Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is evolution immune to Hegel's dialectic?
98 views
Skip to first unread message
prawnster
Apr 29, 2012, 4:27:41 AM4/29/12
to
The vast majority of Muslims have no use for evolution; polls have
shown that only about 20% believe in it, at best, and even that may be
optimistic because respondents may be thinking of something like
"survival of the fittest" or other such caricatured or obsolescent
notions of evolution.
Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
of churches was undermined and replaced by materialist atheism and
juicy government-run welfare states.
Now having no purpose in their lives greater than eating, shitting,
fucking, and dying, Europeans have lost interest in having children or
sustaining their civilization -- they probably doubt it's worth it.
Europe now is basically one giant museum/tourist trap, all its glories
in the past; even its churches are basically tourist traps now since
Chuck D proved God's existence redundant.
But Muslims, riding the strong ideological horse, confident in their
beliefs, are reproducing like a-crazy and will within two or three
generations control most or all of Europe, and will democratically and
legally vote for governments based on Sharia law. And I predict with
confidence that Eurabian schools will not bother teaching evolution
anymore. So goodbye Europe, goodbye Darwinism.
Does even Darwinism contain within itself the seeds of its own
destruction, a la Hegel's dialectic? I say yes: just as Marxism
eventually destroys itself through unrestrained money-printing,
Darwinism kills a man's inspiration to sustain his civilization,
leaving him ripe for the conquering by men who believe their lives
have cosmic, eternal significance.
So keep at it, Darwinistas: every convert to your faith hastens the
death of your faith.
shown that only about 20% believe in it, at best, and even that may be
optimistic because respondents may be thinking of something like
"survival of the fittest" or other such caricatured or obsolescent
notions of evolution.
Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
of churches was undermined and replaced by materialist atheism and
juicy government-run welfare states.
Now having no purpose in their lives greater than eating, shitting,
fucking, and dying, Europeans have lost interest in having children or
sustaining their civilization -- they probably doubt it's worth it.
Europe now is basically one giant museum/tourist trap, all its glories
in the past; even its churches are basically tourist traps now since
Chuck D proved God's existence redundant.
But Muslims, riding the strong ideological horse, confident in their
beliefs, are reproducing like a-crazy and will within two or three
generations control most or all of Europe, and will democratically and
legally vote for governments based on Sharia law. And I predict with
confidence that Eurabian schools will not bother teaching evolution
anymore. So goodbye Europe, goodbye Darwinism.
Does even Darwinism contain within itself the seeds of its own
destruction, a la Hegel's dialectic? I say yes: just as Marxism
eventually destroys itself through unrestrained money-printing,
Darwinism kills a man's inspiration to sustain his civilization,
leaving him ripe for the conquering by men who believe their lives
have cosmic, eternal significance.
So keep at it, Darwinistas: every convert to your faith hastens the
death of your faith.
Bill
Apr 29, 2012, 6:12:39 AM4/29/12
to
simple mistake; atheism existed long before the theory of evolution.
Epicurus and Lucretius offered atheist, materialist arguments long
before either Darwin or Mohammed. And there are versions of both
Christianity and Islam which do not reject the theory of evolution.
But you certainly have a valid point with respect to atheism. Will a
society which rejects science in favor of a religion which promises
that one's life has eternal significance out-compete a society which
accepts science, even if the empiricism of science tends to undermine
religious claims? I think that an open, skeptical society will beat a
closed, theocratic one, and that you greatly over rate the decay of
Europe. And I certainly think that if Europe is out-competed
economically or militarily it will lose to an essentially atheist
China, not to the Muslim world.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Apr 29, 2012, 6:29:42 AM4/29/12
to
I can't make up my mind whether it's enough to report
to Google as abuse, but that's some filthy foul
language he's using there. It doesn't have a category,
it would be "Other". Anyone want to take it?
to Google as abuse, but that's some filthy foul
language he's using there. It doesn't have a category,
it would be "Other". Anyone want to take it?
jillery
Apr 29, 2012, 7:39:15 AM4/29/12
to
live for the moment, and those who are visionaries. These are human
conditions. Some people are more of one, and some more often.
Yours is a standard canard, that Darwinism promotes short-sighted
pessimism while religion promotes long-range optimism. These
characteristics existed before Darwin. They exist among those who
accept religion as well as those who accept Darwinism. Those who
assert your canard fail to distinguish between cause, effect,
correlation, and simple historical association.
The population dynamic you describe is real, but your analysis is
poor. Your implicit solution is to oppose Islamic fundamentalism with
Christian fundamentalism. History is littered with illustrations of
your solution, which also carries the seeds of its own destruction.
Instead of releasing one demon to oppose another, I propose the better
is to light a candle in the dark, and oppose fundamentalism of any
color or cloth.
ed wolf
Apr 29, 2012, 8:05:53 AM4/29/12
to
Yes, we have some social security left, and some democracy.It keeps productivity high, like public schools and a state run infrastructure. Capitalism rules by greed and fear, not faith and certainly not by handouts. Religion is over, the governments dont need it any more. Its feudalism that needs religion, keep the slaves singing and praying. Advancing capitalist societies use religion as folklore and decoration, Santa Coke style. You are a living fossil. Question is: if capitalism comes from feudalism, why are there still Christians? You are suspended in mid air like coyote above the canyon, he falls the moment he looks down.
ciao
ed
Burkhard
Apr 29, 2012, 8:07:29 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 9:27 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> The vast majority of Muslims have no use for evolution; polls have
> shown that only about 20% believe in it, at best, and even that may be
> optimistic because respondents may be thinking of something like
> "survival of the fittest" or other such caricatured or obsolescent
> notions of evolution.
>
> Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
> of churches was undermined and replaced by materialist atheism and
> juicy government-run welfare states.
>
> Now having no purpose in their lives greater than eating, shitting,
> fucking, and dying, Europeans have lost interest in having children or
> sustaining their civilization -- they probably doubt it's worth it.
> Europe now is basically one giant museum/tourist trap, all its glories
> in the past; even its churches are basically tourist traps now since
> Chuck D proved God's existence redundant.
>
> But Muslims, riding the strong ideological horse, confident in their
> beliefs, are reproducing like a-crazy
Yeah right, And in the 1950s, we were told Catholics were breeding
> The vast majority of Muslims have no use for evolution; polls have
> shown that only about 20% believe in it, at best, and even that may be
> optimistic because respondents may be thinking of something like
> "survival of the fittest" or other such caricatured or obsolescent
> notions of evolution.
>
> Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
> of churches was undermined and replaced by materialist atheism and
> juicy government-run welfare states.
>
> Now having no purpose in their lives greater than eating, shitting,
> fucking, and dying, Europeans have lost interest in having children or
> sustaining their civilization -- they probably doubt it's worth it.
> Europe now is basically one giant museum/tourist trap, all its glories
> in the past; even its churches are basically tourist traps now since
> Chuck D proved God's existence redundant.
>
> But Muslims, riding the strong ideological horse, confident in their
> beliefs, are reproducing like a-crazy
like crazy and
would outnumber Protestants within a decade and the surrender our
government to the Vatican and behead the Queen. (The story behind the
famous Monty Pythons sketch). Didn't happen then either. and isn;t the
bunch of usual suspects (white protestant supremacists ) in te US
telling the same story about catholic Hispanic immigrants at the
moment?
By and large just the usual mix of insecurity due to a below average
private part and the projection of unrestricted fertility to the
"other"
Vend
Apr 29, 2012, 8:54:36 AM4/29/12
to
On 29 Apr, 14:07, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> By and large just the usual mix of insecurity due to a below average
> private part and the projection of unrestricted fertility to the
> "other"
In fact Iran has a fertility rate lower than the US.
> By and large just the usual mix of insecurity due to a below average
> private part and the projection of unrestricted fertility to the
> "other"
prawnster
Apr 29, 2012, 11:39:15 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 5:05 am, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
> [...]
economically. The future belongs to those who show up, and Europeans
have decided not to send very many Europeans into the future -- they'd
rather own dogs than raise children. Muslims have decided otherwise,
and so the future will belong to them. Muslims largely don't buy
Darwinism, thus once they gain control of Europe's governments in the
next 40 to 60 years Darwinism will disappear along with the Europeans,
who preferred to create and nurse an atheist creation myth rather than
creating and nursing children.
There's no need for me to try my luck in Eurabia: AmeriKKKa's august
leaders, both Repube and Democrap, are importing and implementing
Europe's spiritual pathologies at an exponential rate and will soon
destroy our currency, just as Europe is now. QED.
> [...]
> You are confusing(among everything else) cause and effect. Because Europe is doing so well, religion is fading. Because the Arab countries are miserable and poor, Islam is strong there. Europe is having a long period of economic stability and peace, social advance and an enormous productivity. Don´t let the ups and downs of economy fool you, we are doing just fine. The cost for the individual worker is high, I live and work in Germany, and to raise a family, you have to work hard, and be lucky. You are invited to try your luck over here, get some first hand experience on how easy life for our working class is. If you prefer milder winters, try Greece.
It matters not that you claim Europe's "doing just fine"
economically. The future belongs to those who show up, and Europeans
have decided not to send very many Europeans into the future -- they'd
rather own dogs than raise children. Muslims have decided otherwise,
and so the future will belong to them. Muslims largely don't buy
Darwinism, thus once they gain control of Europe's governments in the
next 40 to 60 years Darwinism will disappear along with the Europeans,
who preferred to create and nurse an atheist creation myth rather than
creating and nursing children.
There's no need for me to try my luck in Eurabia: AmeriKKKa's august
leaders, both Repube and Democrap, are importing and implementing
Europe's spiritual pathologies at an exponential rate and will soon
destroy our currency, just as Europe is now. QED.
Kleuskes & Moos
Apr 29, 2012, 11:43:11 AM4/29/12
to
not confuse with Fucking idiots, who are all Austrian).
*Hemidactylus*
Apr 29, 2012, 11:47:32 AM4/29/12
to
prawnster
Apr 29, 2012, 11:48:41 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 3:29 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
Do you mean "shitting and fucking"? Big deal. How's about this:
dropping a deuce and porking. All better there, pinbun?
