE SIX THOUSAND YEAERS AGO !!!!!'
> Thank you all for your incredible incredible ignorance.
> Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral
> telomere-telomere fusion
> Molecular data show evidence that this event must have occurred only a few million years ago (refs. 4 and 5 and the references therein).
> This is the standard model for NDM (neodarwinian myth) assign things off into the unobserved and unobservable past because it is contrary to science and common sense. Ie- I make up ANY MYTH ON THE PLANET and just say "Oh it happened millions and millions of years ago of course we dont observe it today"
So, if you don't see it, it didn't happen.
> Written history goes back 6,000 years (recorded history page on wikipedia) Thank you all for your ignorance.
That only means that "written history" is about 6,000 years old. Why
do you assume you can rule out anything that happened prior to the
time "written histrory" began?
On Aug 20, 2:14 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 1:31 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > It's not the case, the spiritual domain is just a category name,
> ...then why do you insist that someone is a "proven liar about the
> Holocaust" for the isolated act of refusing to use _your_ term? I
> reject the term "spiritual domain". I reject what you have described
> as the "spiritual domain".
Because it means you ignore the human spirit in the history of the
holocaust. It means you put love and hate in the category material
things, which means you will calculate the worth of human beings,
which means you are a social darwinist.
On Aug 20, 8:54 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2:31 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It's not the case, the spiritual domain is just a category name, much
> > like the material domain.
> No. The "material domain" can be observed and measured. There is no
> evidence of a 'spiritual domain", and at best can be placed in the
> catagory of "imaginary".
Which means you treat love and hate as material facts, because you
don't have any other category to put them into, and therefore you are
a social darwinist who calculates the worth of people.
> On Aug 20, 2:14 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 1:31 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > It's not the case, the spiritual domain is just a category name,
> > ...then why do you insist that someone is a "proven liar about the
> > Holocaust" for the isolated act of refusing to use _your_ term? I
> > reject the term "spiritual domain". I reject what you have described
> > as the "spiritual domain".
> Because it means you ignore the human spirit in the history of the
> holocaust. It means you put love and hate in the category material
> things, which means you will calculate the worth of human beings,
> which means you are a social darwinist.
No, you helpless, ignorant fool--It means I am aware of the way words
work, and aware of the way empirical reality works, and aware of the
paucity of your mutable, interchangeable, inconstant superstitions;
enough so that I reject your puerile, dysfunctional, idiosyncratic
subjective opinions as normative for me.
You accuse me of "denying the human spirit"--but you refuse to define
"the human spirit"...
You accuse me of "putting love and hate in the category material
things"--first, I do no such--that is your Romper Room take on
pretending you know what I am thinking, rather than reading my words--
second, _you_ are the one who says that "you can feel the love of
other people"; what does that mean other than you think that love is a
real, tangible, matter of fact thing? You can't even keep straight
the reasons you feel free to curse me!
You accuse me of "calculating the worth of human beings"--with no
evidence, no proof, no demonstration that you have _ever_ understood
my position. I challenge you : show me any one of my posts that
indicates (to a non-stupid observer) "calculation of the worth of
human beings" (you to whom 12 million victims of Christian Nazis are
merely playing pieces to keep score with). You will not be able to--
one more lie. Do you even remember what telling the truth is like?
You accuse me of being a "social darwinist"--with _no idea_ what that
term means, no matter how many times I have offered you good, workable
definitions. You really should have more pride than to keep abusing
words, the meaning of which you are demonstrably, defiantly ,
ignorant.
When are you going to answer any of my questions? They don't stop
existing just because you ignore them...
Or, if you're going to just run and hide, have the grace to do so at
the Klubhaus, not here...
On Aug 21, 3:04 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You accuse me of "putting love and hate in the category material
> things"--first, I do no such--that is your Romper Room take on
> pretending you know what I am thinking, rather than reading my words--
> second, _you_ are the one who says that "you can feel the love of
> other people"; what does that mean other than you think that love is a
> real, tangible, matter of fact thing? You can't even keep straight
> the reasons you feel free to curse me!
