Darwin's meme: or the origin of culture by means of natural selection
- Started
- Last post
- 100 Responses
- mrdobolina0
dude, you are obsessed with god.
too much of anything makes you an addict.
- Brookoioioi0
I guess this is pointless another dead thread now... shame...
but it does make me sad that so many people seem to think it acceptable, that because there MAY be somthing wrong, with the details on the theory, somthing that should be of interest, and filled with conjecture and debate, can be hijacked by such ignorance.
the "theory" creationism, no matter how you name it, explains exactly nothing. You still cannot account where the creator came from, unless you suppose he was made by another creator(ad infinitum), or from a process of natural selection via darwinian evolution...
In the words of eric cartman:
"screw you guys, i'm going home"word for the wise.
- flagellum0
Spoken like one deeply indoctrinated in the myth of Darwinism. Watch out, I'm about repeat myself for the umteenth time...
1. ID is not Creationism. If you say it is, then produce the religious text which ID promotes/teaches. ID is observing Specified Complexity in Biological systems and Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constants. Calling it Creationism isn't going to change this, nor make it go away.
2. ID does not ask nor can it ask who or what the designer is. It can only detect specificity in systems. It's rather modest, really. The question of "who" is a second order question that science cannot (at this time) answer.
3. Natural Selection + Random Mutation has never, never been shown to produce anything beyond trivial adaptive change within existing species (and even this is up for debate - see quantum level saltation, or prescribed evolution). And this lack of creative power is consistent with a fossil record which shows the sudden appearance of species without antecedants.
Yes, the emperor is still naked.
- Brookoioioi0
Intelligent design is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
I would no more debate evolution with you than i would the shape of the planet with a flat-earther or embryological growth against the "stork theory" of where baby's come from.
At least the U.S Courts are not falling for this rubbish either.
After 40 days of trial, Judge John E Jones III ruled against the school board, stating:
"We have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=98…
p.s
Please don't bother to respond, it will only result in more ridicule.
- flagellum0
"Intelligent design is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo."
--- Are people really still chanting that tired canard? The same textbook rhetoric I've come to expect from Darwinian Fundamentalists. ;)
Ridicule? A.) Judge Jones is a rogue activist judge trying to make a name for himself. B.) Get the facts on why his decision does not matter at all, except to bolster interest of the public into ID:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/200…
http://www.wscleary.com/pov/html…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/200…Happy learning.
- brtman0
you guys, see what Crouwel did!!!!don't watch if you love little fluffy alive stuff
and things
- pavlovs_dog0
" Spoken like one deeply indoctrinated in the myth of Darwinism. Watch out, I'm about repeat myself for the umteenth time... "
Go team jesus!
- KuzIV0
flagellum reminds me of a holocaust denier.
they have their "doctors" and their "scientis" who say the consentration of cyclone b in the paint of the bla bla bla, does not match bla bla bla.
You know the types, twisted sick fuckers with an ideology to push. Nazism/Evangelical Christianity.
- fate_0
Discipler, that uncommon descent article you linked on Dawkins Meme is horse fucking shit. To approach the subject from a biological point of view first and not a philisophical one proves he, and you, do not "get it".
- flagellum0
fate, what specifically do you disagree with?
- fate_0
Discipler, are you even kidding me? He frames the argument that memes are a virus with physical manifestation being the forefront of his argument. Viruses competing, destroying a host, symbiotic relationships. It completely ignores the fact that people actually influence what is and is not a meme, they are the creator and controller, not simply passive cariers.
And then you know what? He just falls right back on that old hat "faith" To quote:
"their meaning has to be earned by worship and prayer, and by a life of quiet obedience. Nevertheless truths that are hidden are still truths;"
That's what you're linking? Faith in Faith? Fantastic.
- Brookoioioi0
What gets me is the hilarious denial that it has nothing to do with creationism! I mean, call it what the fuck you like, it's creationism, just as stupid, just as unlikely, just as unscientific. Pointing to a bunch of pseudo-scientific junk on the web won't convince anyone with a shred of common sense. Only expose the tactics of the relegious bigots behind this sham.
- fate_0
"You simply remove the principal source of mercy in the ordinary human heart and so make war pitiless; atheism found its proof at Stalingrad."
I guess christianity found its proof in the crusades? or abortion clinic bombings? or "god hates fags"? Is that the point I should get out of your article, discipler?
- flagellum0
fate, you are describing Dawkin's position above. And I disagree with Dawkin's position.
The point you should get from the article is that not every dependent organism destroys its host. That Dawkin's memes are a silly notion without empirical support. And in fact, the evidence points away from his assertion here.
- fate_0
Are you even reading what I write? Didn't I say it's ludicrous to frame a meme, an idea or set of beliefs, as a virus?
- flagellum0
Funny, Brook, how religiously passionate you sound.
And you still haven't showed me what religious text ID proponents teach and promote, thus making it Creationism.
And once again, my agnostic ID friends are not going to be pleased to hear that the science they so eloquently communicate and study, is really just a Creationist conspiracy. ;)
Sounds like you are just reacting on emotion and making the logical fallacy of "argument from authority". You may actually want to learn what ID is before screaming about what it isn't.
- flagellum0
fate, that is exactly how Dawkin's frames it.