So: Now having no purpose in their lives greater than chowing down,
dropping a deuce,
porking, and assuming room temperature, Europeans have lost interest
in having children or
sustaining their civilization.
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know,
assuming
their parents are very special." -- prawndaddy
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> I can't make up my mind whether it's enough to report
> to Google as abuse, but that's some filthy foul
> language he's using there. It doesn't have a category,
> it would be "Other".
Huh?
> I can't make up my mind whether it's enough to report
> to Google as abuse, but that's some filthy foul
> language he's using there. It doesn't have a category,
> it would be "Other".
Do you mean "shitting and fucking"? Big deal. How's about this:
dropping a deuce and porking. All better there, pinbun?
So: Now having no purpose in their lives greater than chowing down,
dropping a deuce,
porking, and assuming room temperature, Europeans have lost interest
in having children or
sustaining their civilization.
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know,
assuming
their parents are very special." -- prawndaddy
prawnster
Apr 29, 2012, 12:05:08 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 8:47 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_%28politics%29
>
So are you saying that Darwinism will survive in Europe once the
majority of the population doesn't have faith in atheo-Darwinism and
is willing to use government power to halt the teaching of evolution?
Are you saying that Muslims will assimilate and eventually accept
evolution en masse? I'd take odds on that. I predict that, unlike
the USA, where Christians have made every effort to accommodate
Darwinism and massage it into their faith, Eurabians will not
accommodate Darwinism and will use their majority presence in European
governments to stop the teaching of evolution. Thus faith in
Darwinism eventually destroys Darwinism, Hegel-style.
And I only bring this up because Darwinism and Marxism go together
like peanut butter and jelly: all Marxists are Darwinists and most
Darwinists are Marxists. And Marxists believe in the dialectic,
though they unnacountably don't think it applies to Marxism. So my
question was and is: does Darwinism contain within itself the seed of
its own destruction?
> [...]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_%28politics%29
>
So are you saying that Darwinism will survive in Europe once the
majority of the population doesn't have faith in atheo-Darwinism and
is willing to use government power to halt the teaching of evolution?
Are you saying that Muslims will assimilate and eventually accept
evolution en masse? I'd take odds on that. I predict that, unlike
the USA, where Christians have made every effort to accommodate
Darwinism and massage it into their faith, Eurabians will not
accommodate Darwinism and will use their majority presence in European
governments to stop the teaching of evolution. Thus faith in
Darwinism eventually destroys Darwinism, Hegel-style.
And I only bring this up because Darwinism and Marxism go together
like peanut butter and jelly: all Marxists are Darwinists and most
Darwinists are Marxists. And Marxists believe in the dialectic,
though they unnacountably don't think it applies to Marxism. So my
question was and is: does Darwinism contain within itself the seed of
its own destruction?
David Canzi
Apr 29, 2012, 12:14:22 PM4/29/12
to
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>The vast majority of Muslims have no use for evolution; polls have
>shown that only about 20% believe in it, at best, and even that may be
>optimistic because respondents may be thinking of something like
>"survival of the fittest" or other such caricatured or obsolescent
>notions of evolution.
>
>Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
>of churches was undermined
This process started long before Darwin, at least as far back as
>The vast majority of Muslims have no use for evolution; polls have
>shown that only about 20% believe in it, at best, and even that may be
>optimistic because respondents may be thinking of something like
>"survival of the fittest" or other such caricatured or obsolescent
>notions of evolution.
>
>Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
>of churches was undermined
Galileo, and probably farther. Darwin is not the logical culprit.
Neither is Galileo, really.
Men looked at the universe and what they saw contradicted what
the church had told them. Faced with a choice between what the
church told them about the universe and what the universe told
them about the universe, they dared to believe the universe.
If you're looking to place blame, perhaps you should blame the
universe for not being what the church said it was.
Or perhaps you should blame the church for not getting advice
from an omniscient being before declaring itself authoritative
on claims it made about the physical universe.
--
David Canzi | TIMTOWWTDI (tim-toe-woe-dee): There Is More Than One
| Wrong Way To Do It
prawnster
Apr 29, 2012, 12:23:23 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 4:39 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
Muslim man who would prefer to live under moral Shariah law, hear the
beautiful call to prayer, and not have his children taught molecules-
to-man Darwinism? By preaching non-judgmentalism and multiculti? As
Europe demonstrates, that tack just means the strong horse, Islam,
eventually prevails and thus the weak horse, atheo-Darwinism, withers
and, ironically, so does limp-wristed non-judgmentalism.
So riddle me this: how does one oppose "Islamic fundamentalism"? This
is a very important question for you to answer, because otherwise your
pet metaphysics will disappear before the century has ended, and no
one will miss it.
> [...]
> The population dynamic you describe is real, but your analysis is
> poor. Your implicit solution is to oppose Islamic fundamentalism with
> Christian fundamentalism. History is littered with illustrations of
> your solution, which also carries the seeds of its own destruction.
>
> Instead of releasing one demon to oppose another, I propose the better
> is to light a candle in the dark, and oppose fundamentalism of any
> color or cloth.
So how does one oppose "Islamic fundamentalism"? How does one stop a
> poor. Your implicit solution is to oppose Islamic fundamentalism with
> Christian fundamentalism. History is littered with illustrations of
> your solution, which also carries the seeds of its own destruction.
>
> Instead of releasing one demon to oppose another, I propose the better
> is to light a candle in the dark, and oppose fundamentalism of any
> color or cloth.
Muslim man who would prefer to live under moral Shariah law, hear the
beautiful call to prayer, and not have his children taught molecules-
to-man Darwinism? By preaching non-judgmentalism and multiculti? As
Europe demonstrates, that tack just means the strong horse, Islam,
eventually prevails and thus the weak horse, atheo-Darwinism, withers
and, ironically, so does limp-wristed non-judgmentalism.
So riddle me this: how does one oppose "Islamic fundamentalism"? This
is a very important question for you to answer, because otherwise your
pet metaphysics will disappear before the century has ended, and no
one will miss it.
prawnster
Apr 29, 2012, 12:30:06 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 9:14 am, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> [...]
blow to the church's crumbling foundation because it created a
rationally satisfying materialist explanation for all Earth's life.
Before evolution, claiming that all life arose from nothing ex nihilo
just made you look special.
> prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
> >of churches was undermined
>
> This process started long before Darwin, at least as far back as
> Galileo, and probably farther. Darwin is not the logical culprit.
> Neither is Galileo, really.
>
> Men looked at the universe and what they saw contradicted what
> the church had told them. Faced with a choice between what the
> church told them about the universe and what the universe told
> them about the universe, they dared to believe the universe.
>
> If you're looking to place blame, perhaps you should blame the
> universe for not being what the church said it was.
>
> Or perhaps you should blame the church for not getting advice
> from an omniscient being before declaring itself authoritative
> on claims it made about the physical universe.
>
Everything you say is true. Evolution was merely the final crushing
> >of churches was undermined
>
> This process started long before Darwin, at least as far back as
> Galileo, and probably farther. Darwin is not the logical culprit.
> Neither is Galileo, really.
>
> Men looked at the universe and what they saw contradicted what
> the church had told them. Faced with a choice between what the
> church told them about the universe and what the universe told
> them about the universe, they dared to believe the universe.
>
> If you're looking to place blame, perhaps you should blame the
> universe for not being what the church said it was.
>
> Or perhaps you should blame the church for not getting advice
> from an omniscient being before declaring itself authoritative
> on claims it made about the physical universe.
>
blow to the church's crumbling foundation because it created a
rationally satisfying materialist explanation for all Earth's life.
Before evolution, claiming that all life arose from nothing ex nihilo
just made you look special.
prawnster
Apr 29, 2012, 1:00:51 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 5:07 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 9:27 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> On Apr 29, 9:27 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > But Muslims, riding the strong ideological horse, confident in their
> > beliefs, are reproducing like a-crazy
>
> Yeah right, And in the 1950s, we were told Catholics were breeding
> like crazy and
> would outnumber Protestants within a decade and the surrender our
> government to the Vatican and behead the Queen. (The story behind the
> famous Monty Pythons sketch). Didn't happen then either. and isn;t the
> bunch of usual suspects (white protestant supremacists ) in te US
> telling the same story about catholic Hispanic immigrants at the
> moment?
>
It's interesting you bring up Hispanics. The town I'm from is about
> > beliefs, are reproducing like a-crazy
>
> Yeah right, And in the 1950s, we were told Catholics were breeding
> like crazy and
> would outnumber Protestants within a decade and the surrender our
> government to the Vatican and behead the Queen. (The story behind the
> famous Monty Pythons sketch). Didn't happen then either. and isn;t the
> bunch of usual suspects (white protestant supremacists ) in te US
> telling the same story about catholic Hispanic immigrants at the
> moment?
>
75% Hispanic, 15% black, and 10% other, including whites. When I was
a boy, the town was about 25% Hispanic, 10% black, and otherwise
white. Then in the '80s the white exodus began: back then Colorado was
the prime spot for white flight, followed by Arizona and Oregon. Now,
in the rare times I return to visit my family, it's rare to hear
English spoken or see a white face; and when you do, that white face
is at least 50 years old.
But check this out: the city's city council is almost entirely white.
Mind. Blown. There is one councilwoman who has a Spanish surname, but
she looks white; probably doesn't have a drop of Azteca/Mestiza blood
in her. In fact, many of the names are familiar ones from my
childhood: it seems that the politics in my hometown are dynastic. So
it doesn't seem that Hispanics have much interest in politics and so
merely aesthetically and linguistically remake in their own image
every place they demographically dominate. Also, Hispanics don't have
radically different religious beliefs from whites, so that's not a
factor here in the good ol' US of KKK.
wiki trix
Apr 29, 2012, 1:40:26 PM4/29/12
to
wiki trix
Apr 29, 2012, 1:42:00 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 6:29 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
What a waste of time that would be.
Free Lunch
Apr 29, 2012, 2:10:35 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:00:51 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Your forget that the KKK was virulently anti-Catholic for many years.