Feelings do not make for facts, they make for opinons. Measurements
make for facts. So it is completely correct and completely subjective
to say you feel the love of somebody else.
> When are you going to answer any of my questions? They don't stop
> existing just because you ignore them...
Ridiculous, all what you do is pseudoscientific and pseudointellectual
posing. It is self-evident that you would put love and hate into the
category of material things, when that is the only category you
acknowledge.
On Aug 21, 1:14 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:54 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip>
<quote Boikat>
> > No. The "material domain" can be observed and measured. There is no
> > evidence of a 'spiritual domain", and at best can be placed in the
> > catagory of "imaginary".
</quote>
<quote Syamsu>
> Which means you treat love and hate as material facts, because you
> don't have any other category to put them into, and therefore you are
> a social darwinist who calculates the worth of people.
</quote>
Every time your sewage seeps off into a new tangent, I say to myself,
"He can't possibly be as stupid as he acts."
Thanks for keeping my expectations low...
You want to pretend that denying _your_ bifurcation of things into the
"physical realm" and the "material realm" leaves only the option that
everything is in what you call the "material realm".
You want to impose _your_ orthographic map in the thoughts of others.
This is demonstrably not the case. You should stop pretending you can
tell others how to act.
Your superstitions may comfort you, and you may need them to
substitute for dealing with reality--which is fine, for you. Just
because _you_ need a crutch does not mean that you can say that others
must limp.
You changed your mind before--dumped one set of superstitions for
another, different set--how does that qualify you to even pretend to
tell anyone what they "must" think?
Learn what a "social darwinist" is, or stoop using the term.
Learn to stop telling lies.
At the very least, confine your onanistic omphalism to the Klubhaus--
that's what it's there for.
> On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 04:30:23 UTC+10, Prof Weird wrote:
> > On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:43:06 PM UTC-4, Sam wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 02:51:45 UTC+10, jillery wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:50:36 -0700 (PDT) > > wrote: > > > > >On Thursday, 16 August 2012 14:37:52 UTC+10, nick humphrey wrote: > > >> Talkorigins' response to claim CH001: > > >> > > >>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html> > >> includes the following: > > >> "A theory that accommodates anything explains nothing, because it does not rule out any possibilities." > > >> Don't creationists rule out "evolution by natural selection"? Or does ruling out mean "providing evidence against"? > > >> (just being the devil's advocate here) > > >> Nick > > > > > >
> > > Depends which definition of 'evolution'? Change over time? Change in allele frequency over time? Genetic drift? Mutation? Speciation?
> > A 'change over time' can be explained by a 'change in allele frequencies over time'.
> > Genetic drift is a MECHANISM of evolution - one allele can come to dominate the population purely by luck.
> > Mutation adds variation for selection to work upon, which is evolution (mutation/variation is the 'fuel' for the 'engine' of evolution).
> > Speciation can be an end result of evolution.
> > You seem considerably and willfully ignorant and confused ...
> > > Or the myth that mankind shares a common ancestor with chimpanzees,
> > Given the REAL WORLD DATA, and knowledge of what is possible in biology, that is a sane and rational deduction.
> > > that share a common ancestor with a fish,
> > Given the REAL WORLD DATA, and knowledge of what is possible in biology, that is a sane and rational deduction.
> > > that the fish itself shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter ~3.5 billion years ago?
> > All life has a common ancestor that existed about 3.5 billion years ago - as deduced from REAL WORLD DATA.
> > That ancestor arose from ORGANIC MATTER - chemicals based on carbon.
> > From what festering orifice did you pull the 'idea' that life arose from INorganic matter ? Or are you too ignorant of basic chemistry to know there is a difference ?
> > > The last definition is the definition the lay public visualizes when the 'e' word is mentioned. It has no foundation in empirical science as it is alleged (the non living matter-->fish-->chimpanzee-->mankind myth) to both have started and stopped happening in the UNOBSERVED past.
> > REAL events can leave OBSERVABLE EFFECTS. Just because something happened in the past does not mean it is untestable.
