Darwin's meme: or the origin of culture by means of natural selection
- Started
- Last post
- 100 Responses
- flagellum0
Sure. But challenge ideas like Dawkin's meme reductionism and expose it's inherent contradictions.
I'm not willing to concede that everything is illusory. That a purely naturalistically contrived organ in our heads deceives us into believing there is meaning to sought and found.
- flagellum0
to "be" sought and found.
- pavlovs_dog0
Sure. But challenge ideas like Dawkin's meme reductionism and expose it's inherent contradictions.
I'm not willing to concede that everything is illusory. That a purely naturalistically contrived organ in our heads deceives us into believing there is meaning to sought and found.
flagellum^ time to give it a rest.
your extraordinary acts of philosophical masturbation aren't impressing anyone.
- flagellum0
hah! pavlov, it's ok if you don't understand the big words. You're still loved.
If you disagree with me, ok. But trying to poke fun at my wording isn't going to get nun of us nowhar, no whu ah meen?
- Brookoioioi0
Secondly, there is empirical evidence which supports religion. Take for instance the historical facts surrounding the resurrection of Christ.
Please provide me with this information, for if it is true, and can be proved, the world should really know about it. Somthing like this would really be of interest to both the scientific and non-scientific community alike. I imagine when the home office hears they'll suggest a knighthood for whoever discovered it...
Whichever way you look at it, creationism explains exactly nothing. To envoke a creator only begs the question of who created the creator, or did it evolve through a process of natural selection? It is a pointless circular argument.
yes i would like to see some of the "theorys" you talk about in a real scientific journal, also with peer reviews from qualified credable sources.
- pavlovs_dog0
Flagelator (discipler) on apologetics:
the branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.
you don't fool me one bit.
the answer was yours before the question was even asked.
why can't you just state "christianity can't ever be wong" and leave it at that?
that is the bare essence of every argument you've ever made here.
- flagellum0
Brook,
Here is a list of peer-reviewed published papers in support of ID:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
This is off topic from ID, but I'm happy to provide you evidence which supports the resurrection of Christ:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/b…
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/b…
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/b…
http://www.leaderu.com/everystud…
http://www.carm.org/evidence/ext…
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/…-----
Creationism explains nothing? Did I mention creationism? I thought Intelligent Design and Dawkin's memes were being discussed here? You are still conflating Creationism with the science of ID. Again, my agnostic ID friends won't be happy about that. Go and learn what ID is and then a fruitful discussion can be had:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini…As I have stated, the question of "who" the designer is, is outside the bounds of science. It's a second-order philosophical question. ID simply detects Specified Complexity in systems. So believe the designer is alien intelligence, some believe it's the God of Islam, etc... but, science can't answer this. Not until we find a signature engraved on some kind of molecular machine or something.
- Brookoioioi0
Again,
ID is creationism.
ID is nothing more than a handful of crticisms of current evolutionary theory coupled with the assertion that a higher intelligence (God) exists.
Tell your agnostic friends whatever you like.
These so called peer-reviewed papers do not really have any credability either.
It is unfortunatley (for you) too easy to discredit these obvious attempts at legitimacy you have cited;
(seeing as you're so fond of geocities)
http://www.geocities.com/lclane2…
"Letter to the editor - Nature 432, 897 (2004) - original
Sir – I cannot in all honesty share in the anxiety surrounding publication of a dubious paper on 'intelligent design' — regarded by most scientists as a version of creationism — in a journal with an impact factor of less than one. Your News story "Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design" (Nature 431, 114; 2004) suggests that getting an intelligent-design paper into a peer-reviewed journal is a huge achievement for creationism. I am more surprised it took so long to get one in.The paper in question presents no new arguments and is unremarkable in any way except in that it has been published. It appeared in a journal that, until this particular editorial decision, enjoyed much-deserved obscurity. Proponents of intelligent design would have us believe that this publication is a testament to the scientific legitimacy of their theory — although the editor has since left and the journal has disowned the paper as "inappropriate" (see Nature, 431, 237; 2004)."
And you're evidence for ressurection is even worse...
Again, Creationism, in its current form as ID, explains exactly and precisely nothing. All it can do is point to apparent flaws in evolution and suggest.