Only when they found that they needed Catholics to survive did they
change.
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Only when they found that they needed Catholics to survive did they
change.
prawnster
Apr 29, 2012, 2:12:08 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 10:40 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 4:27 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> On Apr 29, 4:27 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > So keep at it, Darwinistas: every convert to your faith hastens the
> > death of your faith.
>
> Breivik? Is that you?
No. I'm just a happy-go-lucky fellow who always tries to see the
> > death of your faith.
>
> Breivik? Is that you?
bright side of things. Surely the museum known as Europe will be
destroyed, but at least the nonfalsifiable nihilistic phantasy called
evolution will perish with it. I'm a real glass-half-full kind of guy
is what I is.
But after he's convicted for his misdeeds, I'm sure Breivik will have
unfettered access to the Web and usernet at his posh country-club
Norwegian "prison." And I guarantee you this: this human being is
going to get SO LAID. And Darwinists should applaud: this human's
bold and violent act will give him more access to poonanny than ever
before and this homo sapien's act could be logically regarded as a
reproductive strategy deserving of profound chin-stroking head-nodding
appreciation by Darwinists everywhere.
jillery
Apr 29, 2012, 4:34:29 PM4/29/12
to
limp-wristed non-judgmentalism goes, so goes your stiff-necked
xenophobia. I regret you don't recognize the real demon, but I'm not
surprised.
prawnster
Apr 29, 2012, 5:08:05 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 1:34 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
> [...]
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
> >So riddle me this: how does one oppose "Islamic fundamentalism"? This
> >is a very important question for you to answer, because otherwise your
> >pet metaphysics will disappear before the century has ended, and no
> >one will miss it.
>
> As I said, it's fundamentalism of any stripe which I oppose. As my
> limp-wristed non-judgmentalism goes, so goes your stiff-necked
> xenophobia. I regret you don't recognize the real demon, but I'm not
> surprised.
One more chance, Jillbaby. How does one oppose "Islamic
> >is a very important question for you to answer, because otherwise your
> >pet metaphysics will disappear before the century has ended, and no
> >one will miss it.
>
> As I said, it's fundamentalism of any stripe which I oppose. As my
> limp-wristed non-judgmentalism goes, so goes your stiff-necked
> xenophobia. I regret you don't recognize the real demon, but I'm not
> surprised.
fundamentalism"? Remember: that devout Muslim man strongly desires a
theocracy governed by Sharia; the beautiful call to prayer echoing
down every alley and boulevard of Eurabia would gladden his heart and
lift his spirit five times every day; and he certainly does not want
his children to be taught they emerged from slime some buhdillion
years ago or that their grandma was a chimp.
What are you going to tell this man? Are you going to wave a
lecturing finger extended from limp wrist, a la Hussein 0'Bama, and
tell him that he is a "fundamentalist" and thus must abandon his hopes
and aspirations? Do you think he has ears for that at all?
Admit it, Jillbaby: you don't even have a horse. You're like the
Monty Python knights skipping around in the forest pretending to ride
and making horsey sounds. Mr. "Islamic Fundamentalism" is committed
to his ideals and wants to see them happen in his lifetime. His horse
is strong and will ride roughshod over any pantywaist wagging a tsk-
tsking finger lecturing him about multiculti, nonjudgmentalism or any
of the other empty suicidal ideals of the preening status-whoring
Left.
If that's the best you can do, Jillbaby, your metaphysics will be dead
by the year 2100.
Kleuskes & Moos
Apr 29, 2012, 5:30:47 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:08:05 -0700, prawnster wrote:
> On Apr 29, 1:34 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
>> [...]
>> >So riddle me this: how does one oppose "Islamic fundamentalism"? This
>> >is a very important question for you to answer, because otherwise your
>> >pet metaphysics will disappear before the century has ended, and no
>> >one will miss it.
>>
>> As I said, it's fundamentalism of any stripe which I oppose. As my
>> limp-wristed non-judgmentalism goes, so goes your stiff-necked
>> xenophobia. I regret you don't recognize the real demon, but I'm not
>> surprised.
>
> One more chance, Jillbaby. How does one oppose "Islamic
> fundamentalism"?
Same way one opposes any kind of fundamentalism: education and reason.
> On Apr 29, 1:34 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
>> [...]
>> >So riddle me this: how does one oppose "Islamic fundamentalism"? This
>> >is a very important question for you to answer, because otherwise your
>> >pet metaphysics will disappear before the century has ended, and no
>> >one will miss it.
>>
>> As I said, it's fundamentalism of any stripe which I oppose. As my
>> limp-wristed non-judgmentalism goes, so goes your stiff-necked
>> xenophobia. I regret you don't recognize the real demon, but I'm not
>> surprised.
>
> One more chance, Jillbaby. How does one oppose "Islamic
> fundamentalism"?
It's a matter for the long haul, though.
> Remember: that devout Muslim man strongly desires a
> theocracy governed by Sharia; the beautiful call to prayer echoing
> down every alley and boulevard of Eurabia would gladden his heart and
> lift his spirit five times every day; and he certainly does not want
> his children to be taught they emerged from slime some buhdillion
> years ago or that their grandma was a chimp.
argument to boot. You're not doing very well in the reason and education
department.
> What are you going to tell this man?
are rather a minority and _do_ have trouble peddling their insanity. It's
not easy trying to convince people of a mercyfull and just God demanding
stoning people for adultery in this day and age.
> Are you going to wave a
> lecturing finger extended from limp wrist, a la Hussein 0'Bama, and
> tell him that he is a "fundamentalist" and thus must abandon his hopes
> and aspirations? Do you think he has ears for that at all?
and the common theme about fundamentalists is that their (stated) hopes and
aspirations are bound to some afterlife. However, even fundamentalists are
human and like the creature comforts of the beforelife.
> Admit it, Jillbaby: you don't even have a horse.
in order to enhance their credibility.
> You're like the
> Monty Python knights skipping around in the forest pretending to ride
> and making horsey sounds.
education department, eh?
> Mr. "Islamic Fundamentalism" is committed to his ideals and wants to see them happen in his lifetime. His horse
> is strong and will ride roughshod over any pantywaist wagging a tsk-
> tsking finger lecturing him about multiculti, nonjudgmentalism or any
> of the other empty suicidal ideals of the preening status-whoring
> Left.
anywhere but in your mind. Once again, you screw up.
> If that's the best you can do, Jillbaby, your metaphysics will be dead
> by the year 2100.
strike me as the "metaphysical" type. Perhaps you should try John Wilkins,
who's generally delighted to discuss philosophical matters.
Your need to belittle Jillery by making her a "baby" is rather telling of
a mind that lacks the self confidence to rely on actual arguments. Not that
that would surprise anyone.
prawnster
Apr 29, 2012, 5:45:17 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 2:30 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
wrote:
to jump in whenever.
wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:08:05 -0700, prawnster wrote:
> [...]
> > If that's the best you can do, Jillbaby, your metaphysics will be dead
> > by the year 2100.
>
> What metaphysics are those? Please explain, since Jillery does not really
> strike me as the "metaphysical" type. Perhaps you should try John Wilkins,
> who's generally delighted to discuss philosophical matters.
>
Darwinism is the Jillster's metaphysics, sir. And Mr. Wilkins is free
> > by the year 2100.
>
> What metaphysics are those? Please explain, since Jillery does not really
> strike me as the "metaphysical" type. Perhaps you should try John Wilkins,
> who's generally delighted to discuss philosophical matters.
>
to jump in whenever.
Kleuskes & Moos
Apr 29, 2012, 5:57:48 PM4/29/12
to
creationists. Besides, It's generally considered poor manners to snip text
without marking it, madam.
jillery
Apr 29, 2012, 6:39:18 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:08:05 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>One more chance, Jillbaby.
Not interested.
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>One more chance, Jillbaby.
Not interested.
hersheyh
Apr 29, 2012, 6:44:55 PM4/29/12
to
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 4:27:41 AM UTC-4, prawnster wrote:
> The vast majority of Muslims have no use for evolution; polls have
> shown that only about 20% believe in it, at best, and even that may be
> optimistic because respondents may be thinking of something like
> "survival of the fittest" or other such caricatured or obsolescent
> notions of evolution.
>
> Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
> of churches was undermined and replaced by materialist atheism and
> juicy government-run welfare states.
>
> Now having no purpose in their lives greater than eating, shitting,
> fucking, and dying, Europeans have lost interest in having children or
> sustaining their civilization -- they probably doubt it's worth it.
> Europe now is basically one giant museum/tourist trap, all its glories
> in the past; even its churches are basically tourist traps now since
> Chuck D proved God's existence redundant.
>
> The vast majority of Muslims have no use for evolution; polls have
> shown that only about 20% believe in it, at best, and even that may be
> optimistic because respondents may be thinking of something like
> "survival of the fittest" or other such caricatured or obsolescent
> notions of evolution.
>
> Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
> of churches was undermined and replaced by materialist atheism and
> juicy government-run welfare states.
>
> Now having no purpose in their lives greater than eating, shitting,
> fucking, and dying, Europeans have lost interest in having children or
> sustaining their civilization -- they probably doubt it's worth it.
> Europe now is basically one giant museum/tourist trap, all its glories
> in the past; even its churches are basically tourist traps now since
> Chuck D proved God's existence redundant.
>
> But Muslims, riding the strong ideological horse, confident in their
> beliefs, are reproducing like a-crazy and will within two or three
> generations control most or all of Europe, and will democratically and
> legally vote for governments based on Sharia law. And I predict with
> confidence that Eurabian schools will not bother teaching evolution
> anymore. So goodbye Europe, goodbye Darwinism.
>
> Does even Darwinism contain within itself the seeds of its own
> destruction, a la Hegel's dialectic? I say yes: just as Marxism
> eventually destroys itself through unrestrained money-printing,
> Darwinism kills a man's inspiration to sustain his civilization,
> leaving him ripe for the conquering by men who believe their lives
> have cosmic, eternal significance.
>
> generations control most or all of Europe, and will democratically and
> legally vote for governments based on Sharia law. And I predict with
> confidence that Eurabian schools will not bother teaching evolution
> anymore. So goodbye Europe, goodbye Darwinism.