> > And the real world data supports common ancestry of all life, and that it arose about 3.5 billion years ago.
> > > > > > > > You showed your hand too soon, making unsupported assertions like > > that. > > > > > > > > >oxfordictionaries.com > > > > > >science > > > > > >the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT: > > > > > >Contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda > > > > > > <YAWN> > > > > > > > natural selection REDUCES genetic information (the less 'fit' genotype is wiped out hence genetic information is lost FOREVER)this isnt even including mutations which once again contrary to evolutionary biology propaganda cause DISEASE.
> > Selection reduces VARIATION, which can increase information - the 'functional information' in a system depends on how functional it is and how many sequences can perform that function.
> > If you start with many, poorly functional sequences and apply selection, you end up with few (or just one) very high performer. 'Functional information' has increased.
> > Creating genetic 'information' is trivially easy, as there are many known mechanisms that do so.
> > Mutations restock variation - in fact, one of the 'fingerprints' of a recent selective sweep is LACK OF VARIATION. As generations go by, variation increases.
> > You seem to have the silly idea that ALL mutations are lethal. They are not. Most are neutral, but of those with OBSERVABLE effects, the majority are deleterious. But beneficial mutations do exist.
> > > > > > > > Some mutations cause disease. The ones that do tend to be selected > > against. I guess that counts as reducing genetic information, which > > makes that a Good Thing (c). > > > > But most mutations are entirely neutral, and some are actually > > beneficial within a given environment. What a coincidence you forgot > > to mention that. > > > > > > >Another lol > > > > > > Another poster who thinks it's clever to spell 'lol'. > > > > > > >thing,
> > > go to oxforddictionaries.com and type in 'abiogenesis'. Take note of the redirection to spontaneous generation. Google spontaneous generation. Take note of how long ago it was falsified.
> > 'Spontaneous generation' was the idea that oily rags DIRECTLY turn into mice, or rotting meat DIRECTLY turns into maggots, or nutrient broth DIRECTLY turns into bacteria. THIS IS NOT ABIOGENESIS.
> > > Google biogenesis. Take note of a law of science being'omne vivum ex vivo' (all life come from life).
> > Define 'life' on the molecular level.
> > > > > > > > I guess that's a real problem for creationists who think living things > > came from dust. And argument by dictionary remains unimpressive.
> > > Wiki abiogenesis Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
> > Life comes from ORGANIC matter - chemicals based on carbon. Only someone completley ignorant of the subject would make so simple a mistake.
> > > I am interested in the underlying psychology of those invested in the greatest delusion in written history (6,000 years based on 'recorded history' in wikipedia).
> > The greatest delusion in history is Young Earth Creationism. Wrong when written thousands of years ago, still wrong today.
> > > Do you believe that all life on earth shares a common ancestor with inorganic matter, through natural process's ~3.5 billion years ago?
> > All life has a common ancestor that arose from ORGANIC matter about 3.5 billion years ago, based on all available real world evidence.
> > > As a side note i assume athiests dont even bother reading actual literature (as opposed to just submitting there very very supple brains to evolutionary biology propaganda)the standard NDM (neodarwinian myth) model is too assign these alleged evolutionary processes ('neofunctionalization' myth) off into the unobserved and unobservable past as witnessed by any literature on 'neofunctionalization' (human chromosome 2 too).
> > You seem to have the rather silly delusion that ANYONE that accepts the validity of evolution (and real world science as well) MUST be an atheist.
> > "Atheists" WRITE the actual literature twit !
> > REAL events can produce REAL, OBSERVABLE EFFECTS - the fact something happened in the past does not mean it cannot be studied or investigated.
> > Neofunctionalization HAS BEEN OBSERVED TO HAPPEN - an enzyme changing the substrate it works on is an example of this. Plus many, MANY others you are too willfully ignorant to look up or understand.
> > That chromosomes can fuse is A KNOWN FACT, and it leaves OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE BEHIND when it does.