"if theory A is wrong, then automatically theory B must be right..."
- pavlovs_dog0
well, at lest we agree on the black jesus.
- flagellum0
Brook, I will no longer dialogue with you on this issue because, like so many other Darwinists, you've proven yourself thoroughly intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. More than likely because you are uncomfortable with the clear theistic implications which modern science is yeilding. Darwinism is a tough religion to let go of.
You have set up straw man after straw man in your last post. Laughable. Not even worth my time.
Ta Ta
- pavlovs_dog0
Go team Jesus!
- pavlovs_dog0
" other Darwinists, you've proven yourself thoroughly intellectually "
i love the capitalization on "Darwinist". There's this local black newspaper that always does the same with the word "White".
What a kook.
- mrdobolina0
the theistic implications?
But ID has nothing to do with creationism, I thought.
Stop trying to dress your pig up in a dress and sneak her into public schools, please.
- Brookoioioi0
THE WAY OF THE K00K
Never learn from your mistakes.
Always practice your mistakes; you may get them right.
Always pick on those smarter and tougher than you.
Always believe that only you know the TRVTH.
Never allow logic or reason get in the way of a good k00k.
When being overwhelmed by logic and reason: k00ksuit!
If you are going to be wrong, do it at the top of your lungs.
When caught in a lie: LIE!
When in doubt: Order the Crab Won Ton
Plagiarism is your friend. Use it.
Whenever contradicted; morph, start calling people names, and make false accusations. Include the children of your target in your allegations, even if they don't have any.
Post numerous blank posts, or posts containing only a message id.
Post numerous copy&paste web articles from crackerpot websites.
Never forget to call k00kologists "k00ks."
If there are several, call them "sockpuppets" too
Quote notorious scientists or writers - it makes it look as if they approve the drivel you are writing!
Ignore all traffic signs and feel free to trespass, you don't have to obey any rules.
Scare your enemies with lawsuits, police escorts and whines.
Always back up your empty (albeit noisy) threats with phony LARTs(1), false police reports, and harassing letters to the FBI and other gubbermint agencies.
Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat yourself, the more likely others will believe you!
If you can't find anyone as crazy as yourself to support you in the flamewars you start with the normal population, create sock puppets and use anonymous remailers that shamelessly hang on every word you write.
The more your fake personalities adulate you, the more respect you'll get!
Always remain clueproof.
When responding to one line challenges, post paragraphs of rants and screed in response.
Incoherency is not a roadblock to poasting(2).
Neither is illiteracy.
Delusions poasted often enough become fact.
Claim you will destroy for attacking you.
When spnaked(4), send cmsg(5) for Fanboi(6) newsfroup(s).
Find your Lame, Use your Lame, Be your Lame!
Post Edit when the TRVTH hurts.
Always sneck(7) the offending newsfroups.
Always poast pictures of yourself so you can be admired in all your k00ky glory.
Always accuse others of the very acts you are guilty of.
Post lots of boasts about your high IQ and incredible talents.
Always (8) somebody just before replying the plonkee!
Write a self-published book and claim it a success. Bonus points for comparing it to "Mein Kampf" and/or the Bible.
Declare yourself equal to a deity of your choice.
Claim that you've come from other planets.
Claim thousands of past lives.
Frothing complaints carry far more weight when you send them from "legal@" some domain.
Nothing strikes terror into the hearts of your detractors more than telling them that you're archiving their messages for possible use in the future.
Never forget that everyone else posting to Usenet is a paid disinformation agent looking to discredit you.
Usenet is governed by US law. If a poster in Romania killfiles you, he's obviously violating your 1st Amendment rights and can be sued.
Every news admin in the world hangs out in NANAU(9), and they're just dying to nuke the account of that meanyhead who just called you "fucknozzle". Drop 'em a line - that's what they're there for, after all.
AUK(10) will be closed down. Just you wait and see.
They've nuked hundreds of accounts in the name of free speech and *yours* will be next.
Abuse women while telling how many hundreds you've loved. Nevermind that you're one ugly motherfucker and that there were 30,000 femininas that thought you were a scumbag with bad teeth.
Remember that your ko0ky klaims are 'facts', and that 'facts' do not require proof.