>
> Does even Darwinism contain within itself the seeds of its own
> destruction, a la Hegel's dialectic? I say yes: just as Marxism
> eventually destroys itself through unrestrained money-printing,
> Darwinism kills a man's inspiration to sustain his civilization,
> leaving him ripe for the conquering by men who believe their lives
> have cosmic, eternal significance.
>
> So keep at it, Darwinistas: every convert to your faith hastens the
> death of your faith.
IOW, your argument is that the truth will make you lazy and hedonistic?
> death of your faith.
Better that societies lie about reality to make the stupid workers work? Lies
are better than truth in your view? There are, in fact, "thinkers"
(neoconservatives like Irving Kristol, via Leo Strauss) who agree with
Karl Marx that religion is the opiate of the masses and say "Thank God
for that."
They think that societies' rulers (the philosopher-king model) should
intentionally lie to the masses of adults.
"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people,"
Irving says in an interview. "There are truths appropriate for children;
truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate
for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated
adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available
to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
Dangerous knowledge of reality should only be limited to the masters
of the universe, all the better to keep the rest of the fools in line
(aka, people like Kristol can handle the truth; most people can only
handle lies).
Karel
Apr 30, 2012, 5:57:58 AM4/30/12
to
Perhaps that is why the large majority of European Muslims
don't register much enthusiasm for an Islamic revolution?
This in turn might explain a lot of the European indolence
regarding said revolution.
Regards,
Karel
Burkhard
Apr 30, 2012, 6:33:28 AM4/30/12
to
On Apr 29, 5:14 pm, "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
abstract ideas over material realities. Fact is that in the aftermath
of the reformation, Europe fell into a century and more of bloody
civil war that came close to annihilating civilisation as we knew it
then. In the aftermath of these conflicts (some of the ripples still
with us and causing bloodshed) , the modern nation state emerged that
replaced step by step allegiance to a creed with allegiance to the
state as the new secular religion. That would in due time give rise to
a new series of lethal conflicts, but the principle was set: your
accident of birth now also officially determined your identity, the
state as neutral arbiter of conflicts wrestled powers from religious
groups in a deal that enabled their coexistence without killing each
other within a polis - but also made religion a lifestyle choice, and
ultimately less and less powerful and relevant as a consequence.
Islam did not initially undergo this transformation to nation
states(you'd be surprised if you visit e.g. the UEA just how little
state-like, in European thought, they are - just imagine the US
appointing a bunch of foreigners as SCOTUS judges just because they
were trained in a similar legal tradition) and where it happened, in
places like Iran, belatedly and importing an arguably unsuitable
western model, without the also evolutionary adjustment the
consequences were even more dire.
> prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >The vast majority of Muslims have no use for evolution; polls have
> >shown that only about 20% believe in it, at best, and even that may be
> >optimistic because respondents may be thinking of something like
> >"survival of the fittest" or other such caricatured or obsolescent
> >notions of evolution.
>
> >Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
> >of churches was undermined
>
> This process started long before Darwin, at least as far back as
> Galileo, and probably farther. Darwin is not the logical culprit.
> Neither is Galileo, really.
>
> Men looked at the universe and what they saw contradicted what
> the church had told them. Faced with a choice between what the
> church told them about the universe and what the universe told
> them about the universe, they dared to believe the universe.
While a better account, I think it still gives too much weight to
> >The vast majority of Muslims have no use for evolution; polls have
> >shown that only about 20% believe in it, at best, and even that may be
> >optimistic because respondents may be thinking of something like
> >"survival of the fittest" or other such caricatured or obsolescent
> >notions of evolution.
>
> >Thanks to widespread acceptance of Darwinism in Europe, the authority
> >of churches was undermined
>
> This process started long before Darwin, at least as far back as
> Galileo, and probably farther. Darwin is not the logical culprit.
> Neither is Galileo, really.
>
> Men looked at the universe and what they saw contradicted what
> the church had told them. Faced with a choice between what the
> church told them about the universe and what the universe told
> them about the universe, they dared to believe the universe.
abstract ideas over material realities. Fact is that in the aftermath
of the reformation, Europe fell into a century and more of bloody
civil war that came close to annihilating civilisation as we knew it
then. In the aftermath of these conflicts (some of the ripples still
with us and causing bloodshed) , the modern nation state emerged that
replaced step by step allegiance to a creed with allegiance to the
state as the new secular religion. That would in due time give rise to
a new series of lethal conflicts, but the principle was set: your
accident of birth now also officially determined your identity, the
state as neutral arbiter of conflicts wrestled powers from religious
groups in a deal that enabled their coexistence without killing each
other within a polis - but also made religion a lifestyle choice, and
ultimately less and less powerful and relevant as a consequence.
Islam did not initially undergo this transformation to nation
states(you'd be surprised if you visit e.g. the UEA just how little
state-like, in European thought, they are - just imagine the US
appointing a bunch of foreigners as SCOTUS judges just because they
were trained in a similar legal tradition) and where it happened, in
places like Iran, belatedly and importing an arguably unsuitable
western model, without the also evolutionary adjustment the
consequences were even more dire.
ed wolf
May 1, 2012, 4:58:56 AM5/1/12
to
Am Sonntag, 29. April 2012 17:39:15 UTC+2 schrieb prawnster:
> It matters not that you claim Europe's "doing just fine"
> economically. The future belongs to those who show up, and Europeans
> have decided not to send very many Europeans into the future -- they'd
> rather own dogs than raise children. Muslims have decided otherwise,
> and so the future will belong to them. Muslims largely don't buy
> Darwinism, thus once they gain control of Europe's governments in the
> next 40 to 60 years Darwinism will disappear along with the Europeans,
> who preferred to create and nurse an atheist creation myth rather than
> creating and nursing children.
>
> There's no need for me to try my luck in Eurabia: AmeriKKKa's august
> leaders, both Repube and Democrap, are importing and implementing
> Europe's spiritual pathologies at an exponential rate and will soon
> destroy our currency, just as Europe is now. QED.
Urban Muslims in my Berlin neighbourhood are not county-bumkins with a dozen kids. The daughters go to high-school and get decent jobs, they can not be bossed into some old way of life any more. Capitalism rules the place, and religion is disappearing within 2-3 generations of any wave of immigrants: Huguenots, Polish Miners, Italian contract workers, and now Turkish and Arab immigrants: the moment they can make a living from decent jobs, they are lost to the old stupid ways. Religion is for ruling peasants and slaves, not citizens. Its not atheism that follows, but a relaxed kind of Islam or Christianity: observe some of the rules, go to church or mosque with the kids, and, together with some customs from back home and mamas traditional cooking that's it. They will be fine Europeans, just like the Huguenots are now. The same fearful hate you are spitting came against all the Christian immigrants, too, just like against the good Catholic Mexicans in the USA.
> It matters not that you claim Europe's "doing just fine"
> economically. The future belongs to those who show up, and Europeans
> have decided not to send very many Europeans into the future -- they'd
> rather own dogs than raise children. Muslims have decided otherwise,
> and so the future will belong to them. Muslims largely don't buy
> Darwinism, thus once they gain control of Europe's governments in the
> next 40 to 60 years Darwinism will disappear along with the Europeans,
> who preferred to create and nurse an atheist creation myth rather than
> creating and nursing children.
>
> There's no need for me to try my luck in Eurabia: AmeriKKKa's august
> leaders, both Repube and Democrap, are importing and implementing
> Europe's spiritual pathologies at an exponential rate and will soon
> destroy our currency, just as Europe is now. QED.
e.w.
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
H. L. Mencken
prawnster
May 1, 2012, 9:06:12 AM5/1/12
to
> [...]
> Easy. Don't listen to dipshits like prawnster. But people wanting Sharia
> are rather a minority and _do_ have trouble peddling their insanity. It's
> not easy trying to convince people of a mercyfull and just God demanding
> stoning people for adultery in this day and age.
>
> [...]
> are rather a minority and _do_ have trouble peddling their insanity. It's
> not easy trying to convince people of a mercyfull and just God demanding
> stoning people for adultery in this day and age.
>
> Mr. "Islamic Fundamentalism" is another strawman. He does not exist
> anywhere but in your mind. Once again, you screw up.
>
So you're saying that Mark Steyn doesn't know what he's talking about?
> anywhere but in your mind. Once again, you screw up.
>
prawnster
May 1, 2012, 9:10:17 AM5/1/12
to
> Urban Muslims in my Berlin neighbourhood are not county-bumkins with a dozen kids. The daughters go to high-school and get decent jobs, they can not be bossed into some old way of life any more. Capitalism rules the place, and religion is disappearing within 2-3 generations of any wave of immigrants: Huguenots, Polish Miners, Italian contract workers, and now Turkish and Arab immigrants: the moment they can make a living from decent jobs, they are lost to the old stupid ways. Religion is for ruling peasants and slaves, not citizens. Its not atheism that follows, but a relaxed kind of Islam or Christianity: observe some of the rules, go to church or mosque with the kids, and, together with some customs from back home and mamas traditional cooking that's it. They will be fine Europeans, just like the Huguenots are now. The same fearful hate you are spitting came against all the Christian immigrants, too, just like against the good Catholic Mexicans in the USA.
>
Okay. That's fine. But will Darwinism survive when Muslims replace
>
atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
how Eurified they become otherwise.
ed wolf
May 1, 2012, 10:34:59 AM5/1/12
to
Am Dienstag, 1. Mai 2012 15:10:17 UTC+2 schrieb prawnster:
> Okay. That's fine. But will Darwinism survive when Muslims replace
> atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
> indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
> how Eurified they become otherwise.
Europe is the scarred old western Cape of Asia, or a union of
> Okay. That's fine. But will Darwinism survive when Muslims replace
> atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
> indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
> how Eurified they become otherwise.
nations, whatever. But nothing that could be Christian, atheist
or something that can be "replaced by Muslims"
Ask any population what is 110-10%, how many do you think will
give a correct answer? Does that mean Mathematics are about to vanish?