> > Telomeres, for instance, occur on the ends of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 has telomeric sequence INSIDE the arms - exactly what sane and rational people would EXPECT from a chromosomal fusion.
> > Plus the FACT that it has the remnants of a second centromere, the exact same genes in the same proximity to each other as seen in chimps, etc.
> > The sane and rational deduction is 'human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes that occurred millions of years ago'.
> > Your 'explanation' is what again ?
> > Oh, right : 'DE WUZ KREATED BY A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE SIX THOUSAND YEAERS AGO !!!!!'
> Thank you all for your incredible incredible ignorance.
> Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral
> telomere-telomere fusion
> Molecular data show evidence that this event must have occurred only a few million years ago (refs. 4 and 5 and the references therein).
> This is the standard model for NDM (neodarwinian myth) assign things off into the unobserved and unobservable past because it is contrary to science and common sense. Ie- I make up ANY MYTH ON THE PLANET and just say "Oh it happened millions and millions of years ago of course we dont observe it today"
> Written history goes back 6,000 years (recorded history page on wikipedia) Thank you all for your ignorance.
Always entertaining to hear someone who adopts Bronze-age
superstitions call scientific discoveries "myths".
On Aug 21, 7:22 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 3:04 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You accuse me of "putting love and hate in the category material
> > things"--first, I do no such--that is your Romper Room take on
> > pretending you know what I am thinking, rather than reading my words--
> > second, _you_ are the one who says that "you can feel the love of
> > other people"; what does that mean other than you think that love is a
> > real, tangible, matter of fact thing? You can't even keep straight
> > the reasons you feel free to curse me!
> Feelings do not make for facts, they make for opinons. Measurements
> make for facts. So it is completely correct and completely subjective
> to say you feel the love of somebody else.
No, foolish, deluded, stupid boy--what you feel is your conviction
that someone loves you--it is not evidence of their love, or proof of
their love, or an indication that their love exists. The only "love"
about which you can speak with factual authority is the love you feel
for someone else. Love is a soliloquy, not a litany.
Follow: you can, and may, say you "feel loved". You cannot, and
should not, say that you can prove that you are loved.
> > When are you going to answer any of my questions? They don't stop
> > existing just because you ignore them...
> Ridiculous,
...you have _no idea_ what that word means...
>all what you do is pseudoscientific
...you have _no idea_ what this word means...
> and pseudointellectual
...you have _no idea_ what this word means...
> posing. It is self-evident that you would put love and hate into the
> category of material things,
..so you, who dropped one whole set of superstitions like a prom dress
when another came along, who are incapable of reading a simple,
declarative sentence and discerning truth in it, who are incapable of
even keeping track of your own lies, pretend that you can say
something is self-evident, when it is diametrically opposite of what I
have repeatedly explained?
_You_ are the one with no scruples about lying. You are the one who
brags about lies not being lies if you tell them lovingly...but this?
This is clearly a lie. Surprise!
>when that is the only category you
> acknowledge.
Sweetie--I don't even "acknowledge" what you call "material
things"...I prefer the idea that there is objective, empirical,
demonstrable reality, and that my subjective opinions do not create or
define that reality.
I know it has a lot of hard words, and no pictures, but you should
really go back and re-read what I wrote about love--instead of just
assuming that you can dump your sewage out and pretend it is what I
said.
I am still waiting for you to show any post where I "calculate" the
"worth" of human beings...I'll make you the standard wager you cannot
(even though I know you would not honor the terms when you lost).
Still waiting for you to explain about the whole changing nightmares
mid-stream-of-consciousness...
Not that I expect you to get that, or tell me the answer if you were
able to get someone else to explain it to you...
On Aug 21, 2:14 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:54 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 2:31 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > It's not the case, the spiritual domain is just a category name, much
> > > like the material domain.
> > No. The "material domain" can be observed and measured. There is no
> > evidence of a 'spiritual domain", and at best can be placed in the
> > catagory of "imaginary".
> Which means you treat love and hate as material facts,
It is a fact that people are capable of the subjective emotions of
"love" and "hate", is it not?