Do not neglect to poast your responses to forums that the originator doesn't read. This will make the people in that forum very impressed with how you tear him to shreds without him being able to respond. They like it even better if you are off-topic for that forum.
Keep in mind that lack of evidence supporting your konspiracy theory actually _is_ evidence, of how effective the konspiracy is in hiding.
Any problems with your poasts are the fault of the konspirators, who are trying to stop you from preventing the extinction of humanity.
Konspiracies that are able to subvert whole governments are always unable to silence konspiracy ko0ks.
The entire United States government is willing to spend millions of dollars for the sole purpose of harassing you.
Hollywood is making movies based on your personal life.
Do not consult psychiatrists or other mental health professionals. They are part of the konspiracy, and will sedate you and lock you away and keep you drugged if you tell them the truth.
Numerology and Astrology are respectable sciences and are useful for proving your case.
Everyone is Tim Hill, or David Green, or...
There is a fine line between trolling and kookery. Find that line and cross it repeatedly. When you are killfiled and/or LARTed for net.abuse as a result, claim victory. If you lose multiple accounts, this merely proves that you are indeed a world-class troll, with a black-belt in manipulation.
If you respond to every post someone else makes, they're obsessed. If they respond to less than 1% of your posts, they're even more obsessed.
Publishing people's real names, addresses, and phone numbers when there's no other way for you to come out of a flamewar with any dignity is cool, and proves that you are a master of secret internet information stores, and absolutely not to be fucked with.
Everyone is out to get you. You can put a stop to this by telling everyone that they're out to get you at every available opportunity.
You are the only sane one.
Those that give you a hard time about morally bankrupt things you yourself admit to are just persecutioners of the new inquisition.
Yelling in all caps and cursing at your detractors is debate. Your detractors laughing at you with sarcastic remarks is obvious anger and jealousy.
If doing something results in the loss of your account, legal hassles, or blunt trauma injury, do it again. It always works better the second time.
Asterisks, lots and lots of Asterisks.
Poking holes in kookscreed is stalking, and is a felony.
K00ks LOVE to "connect the dots". They are, of course, dots that only the k00k can see.
"They laughed at Einstein, too!"
- flagellum0
that's right, dobs. As we've discussed a thousand times before. ID has philosophical/theisitic implications.
Darwinian Evolution has philosophical/theisitic implications.
The Big Bang has philosophical/theisitic implications.
As Dr. Stephen Meyer says quite well:
"Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.
...ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who do, confuse the evidence for the theory with its possible implications. Many astrophysicists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to point to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But science eventually accepted it because the evidence strongly supported it.
Today, a similar prejudice confronts ID. Nevertheless, this new theory must also be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not philosophical preferences. As Professor Flew advises: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads.""
- mrdobolina0
what is your profession again, apologetics, right?
- pavlovs_dog0
flagelator,
is the modern evangelical christian canon correct in every aspect?
- Brookoioioi0
that's right, dobs. As we've discussed a thousand times before. ID has philosophical/theisitic implications.
Be vigilant in your redundancy. The more you repeat yourself, the more likely others will believe you!
Darwinian Evolution has philosophical/theisi tic implications.
The Big Bang has philosophical/theisi tic implications.
Remember that your ko0ky klaims are 'facts', and that 'facts' do not require proof.
As Dr. Stephen Meyer says quite well:
"Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.
Quote notorious scientists or writers - it makes it look as if they approve the drivel you are writing!
...ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who do, confuse the evidence for the theory with its possible implications. Many astrophysicists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to point to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But science eventually accepted it because the evidence strongly supported it.
• Incoherency is not a roadblock to poasting(2).
• Neither is illiteracy.
• Delusions poasted often enough become fact.Today, a similar prejudice confronts ID. Nevertheless, this new theory must also be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not philosophical preferences. As Professor Flew advises: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads.""
Keep in mind that lack of evidence supporting your konspiracy theory actually _is_ evidence, of how effective the konspiracy is in hiding.
- subflux0
(Halfway through typing a looooong response to this thread, I remembered my New Year's resolution was to avoid arguing science, politics and/or religion on PVN)
Peace all, have a nice day and big wet kisses to all y'all :-D