Rather look for education than creed for comparison, I bet many poorly
educated Christians or Hindus, or atheists,in fact, will not understand evolution. But European Industry does not need uneducated peasants,
so great effort have been made for the last 150 years to install
mandatory public schools, job training with state schooling and so on.
Do you think Muslim workers at Mercedes Benz stop the production for
their prayers? They just go on working, pay off their little houses,
and forget about the imam. Just like the Italians did 50years back.
And don't get me wrong: I am not preaching the benefits of capitalism,
specially not on Haymarket Day, the first of March.
ed wolf
Steven L.
May 1, 2012, 10:48:18 AM5/1/12
to
"prawnster" <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:b29890f4-9dd9-4015...@w9g2000pbm.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 29, 1:34 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
> > [...]
> > >So riddle me this: how does one oppose "Islamic fundamentalism"? This
> > >is a very important question for you to answer, because otherwise your
> > >pet metaphysics will disappear before the century has ended, and no
> > >one will miss it.
> >
> > As I said, it's fundamentalism of any stripe which I oppose. As my
> > limp-wristed non-judgmentalism goes, so goes your stiff-necked
> > xenophobia. I regret you don't recognize the real demon, but I'm not
> > surprised.
>
> One more chance, Jillbaby. How does one oppose "Islamic
> fundamentalism"? Remember: that devout Muslim man strongly desires a
> theocracy governed by Sharia; the beautiful call to prayer echoing
> down every alley and boulevard of Eurabia would gladden his heart and
> lift his spirit five times every day; and he certainly does not want
> his children to be taught they emerged from slime some buhdillion
> years ago or that their grandma was a chimp.
But that aside, what you're wondering about is no different from any
person who finds out that one of his ancestors had been a murderer or a
rapist. Your ancestry doesn't diminish you. Your life is your own.
For example, Svetlana Alliluyeva was Josef Stalin's daughter. But she
didn't follow in his footsteps. Instead, in 1967, she defected to the
United States and sought political asylum here.
Having a dad who was a notorious mass murderer, is no less embarrassing
than having a non-human distant ancestor millions of years ago. Yet no
priest would tell Svetlana that she's doomed just because of what her
father did.
-- Steven L.
Mitchell Coffey
May 1, 2012, 11:35:47 AM5/1/12
to
Mitchell Coffey
James Beck
May 1, 2012, 12:09:31 PM5/1/12
to
On Apr 29, 5:30 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
Sharia courts are fast and efficient, light on evidence, filings,
pleadings and so forth. As such they are popular with poor people who
can't afford to pay for lawyers in expensive, lengthy legal
proceedings. The trouble lies in why they are efficient. Most cases
are never brought. The litigants take their oath before trial, and the
presumption is that no Muslim man would risk his soul by lying. Muslim
women are expected to lie sometimes; their testimony counts half as
much as a man's. Testimony by non-Muslims carries no weight, at all
because they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
Fundy Christian fear of religious courts then, tacitly agrees with the
Muslims. Christian or not, if the Other Guy has incentives to lie,
they believe that he probably will. Europe has a long history of
vicious tribalism and its law courts are appropriately heavy on
evidence, and on conflict based on distrust. The other path is
probably happier, but it stopped being practical long ago.
[snip]
pleadings and so forth. As such they are popular with poor people who
can't afford to pay for lawyers in expensive, lengthy legal
proceedings. The trouble lies in why they are efficient. Most cases
are never brought. The litigants take their oath before trial, and the
presumption is that no Muslim man would risk his soul by lying. Muslim
women are expected to lie sometimes; their testimony counts half as
much as a man's. Testimony by non-Muslims carries no weight, at all
because they cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
Fundy Christian fear of religious courts then, tacitly agrees with the
Muslims. Christian or not, if the Other Guy has incentives to lie,
they believe that he probably will. Europe has a long history of
vicious tribalism and its law courts are appropriately heavy on
evidence, and on conflict based on distrust. The other path is
probably happier, but it stopped being practical long ago.
[snip]
jillery
May 1, 2012, 12:40:29 PM5/1/12
to
prawnster
May 11, 2012, 8:12:58 AM5/11/12
to
> Okay. That's fine. But will Darwinism survive when Muslims replace
> atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
> indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
> how Eurified they become otherwise.
Since Europe is on the cusp of dissolving its monetary union so that
> atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
> indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
> how Eurified they become otherwise.
individual countries may freely print money to finance their Marxist
welfare hammocks and ultimately destroy their currencies and hasten
Marxism's dialectical comeuppance, will Muslims stick around for
that? I mean, once the welfare hammock is dissolved via unrestrained
money printing, will they head back home or will they stay in Europe?
I ask this because I once stated that Marxism and Darwinism were
dialectical antithesis codependents, but I'm having second thoughts.
Maybe Marxism will actually have the effect of strengthening belief in
Darwinism if its disastrous economic consequences, QED, chase away
evolution-denying folks; e.g., Muslims. Any Europeans here have
thoughts on this, or do you have any firsthand experience? Or will
Muslims stick around and transform Europe into Eurabia, and banish the
teaching of Earth's favorite atheist creation myth, regardless of any
currency collapse?
RAM
May 11, 2012, 11:34:58 AM5/11/12
to
Burkhard
May 11, 2012, 11:50:52 AM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 1:12 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 6:10 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Okay. That's fine. But will Darwinism survive when Muslims replace
> > atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
> > indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
> > how Eurified they become otherwise.
>
> Since Europe is on the cusp of dissolving its monetary union so that
> individual countries may freely print money to finance their Marxist
> welfare hammocks and ultimately destroy their currencies and hasten
> Marxism's dialectical comeuppance, will Muslims stick around for
> that? I mean, once the welfare hammock is dissolved via unrestrained
> money printing, will they head back home
You mean from Edinburgh to Bradford?
> On May 1, 6:10 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Okay. That's fine. But will Darwinism survive when Muslims replace
> > atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
> > indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
> > how Eurified they become otherwise.
>
> Since Europe is on the cusp of dissolving its monetary union so that
> individual countries may freely print money to finance their Marxist
> welfare hammocks and ultimately destroy their currencies and hasten
> Marxism's dialectical comeuppance, will Muslims stick around for
> that? I mean, once the welfare hammock is dissolved via unrestrained
> money printing, will they head back home
>or will they stay in Europe?
there is some pedagogical value for the general public in correcting
your misunderstandings of science, your shitbag value rather outweighs
this at this juncture.
deadrat
May 11, 2012, 2:37:09 PM5/11/12
to
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 6:10 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Okay. That's fine. But will Darwinism survive when Muslims replace
>> atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
>> indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
>> how Eurified they become otherwise.
>
>
> Since Europe is on the cusp of dissolving its monetary union so that
> individual countries may freely print money to finance their Marxist
> welfare hammocks and ultimately destroy their currencies and hasten
> Marxism's dialectical comeuppance, will Muslims stick around for
> that? I mean, once the welfare hammock is dissolved via unrestrained
> money printing, will they head back home or will they stay in Europe?
Er, Sparky? Some Muslims in Germany have families that have lived in
> On May 1, 6:10 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Okay. That's fine. But will Darwinism survive when Muslims replace
>> atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
>> indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
>> how Eurified they become otherwise.
>
>
> Since Europe is on the cusp of dissolving its monetary union so that
> individual countries may freely print money to finance their Marxist
> welfare hammocks and ultimately destroy their currencies and hasten
> Marxism's dialectical comeuppance, will Muslims stick around for
> that? I mean, once the welfare hammock is dissolved via unrestrained
> money printing, will they head back home or will they stay in Europe?
that country for several generations dating from the old Gastarbeiter
days. Where do you think home is for them?
>
> I ask this because I once stated that Marxism and Darwinism were
> dialectical antithesis codependents, but I'm having second thoughts.
Wouldn't that require that you have first thoughts?
> I ask this because I once stated that Marxism and Darwinism were
> dialectical antithesis codependents, but I'm having second thoughts.
> Maybe Marxism will actually have the effect of strengthening belief in
> Darwinism if its disastrous economic consequences, QED, chase away
> evolution-denying folks; e.g., Muslims. Any Europeans here have
> thoughts on this, or do you have any firsthand experience? Or will
> Muslims stick around and transform Europe into Eurabia, and banish the
> teaching of Earth's favorite atheist creation myth, regardless of any
> currency collapse?
insight into the world inside your head?
Mitchell Coffey
May 11, 2012, 3:53:43 PM5/11/12
to
Mitchell Coffey
prawnster
May 11, 2012, 8:41:17 PM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 8:50 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> [...]
But what's the answer? If the welfare hammock is dissolved through
currency collapse, will Muslim immigrants stick around? I'm trying to
figure out if my original statement that Marxism and Darwinism are
dialectical codependent antitheses locked in a mutually-reinforcing
suicidal death spiral is true or if they are actually opposing
forces. I'm sure most atheo-Marxists here dearly hope that all the
children you never had are forced by the government to learn and
accept your speculative metaphysics. This is probably so important to
you that you might be willing to accept austerity measures or call for
a ceasefire in The War on Bad Weather just long enough to get your
financial houses in order, and that way you can make sure the children
you never bothered having can be force-fed Darwinism.
I'm talking to you, Europeans. My question is real. And as I've said
before: I'm a crank, not a troll.
And I ask my question because, for the first time in decades, America
is having a net outflux of Mexican braceros. This is partially
because there isn't much work to do in construction, but it's also
because state governments are cutting social welfare services and
"education" (i.e., free babysitting) big-time. I'm asking: is the
same thing going on in Europe? And what do you think the dialectical
consequence of this is, Marxist-Europeans? Or am I being redundant?
> [...]
> OK, this nice bit of racism just qualified you for the killfile, while
> there is some pedagogical value for the general public in correcting
> your misunderstandings of science, your shitbag value rather outweighs
> this at this juncture.
>
Thanks! That's so sweet of you to say!
> there is some pedagogical value for the general public in correcting
> your misunderstandings of science, your shitbag value rather outweighs
> this at this juncture.