> because you
> don't have any other category to put them into,
I put them in the catagory of "emotions". That's the only catagory
they need to be put in.
> and therefore you are
> a social darwinist who calculates the worth of people.
Nice non-sequitur, not to mention, two out-right lies.
On Aug 21, 8:22 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 3:04 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You accuse me of "putting love and hate in the category material
> > things"--first, I do no such--that is your Romper Room take on
> > pretending you know what I am thinking, rather than reading my words--
> > second, _you_ are the one who says that "you can feel the love of
> > other people"; what does that mean other than you think that love is a
> > real, tangible, matter of fact thing? You can't even keep straight
> > the reasons you feel free to curse me!
> Feelings do not make for facts, they make for opinons.
Then why do you demand that theb "spirit" be "properly identified", if
'the spirit" is a subjective concept?
> Measurements
> make for facts.
So does simple observation.
> So it is completely correct and completely subjective
> to say you feel the love of somebody else.
One can also objetively acknowledge someones subjective feelings,
too. Where's the problem with that?
> > When are you going to answer any of my questions? They don't stop
> > existing just because you ignore them...
> Ridiculous, all what you do is pseudoscientific and pseudointellectual
> posing.
Ph! Thee went the phases array irony meters. Damn, technology just
can't keep up with creatotards!
> It is self-evident that you would put love and hate into the
> category of material things, when that is the only category you
> acknowledge.
Since emotions are experianced in the material domain, under the
catagory of 'emotions', where else would they go?
On Aug 21, 2:17 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2:14 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 1:31 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > It's not the case, the spiritual domain is just a category name,
> > ...then why do you insist that someone is a "proven liar about the
> > Holocaust" for the isolated act of refusing to use _your_ term? I
> > reject the term "spiritual domain". I reject what you have described
> > as the "spiritual domain".
> Because it means you ignore the human spirit in the history of the
> holocaust.
Your use of the term "human spirit" is ripe for equivocation ("Ripe"
in the context of "stinks like a rotting pile of horse shit").
> It means you put love and hate in the category material
> things, which means you will calculate the worth of human beings,
> which means you are a social darwinist.
You really should look up the definitions of words and meaning of
phrases that you think you understand, yet clearly do not.
> On Aug 21, 7:22 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 3:04 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You accuse me of "putting love and hate in the category material
> > > things"--first, I do no such--that is your Romper Room take on
> > > pretending you know what I am thinking, rather than reading my words--
> > > second, _you_ are the one who says that "you can feel the love of
> > > other people"; what does that mean other than you think that love is a
> > > real, tangible, matter of fact thing? You can't even keep straight
> > > the reasons you feel free to curse me!
> > Feelings do not make for facts, they make for opinons. Measurements
> > make for facts. So it is completely correct and completely subjective
> > to say you feel the love of somebody else.
> No, foolish, deluded, stupid boy--what you feel is your conviction
> that someone loves you--it is not evidence of their love, or proof of
> their love, or an indication that their love exists. The only "love"
> about which you can speak with factual authority is the love you feel
> for someone else. Love is a soliloquy, not a litany.
> Follow: you can, and may, say you "feel loved". You cannot, and
> should not, say that you can prove that you are loved.
> > > When are you going to answer any of my questions? They don't stop
> > > existing just because you ignore them...
> > Ridiculous,
> ...you have _no idea_ what that word means...
> >all what you do is pseudoscientific
> ...you have _no idea_ what this word means...
> > and pseudointellectual
> ...you have _no idea_ what this word means...
> > posing. It is self-evident that you would put love and hate into the
> > category of material things,
> ..so you, who dropped one whole set of superstitions like a prom dress
> when another came along, who are incapable of reading a simple,
> declarative sentence and discerning truth in it, who are incapable of
> even keeping track of your own lies, pretend that you can say
> something is self-evident, when it is diametrically opposite of what I
> have repeatedly explained?
> _You_ are the one with no scruples about lying. You are the one who
> brags about lies not being lies if you tell them lovingly...but this?
> This is clearly a lie. Surprise!