>
But what's the answer? If the welfare hammock is dissolved through
currency collapse, will Muslim immigrants stick around? I'm trying to
figure out if my original statement that Marxism and Darwinism are
dialectical codependent antitheses locked in a mutually-reinforcing
suicidal death spiral is true or if they are actually opposing
forces. I'm sure most atheo-Marxists here dearly hope that all the
children you never had are forced by the government to learn and
accept your speculative metaphysics. This is probably so important to
you that you might be willing to accept austerity measures or call for
a ceasefire in The War on Bad Weather just long enough to get your
financial houses in order, and that way you can make sure the children
you never bothered having can be force-fed Darwinism.
I'm talking to you, Europeans. My question is real. And as I've said
before: I'm a crank, not a troll.
And I ask my question because, for the first time in decades, America
is having a net outflux of Mexican braceros. This is partially
because there isn't much work to do in construction, but it's also
because state governments are cutting social welfare services and
"education" (i.e., free babysitting) big-time. I'm asking: is the
same thing going on in Europe? And what do you think the dialectical
consequence of this is, Marxist-Europeans? Or am I being redundant?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
May 11, 2012, 10:37:53 PM5/11/12
to
On Saturday, May 12, 2012 1:41:17 AM UTC+1, prawnster wrote:
> On May 11, 8:50 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > [...]
> > OK, this nice bit of racism just qualified you for the killfile, while
> > there is some pedagogical value for the general public in correcting
> > your misunderstandings of science, your shitbag value rather outweighs
> > this at this juncture.
> >
>
> Thanks! That's so sweet of you to say!
>
> But what's the answer? If the welfare hammock is dissolved through
> currency collapse, will Muslim immigrants stick around? I'm trying to
> figure out if my original statement that Marxism and Darwinism are
> dialectical codependent antitheses locked in a mutually-reinforcing
> suicidal death spiral is true or if they are actually opposing
> forces. I'm sure most atheo-Marxists here dearly hope that all the
> children you never had are forced by the government to learn and
> accept your speculative metaphysics. This is probably so important to
> you that you might be willing to accept austerity measures or call for
> a ceasefire in The War on Bad Weather just long enough to get your
> financial houses in order, and that way you can make sure the children
> you never bothered having can be force-fed Darwinism.
>
> I'm talking to you, Europeans. My question is real. And as I've said
> before: I'm a crank, not a troll.
Je suis un Européen, et je ne discerne pas
> On May 11, 8:50 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > [...]
> > OK, this nice bit of racism just qualified you for the killfile, while
> > there is some pedagogical value for the general public in correcting
> > your misunderstandings of science, your shitbag value rather outweighs
> > this at this juncture.
> >
>
> Thanks! That's so sweet of you to say!
>
> But what's the answer? If the welfare hammock is dissolved through
> currency collapse, will Muslim immigrants stick around? I'm trying to
> figure out if my original statement that Marxism and Darwinism are
> dialectical codependent antitheses locked in a mutually-reinforcing
> suicidal death spiral is true or if they are actually opposing
> forces. I'm sure most atheo-Marxists here dearly hope that all the
> children you never had are forced by the government to learn and
> accept your speculative metaphysics. This is probably so important to
> you that you might be willing to accept austerity measures or call for
> a ceasefire in The War on Bad Weather just long enough to get your
> financial houses in order, and that way you can make sure the children
> you never bothered having can be force-fed Darwinism.
>
> I'm talking to you, Europeans. My question is real. And as I've said
> before: I'm a crank, not a troll.
ce que vous essayez de demander.
(à demander? Quelle que soit.)
prawnster
May 11, 2012, 10:51:34 PM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 7:37 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> I am a European, and I do not discern
> what you are trying to ask.
> (to ask? Whatever.)
Let's take it one question at a time:
Are immigrant Muslims leaving Europe right now because of austerity
measures or cuts in social welfare?
orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> I am a European, and I do not discern
> what you are trying to ask.
> (to ask? Whatever.)
Let's take it one question at a time:
Are immigrant Muslims leaving Europe right now because of austerity
measures or cuts in social welfare?
Eric Root
May 11, 2012, 11:15:38 PM5/11/12
to
On Apr 29, 5:57 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
Yeah, it's a pejorative word for "modern science."
Eric Root
May 11, 2012, 11:11:57 PM5/11/12
to
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
May 11, 2012, 11:35:11 PM5/11/12
to
is closed.
deadrat
May 12, 2012, 12:12:03 AM5/12/12
to
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
<snip/>
> And I ask my question because, for the first time in decades, America
> is having a net outflux of Mexican braceros. This is partially
> because there isn't much work to do in construction, but it's also
> because state governments are cutting social welfare services
Welfare isn't available for illegal aliens, who want as little to do
with officialdom as possible. For the obvious reasons.
> and "education" (i.e., free babysitting) big-time.
States run by Republicans have cut funding for education. For the
obvious reasons, but that wouldn't selectively target the children of
illegal aliens, who are entitled to public education at whatever level
it is funded for.
Does it hurt to be this ignorant? No?
Too bad.
<snip/>
> And I ask my question because, for the first time in decades, America
> is having a net outflux of Mexican braceros. This is partially
> because there isn't much work to do in construction, but it's also
> because state governments are cutting social welfare services
with officialdom as possible. For the obvious reasons.
> and "education" (i.e., free babysitting) big-time.
obvious reasons, but that wouldn't selectively target the children of
illegal aliens, who are entitled to public education at whatever level
it is funded for.
Does it hurt to be this ignorant? No?
Too bad.
John S. Wilkins
May 12, 2012, 12:24:25 AM5/12/12
to
Eric Root <eric...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 5:57 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:45:17 -0700, prawnster wrote:
> > > On Apr 29, 2:30 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:08:05 -0700, prawnster wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> > If that's the best you can do, Jillbaby, your metaphysics will be dead
> > >> > by the year 2100.
> >
> > >> What metaphysics are those? Please explain, since Jillery does not
> > >> really strike me as the "metaphysical" type. Perhaps you should try
> > >> John Wilkins, who's generally delighted to discuss philosophical
> > >> matters.
> >
> > > Darwinism is the Jillster's metaphysics, sir. And Mr. Wilkins is free
> > > to jump in whenever.
That would be Doctor Wilkins to you. I didn't spend 7 years at Evil
> On Apr 29, 5:57 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:45:17 -0700, prawnster wrote:
> > > On Apr 29, 2:30 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:08:05 -0700, prawnster wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> > If that's the best you can do, Jillbaby, your metaphysics will be dead
> > >> > by the year 2100.
> >
> > >> What metaphysics are those? Please explain, since Jillery does not
> > >> really strike me as the "metaphysical" type. Perhaps you should try
> > >> John Wilkins, who's generally delighted to discuss philosophical
> > >> matters.
> >
> > > Darwinism is the Jillster's metaphysics, sir. And Mr. Wilkins is free
> > > to jump in whenever.
Darwinism School for nothing, you know.
> >
> > Darwinism, to my knowledge, isn't metaphysics, but a pseudo-ism invented
> > by creationists. Besides, It's generally considered poor manners to snip
> > text without marking it, madam.
>
> Yeah, it's a pejorative word for "modern science."
The *term* Darwinism was coined by Wallace in Darwin's lifetime. It was
a way or referring to Darwin's theories. It had no ideological
implications. The term *social* Darwinism was coined by Richard
Hofstadter in 1945.
Darwinian ideas have no real core doctrines, historically speaking.
Ideas like lack of teleology, or gradual change, or even natural
selection, are all dispensed with by those who call themselves
Darwinian, even among Darwin's own circle (the X Club, for example). So
it is hard to make out the case that "Darwinism" sensu creationists and
antievolutionists has any metaphysics as such when even the core views
are not settled.
What religious critics are opposing is not a metaphysics of Darwin, but
a metaphysics of Epicurus - atomism, determinism, a lack of universal or
cosmic meaning or purpose. It is unclear to what degree either Darwin
himself or those who follow him hold to any of these or all of these
views. For example Darwin expressly stated that the universe was not the
product of chance, and Wallace believed in the direction of Spirit on
evolution. Dobzhansky was an Orthodox Christian and Simpson held that
evolution gave meaning to the living world.
I think that evolutionary biology is just science. Any metaphysical take
home message is up to the individual. Some thing it licenses atheism,
others that it licenses theism or deism, and others (like me) that it
merely rules out some metaphysics but has none of its own.
The things to which Darwin critics object are the things to which
anti-Newtonians objected, and anti-materialists objected and
anti-atomists objected: they are all moral claims, which, it turns out,
almost nobody ever held. Nobody thinks, for example, that morality is a
matter of choice, or that one can treat others as cattle to be bred
(except for those atheist medieval and later aristocrats who have always
treated themselves in that fashion).
If a religion objects to a science in ways that mean they have to assert
false facts, then so much the worse for religion. The claim that science
is "just another religion" is just a way to reassure themselves they
aren't wrong even though they know they are. But if a religion objects
to a science because they don't like the moral implications, then it
pays us to point out that science *has* no moral implications. Science
is just the best facts we have. as a preacher once said
"Things and actions are what they are, and consequences of them will be
what they will be: why then should we desire to be deceived?" [Bishop
Joseph Butler, Fifteen Sermons, Sermon VII, §16.]
If Darwinian theory is correct (whatever it might be) then the moral
implications are just facts of the way the world is. One might wish the
world were different, but it isn't, and shutting one's eyes and calling
people names won't change that.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
prawnster
May 12, 2012, 12:29:42 AM5/12/12
to
On May 11, 9:12 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Welfare isn't available for illegal aliens, who want as little to do
> with officialdom as possible. For the obvious reasons.
>
Bull to the shit. Illegals steal Social Security numbers by the
>
> Welfare isn't available for illegal aliens, who want as little to do
> with officialdom as possible. For the obvious reasons.
>
millions and use them to glom onto every welfare tit within mouth's
reach, just like good Amuricans do. When those tits get all tapped
out and saggy, the braceros head home, QED.
Would please do just a little research before you flap your jaws, sir?
And as a preening status whoring Leftist poseur, you should know the
"I" word is forbidden when talking about border-hopping Mexicans: it
is racist. So be careful -- because there's no person more vile than
The Racist.
deadrat
May 12, 2012, 12:53:06 AM5/12/12
to
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 9:12 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Welfare isn't available for illegal aliens, who want as little to do
>> with officialdom as possible. For the obvious reasons.
>>
>
> Bull to the shit. Illegals steal Social Security numbers by the
> millions and use them to glom onto every welfare tit within mouth's
> reach, just like good Amuricans do.
Could we have some evidence to back up this claim? Illegals generally
> On May 11, 9:12 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Welfare isn't available for illegal aliens, who want as little to do
>> with officialdom as possible. For the obvious reasons.
>>
>
> Bull to the shit. Illegals steal Social Security numbers by the
> millions and use them to glom onto every welfare tit within mouth's
> reach, just like good Amuricans do.
make up Social Security numbers so they can get jobs. Illegals don't
want anything to do with the social welfare bureaucrats. For the obvious
reason.
> When those tits get all tapped
> out and saggy, the braceros head home, QED.
> Would please do just a little research before you flap your jaws, sir?
<snip/>
jillery
May 12, 2012, 1:27:00 AM5/12/12
to
jillery
May 12, 2012, 1:28:23 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 14:24:25 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:
>That would be Doctor Wilkins to you. I didn't spend 7 years at Evil
>Darwinism School for nothing, you know.
That's right! Darwinism Schools charge a lot of money. That's why
Wilkins) wrote:
>That would be Doctor Wilkins to you. I didn't spend 7 years at Evil
>Darwinism School for nothing, you know.
they're so evil.
prawnster
May 12, 2012, 1:41:00 AM5/12/12
to
On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
Creationist is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
I am a creationist.
Thus, you don't know what you're talking about, Jillbaby.
Isn't logic great?
> [...]
> It appears he uses metaphysics to mean whatever he disagrees with.
Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
Creationist is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
I am a creationist.
Thus, you don't know what you're talking about, Jillbaby.
Isn't logic great?
jillery
May 12, 2012, 2:25:25 AM5/12/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 22:41:00 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It appears he uses metaphysics to mean whatever he disagrees with.
>
>Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
So you say. Others disagree. The resolution depends on what you mean
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It appears he uses metaphysics to mean whatever he disagrees with.
>
>Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
by observed.
>Creationist is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
>
>I am a creationist.
>
>Thus, you don't know what you're talking about, Jillbaby.
>
>Isn't logic great?
deadrat
May 12, 2012, 2:42:14 AM5/12/12
to
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It appears he uses metaphysics to mean whatever he disagrees with.
>
> Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
Then so is most of physics.
> On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It appears he uses metaphysics to mean whatever he disagrees with.
>
> Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
> Creationist is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
> I am a creationist.
Yeah, we know. Either that or a performance artist.
> Thus, you don't know what you're talking about, Jillbaby.
>
> Isn't logic great?
Michael Siemon
May 12, 2012, 3:05:43 AM5/12/12
to
In article <1kjziu5.f7c5lj1sebwkuN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
...
> If Darwinian theory is correct (whatever it might be) then the moral
> implications are just facts of the way the world is. One might wish the
> world were different, but it isn't, and shutting one's eyes and calling
> people names won't change that.
Hear; hear!
> implications are just facts of the way the world is. One might wish the
> world were different, but it isn't, and shutting one's eyes and calling
> people names won't change that.
prawnster
May 12, 2012, 3:22:11 AM5/12/12
to
On May 11, 11:42 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
never been observed"? Or are the physics involved in computer
operation part of that very small portion of physics that is
observable?
Don't answer the question, because its only purpose is to show how
vacuous and sophistic your response was.
I have another question for you, though, more up your alley: how would
you introduce exhibits or testimony regarding one animal evolving into
another into a court proceeding where beyond a reasonable doubt was
the burden of proof?
> prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
>
> Then so is most of physics.
>
Then how do you know I typed "Evolution is metaphysics because it's
>
> > Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
>
> Then so is most of physics.
>
never been observed"? Or are the physics involved in computer
operation part of that very small portion of physics that is
observable?
Don't answer the question, because its only purpose is to show how
vacuous and sophistic your response was.
I have another question for you, though, more up your alley: how would
you introduce exhibits or testimony regarding one animal evolving into
another into a court proceeding where beyond a reasonable doubt was
the burden of proof?
deadrat
May 12, 2012, 4:22:12 AM5/12/12
to
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 11:42 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
>>
>> Then so is most of physics.
>>
>
> Then how do you know I typed "Evolution is metaphysics because it's
> never been observed"? Or are the physics involved in computer
> operation part of that very small portion of physics that is
> observable?
I can observe the words on the screen, but all of the electronics is
> On May 11, 11:42 pm, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
>>
>> Then so is most of physics.
>>
>
> Then how do you know I typed "Evolution is metaphysics because it's
> never been observed"? Or are the physics involved in computer
> operation part of that very small portion of physics that is
> observable?
unobserved. Damn stuff is just too damn small. Or so they say. You
look at the patterns of the biosphere, but reject the explanations that
biology gives because you haven't personally observed all the mechanisms.
Why is that any different from observing the computer monitor, but
rejecting the physics of QED because those mechanisms can't be observed
either?
> Don't answer the question, because its only purpose is to show how
> vacuous and sophistic your response was.
> I have another question for you, though, more up your alley: how would
> you introduce exhibits or testimony regarding one animal evolving into
> another into a court proceeding where beyond a reasonable doubt was
> the burden of proof?
one animal will "evolve" into another. Populations evolve, not
individuals.
Next, learn something about the law: the rules of introduction of
evidence at trial are basically the same no matter what the burden of
proof is.
Third, understand how silly the topic is. Scientific evidence may
influence a verdict in a court of law, but court proceedings cannot
influence the validity of scientific theories. Those theories are
independent of judicial judgments.
I've already detailed twice how scientific evidence (including the theory
of evolution) would be introduced at trial in the US. If you don't think
my answer is correct, why not tell me where you think I went wrong?
prawnster
May 12, 2012, 5:09:09 AM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 1:22 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
the photons emitting from your screen, QED. You can feel the heat
generated by the electronics inside. You can hear the whir of the
fan, if applicable. You can hear the keyboard clacking. If you had
the right equipment, you could measure the voltage fluxes and, if you
had the microprocessor manuals, understand in detail exactly what each
component was doing, depending on the voltage fluxes or lack of
voltage. Just because you can't observe everything happening in your
computer doesn't mean that no one can or has. That's why your analogy
sucks: no one has seen evolution happen even once. And I almost
forgot: thank you for acknowledging that evolution is metaphysics.
----
Who's "evolution" and how does an abstract concept predict anything?
Scientists using evolutionary assumptions never predict anything
precise or novel, which is the standard for demonstrating thorough
knowledge of a phenomenon, which is why science is so useful. And
what are populations composed of? Oh, that's right: individuals. Cut
it out with the postmodernist word salad sophistry, ratman.
> [...]
> I can observe the words on the screen, but all of the electronics is
> unobserved. Damn stuff is just too damn small. Or so they say. You
> look at the patterns of the biosphere, but reject the explanations that
> biology gives because you haven't personally observed all the mechanisms.
> Why is that any different from observing the computer monitor, but
> rejecting the physics of QED because those mechanisms can't be observed
> either?
>
> [...]
> unobserved. Damn stuff is just too damn small. Or so they say. You
> look at the patterns of the biosphere, but reject the explanations that
> biology gives because you haven't personally observed all the mechanisms.
> Why is that any different from observing the computer monitor, but
> rejecting the physics of QED because those mechanisms can't be observed
> either?
>
> First, learn something about science: evolution does not predict that
> one animal will "evolve" into another. Populations evolve, not
> individuals.
>
I don't know what you mean by "electronics." You certainly can see
> one animal will "evolve" into another. Populations evolve, not
> individuals.
>
the photons emitting from your screen, QED. You can feel the heat
generated by the electronics inside. You can hear the whir of the
fan, if applicable. You can hear the keyboard clacking. If you had
the right equipment, you could measure the voltage fluxes and, if you
had the microprocessor manuals, understand in detail exactly what each
component was doing, depending on the voltage fluxes or lack of
voltage. Just because you can't observe everything happening in your
computer doesn't mean that no one can or has. That's why your analogy
sucks: no one has seen evolution happen even once. And I almost
forgot: thank you for acknowledging that evolution is metaphysics.
----
Who's "evolution" and how does an abstract concept predict anything?
Scientists using evolutionary assumptions never predict anything
precise or novel, which is the standard for demonstrating thorough
knowledge of a phenomenon, which is why science is so useful. And
what are populations composed of? Oh, that's right: individuals. Cut
it out with the postmodernist word salad sophistry, ratman.
prawnster
May 12, 2012, 5:22:48 AM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 2:09 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Who's "evolution" and how does an abstract concept predict anything?
> Scientists using evolutionary assumptions never predict anything
> precise or novel, which is the standard for demonstrating thorough
> knowledge of a phenomenon, which is why science is so useful. And
> what are populations composed of? Oh, that's right: individuals. Cut
> it out with the postmodernist word salad sophistry, ratman.
Let me rewrite part of that: "which is why science is so useful and
> Who's "evolution" and how does an abstract concept predict anything?
> Scientists using evolutionary assumptions never predict anything
> precise or novel, which is the standard for demonstrating thorough
> knowledge of a phenomenon, which is why science is so useful. And
> what are populations composed of? Oh, that's right: individuals. Cut
> it out with the postmodernist word salad sophistry, ratman.
evolution isn't."
Much better and richer in flavor.
Kleuskes & Moos
May 12, 2012, 6:42:31 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 02:09:09 -0700, prawnster wrote:
> On May 12, 1:22 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I can observe the words on the screen, but all of the electronics is
>> unobserved. Damn stuff is just too damn small. Or so they say. You
>> look at the patterns of the biosphere, but reject the explanations that
>> biology gives because you haven't personally observed all the mechanisms.