> >when that is the only category you
> > acknowledge.
> Sweetie--I don't even "acknowledge" what you call "material
> things"...I prefer the idea that there is objective, empirical,
> demonstrable reality, and that my subjective opinions do not create or
> define that reality.
> I know it has a lot of hard words, and no pictures, but you should
> really go back and re-read what I wrote about love--instead of just
> assuming that you can dump your sewage out and pretend it is what I
> said.
> I am still waiting for you to show any post where I "calculate" the
> "worth" of human beings...I'll make you the standard wager you cannot
> (even though I know you would not honor the terms when you lost).
> Still waiting for you to explain about the whole changing nightmares
> mid-stream-of-consciousness...
> Not that I expect you to get that, or tell me the answer if you were
> able to get someone else to explain it to you...
Tried and convicted, LIAR ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST, for failing to
acknowledge the human spirit in the history of the event. Shove your
pseudo intellectual emotionless social darwinism.
> On Aug 21, 3:40 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 7:22 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 21, 3:04 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > You accuse me of "putting love and hate in the category material
> > > > things"--first, I do no such--that is your Romper Room take on
> > > > pretending you know what I am thinking, rather than reading my words--
> > > > second, _you_ are the one who says that "you can feel the love of
> > > > other people"; what does that mean other than you think that love is a
> > > > real, tangible, matter of fact thing? You can't even keep straight
> > > > the reasons you feel free to curse me!
> > > Feelings do not make for facts, they make for opinons. Measurements
> > > make for facts. So it is completely correct and completely subjective
> > > to say you feel the love of somebody else.
> > No, foolish, deluded, stupid boy--what you feel is your conviction
> > that someone loves you--it is not evidence of their love, or proof of
> > their love, or an indication that their love exists. The only "love"
> > about which you can speak with factual authority is the love you feel
> > for someone else. Love is a soliloquy, not a litany.
> > Follow: you can, and may, say you "feel loved". You cannot, and
> > should not, say that you can prove that you are loved.
> > > > When are you going to answer any of my questions? They don't stop
> > > > existing just because you ignore them...
> > > Ridiculous,
> > ...you have _no idea_ what that word means...
> > >all what you do is pseudoscientific
> > ...you have _no idea_ what this word means...
> > > and pseudointellectual
> > ...you have _no idea_ what this word means...
> > > posing. It is self-evident that you would put love and hate into the
> > > category of material things,
> > ..so you, who dropped one whole set of superstitions like a prom dress
> > when another came along, who are incapable of reading a simple,
> > declarative sentence and discerning truth in it, who are incapable of
> > even keeping track of your own lies, pretend that you can say
> > something is self-evident, when it is diametrically opposite of what I
> > have repeatedly explained?
> > _You_ are the one with no scruples about lying. You are the one who
> > brags about lies not being lies if you tell them lovingly...but this?
> > This is clearly a lie. Surprise!
> > >when that is the only category you
> > > acknowledge.
> > Sweetie--I don't even "acknowledge" what you call "material
> > things"...I prefer the idea that there is objective, empirical,
> > demonstrable reality, and that my subjective opinions do not create or
> > define that reality.
> > I know it has a lot of hard words, and no pictures, but you should
> > really go back and re-read what I wrote about love--instead of just
> > assuming that you can dump your sewage out and pretend it is what I
> > said.
> > I am still waiting for you to show any post where I "calculate" the
> > "worth" of human beings...I'll make you the standard wager you cannot
> > (even though I know you would not honor the terms when you lost).
> > Still waiting for you to explain about the whole changing nightmares
> > mid-stream-of-consciousness...
> > Not that I expect you to get that, or tell me the answer if you were
> > able to get someone else to explain it to you...
> Tried and convicted, LIAR ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST, for failing to
> acknowledge the human spirit in the history of the event.
Sorry, a mad man as a judge is comical, but that's all.
> Shove your
> pseudo intellectual emotionless social darwinism.
Awwwwwww..... Poor widdle Nando don't like what SV said. What a
fucking shame.... NOT!