>> Why is that any different from observing the computer monitor, but
>> rejecting the physics of QED because those mechanisms can't be observed
>> either?
>>
>> [...]
>> First, learn something about science: evolution does not predict that
>> one animal will "evolve" into another. Populations evolve, not
>> individuals.
>>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "electronics." You certainly can see
> the photons emitting from your screen, QED.
Thing is... You _can't_ see any photons. What you "see" is merely
> On May 12, 1:22 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I can observe the words on the screen, but all of the electronics is
>> unobserved. Damn stuff is just too damn small. Or so they say. You
>> look at the patterns of the biosphere, but reject the explanations that
>> biology gives because you haven't personally observed all the mechanisms.
>> Why is that any different from observing the computer monitor, but
>> rejecting the physics of QED because those mechanisms can't be observed
>> either?
>>
>> [...]
>> First, learn something about science: evolution does not predict that
>> one animal will "evolve" into another. Populations evolve, not
>> individuals.
>>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "electronics." You certainly can see
> the photons emitting from your screen, QED.
the brains interpretation of a bunch of neural signals which arose
due to (quite complex) interactions within some specialized cells.
Or, at least, that's what biology tells us.
<snip more simpleton interpretations>
Eric Root
May 12, 2012, 7:44:51 AM5/12/12
to
On May 1, 9:10 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 1:58 am, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Urban Muslims in my Berlin neighbourhood are not county-bumkins with a dozen kids. The daughters go to high-school and get decent jobs, they can not be bossed into some old way of life any more. Capitalism rules the place, and religion is disappearing within 2-3 generations of any wave of immigrants: Huguenots, Polish Miners, Italian contract workers, and now Turkish and Arab immigrants: the moment they can make a living from decent jobs, they are lost to the old stupid ways. Religion is for ruling peasants and slaves, not citizens. Its not atheism that follows, but a relaxed kind of Islam or Christianity: observe some of the rules, go to church or mosque with the kids, and, together with some customs from back home and mamas traditional cooking that's it. They will be fine Europeans, just like the Huguenots are now. The same fearful hate you are spitting came against all the Christian immigrants, too, just like against the good Catholic Mexicans in the USA.
replacing atheism with something else should have nothing to do with
the facts of the physical universe. Are you a nihilist, and think
that facts are imaginary?
> On May 1, 1:58 am, ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Urban Muslims in my Berlin neighbourhood are not county-bumkins with a dozen kids. The daughters go to high-school and get decent jobs, they can not be bossed into some old way of life any more. Capitalism rules the place, and religion is disappearing within 2-3 generations of any wave of immigrants: Huguenots, Polish Miners, Italian contract workers, and now Turkish and Arab immigrants: the moment they can make a living from decent jobs, they are lost to the old stupid ways. Religion is for ruling peasants and slaves, not citizens. Its not atheism that follows, but a relaxed kind of Islam or Christianity: observe some of the rules, go to church or mosque with the kids, and, together with some customs from back home and mamas traditional cooking that's it. They will be fine Europeans, just like the Huguenots are now. The same fearful hate you are spitting came against all the Christian immigrants, too, just like against the good Catholic Mexicans in the USA.
>
> Okay. That's fine. But will Darwinism survive when Muslims replace
> atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
> indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
> how Eurified they become otherwise.
"Darwinism" may not survive, whatever exactly you mean by that, but
> Okay. That's fine. But will Darwinism survive when Muslims replace
> atheist Europe? That was my original point. Polls of Muslims
> indicate that they accept evolution at less than 20%, regardless of
> how Eurified they become otherwise.
replacing atheism with something else should have nothing to do with
the facts of the physical universe. Are you a nihilist, and think
that facts are imaginary?
Eric Root
May 12, 2012, 7:24:07 AM5/12/12
to
On Apr 29, 2:12 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 10:40 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So keep at it, Darwinistas: every convert to your faith hastens the
> > > death of your faith.
>
> > Breivik? Is that you?
>
> No. I'm just a happy-go-lucky fellow who always tries to see the
> bright side of things. Surely the museum known as Europe will be
> destroyed, but at least the nonfalsifiable nihilistic phantasy called
> evolution will perish with it.
Yeah, but it won't do anything about the scientific fact of
evolution. None of the stuff you're spewing has anything to do with
the fact the organisms really have changed and diversified greatly
since billions of years ago, and natural selection really is the
mechanism for a lot of it. Since it's true, even if all your buddies
manage to slaughter every scientist, it will be rediscovered.
(snip)
> On Apr 29, 10:40 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So keep at it, Darwinistas: every convert to your faith hastens the
> > > death of your faith.
>
> > Breivik? Is that you?
>
> No. I'm just a happy-go-lucky fellow who always tries to see the
> bright side of things. Surely the museum known as Europe will be
> destroyed, but at least the nonfalsifiable nihilistic phantasy called
> evolution will perish with it.
Yeah, but it won't do anything about the scientific fact of
evolution. None of the stuff you're spewing has anything to do with
the fact the organisms really have changed and diversified greatly
since billions of years ago, and natural selection really is the
mechanism for a lot of it. Since it's true, even if all your buddies
manage to slaughter every scientist, it will be rediscovered.
(snip)
Kleuskes & Moos
May 12, 2012, 12:02:24 PM5/12/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 22:41:00 -0700, prawnster wrote:
> On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It appears he uses metaphysics to mean whatever he disagrees with.
>
> Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
Nonsense. The theory of evolution is a well established scientific
> On May 11, 10:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It appears he uses metaphysics to mean whatever he disagrees with.
>
> Evolution is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
theory.
> Creationist is metaphysics because it's never been observed.
pseudoscientific attemptt to back it up.
Neither "is metaphysics". It would help if you read the corresponding
wikipedia page (link provided below as a courtesy) before you start
spouting nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
> I am a creationist.
You know what? I don't even believe that.
> Thus, you don't know what you're talking about, Jillbaby.
> Isn't logic great?
It is. When will you start applying some?
deadrat
May 12, 2012, 12:25:40 PM5/12/12
to
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 1:22 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I can observe the words on the screen, but all of the electronics is
>> unobserved. Damn stuff is just too damn small. Or so they say. You
>> look at the patterns of the biosphere, but reject the explanations that
>> biology gives because you haven't personally observed all the mechanisms.
>> Why is that any different from observing the computer monitor, but
>> rejecting the physics of QED because those mechanisms can't be observed
>> either?
>>
>> [...]
>> First, learn something about science: evolution does not predict that
>> one animal will "evolve" into another. Populations evolve, not
>> individuals.
>>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "electronics." You certainly can see
> the photons emitting from your screen, QED.
No, what you "see" is the result of your visual cortex after photons have
> On May 12, 1:22 am, deadrat <misclegal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> I can observe the words on the screen, but all of the electronics is
>> unobserved. Damn stuff is just too damn small. Or so they say. You
>> look at the patterns of the biosphere, but reject the explanations that
>> biology gives because you haven't personally observed all the mechanisms.
>> Why is that any different from observing the computer monitor, but
>> rejecting the physics of QED because those mechanisms can't be observed
>> either?
>>
>> [...]
>> First, learn something about science: evolution does not predict that
>> one animal will "evolve" into another. Populations evolve, not
>> individuals.
>>
>
> I don't know what you mean by "electronics." You certainly can see
> the photons emitting from your screen, QED.
fallen on your retina. Photons are orders of magnitude too small for you to
have a neuro-chemical picture of them. And QED (as in quantum
electrodynamics) tells us that it would be impossible to "see" a photon in
the way you'd see a billiard ball. Some photons don't excite the rods and
cones in your retina, so you can't "see" them at all. Do they not exist?
> You can feel the heat generated by the electronics inside.
make the electronics work.
> You can hear the whir of the
> fan, if applicable. You can hear the keyboard clacking. If you had
> the right equipment, you could measure the voltage fluxes and, if you
> had the microprocessor manuals, understand in detail exactly what each
> component was doing, depending on the voltage fluxes or lack of
> voltage. Just because you can't observe everything happening in your
> computer doesn't mean that no one can or has.
happening, doesn't mean it's impossible to understand what's going on. But
no one has seen an electron or a photon. We've just measured the
consequences of lots of them acting in accord with QED.
> That's why your analogy
> sucks: no one has seen evolution happen even once.
doesn't preclude understanding. In your case, ignorance is what precludes
understanding. But at least that's curable.
> And I almost
> forgot: thank you for acknowledging that evolution is metaphysics.
> ----
> Who's "evolution" and how does an abstract concept predict anything?
> Scientists using evolutionary assumptions never predict anything
> precise or novel, which is the standard for demonstrating thorough
> knowledge of a phenomenon, which is why science is so useful.
of science? When you give up your misconceptions about science in general
and evolution in particular, it might be useful to discuss what evolution
predicts. Dynamics is good enough to launch and control satellites, but it's
not "precise" enough to predict the long-term stability of the solar system.
Should we just abandon Newton?
> And
> what are populations composed of? Oh, that's right: individuals. Cut
> it out with the postmodernist word salad sophistry, ratman.
of individuals, but scientists deal differently with the two. Just for a
start, they use statistical methods to understand the former. Electroweak
theory predicts the behavior of a "population" of radioactive atoms, but it's
powerless to predict the decay of any individual atom in the population.
Should we abandon the standard model as science?
What we can't observe directly, sometimes we can measure. And we can measure
genetic changes in populations. But to understand the importance of that
last sentence you have to give up your erroneous idea of what evolution is.
Shouldn't be that hard for someone who a 4 on his AP test.
deadrat
May 12, 2012, 12:30:07 PM5/12/12
to
Another groaning mistake on your part.
Do I have to dock you another 25 points on your SATs?
*Hemidactylus*
May 12, 2012, 6:30:33 PM5/12/12
to
people's buttons. He's filling the vacuum left when vowelboy went on his
showdown tour against the Ukrainian mob.
--
*Hemidactylus*
deadrat
May 12, 2012, 8:06:04 PM5/12/12
to
*Hemidactylus*
May 12, 2012, 9:53:39 PM5/12/12
to
Like I've said...moths to flame.
--
*Hemidactylus*
0 new messages