SERIOUS Wonderment Concerning Evolution...

Page 6 of 8 [ 113 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

10 May 2015, 9:52 am

^^^ Yep, and they'd all be full o's**t to boot!

:lol:

_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

10 May 2015, 10:26 am

iBlockhead wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

I do not intend to re-present all the links I have provided, but have a flick through this lot. There's something for everyone interested in any area of science.

http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.php

Which articles do you think are the most accurate? Looking at your previous comments, any religious-based arguments would be thrown out, so my quick glance eliminates Dembski, Sarfati, anything relating to a flood, etc.

Throw them all out if you like. It just means that you will never know what they had to say. Institutionalised ignorance relies on arbitrarily and summarily discarding anything that may be inconvenient to the ideology.

I wouldn't know which "are the most accurate"; not least because I've not read them all and I don't know the right answer to every question. It's proposed for your perusal and contemplation... not as a mind-trap to get you into some kind of cult. Rather the opposite; to give you a "leg up" out of the pervasive cult of Materialism. You choose.

iBlockhead
Velociraptor

Joined: 6 Jun 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

13 May 2015, 1:58 am

Oldavid wrote:

iBlockhead wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Which ones on this list of over 1,300 articles have you read?

It is amusing to me that if I use the criterion you want (throwing out any religious-tinged drivel based on Abrahamic religions), I am a part of "institutionalised ignorance" and "the cult of Materialism," which are really nothing more than ID strawmen.

milksnake
Snowy Owl

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 150
Location: outer space

13 May 2015, 2:19 am

I've always considered Religion to be a form of 'institutionalized ignorance'

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

13 May 2015, 5:46 pm

A prediction of Darwin that turned out to be true.
http://io9.com/darwin-predicted-this-animals-existence-decades-before-1703223208

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

14 May 2015, 7:34 am

You bods need to define what you mean by "religion". Materialism is a religion, and it is unsubstantiated by any observations... empirical or otherwise.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

14 May 2015, 7:54 am

Tollorin wrote:

A prediction of Darwin that turned out to be true.
http://io9.com/darwin-predicted-this-animals-existence-decades-before-1703223208

Which presupposes an intelligently contrived order. What use is an enormously long proboscis without an enormously deep flower? What use is an enormously deep flower without an enormously long proboscis to probe it?

Materialists blow their own legs off with their own canon.

I suppose that some clever-dick will get a sizeable government grant to produce a fantastic tome showing that wheels on proboscises are "evolutionarily" unnecessary.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

14 May 2015, 8:23 am

iBlockhead wrote:

Which ones on this list of over 1,300 articles have you read?
It is amusing to me that if I use the criterion you want (throwing out any religious-tinged drivel based on Abrahamic religions), I am a part of "institutionalised ignorance" and "the cult of Materialism," which are really nothing more than ID strawmen.

It doesn't matter which I've read. You read the ones that interest you and if you don't like what they say you take it up with the author of the article. Institutionalised ignorance says that you will not and cannot.

The main "religious-tinged drivel" that I abhor is the "ram-it-down-your-throat-without-any justification" Materialism that is always and everywhere in the popular media and classrooms.

Take your "evolutionarily superior" wheels and roll around fantasy-land.

iBlockhead
Velociraptor

Joined: 6 Jun 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

18 May 2015, 1:31 pm

Oldavid wrote:

iBlockhead wrote:

Which ones on this list of over 1,300 articles have you read?
It is amusing to me that if I use the criterion you want (throwing out any religious-tinged drivel based on Abrahamic religions), I am a part of "institutionalised ignorance" and "the cult of Materialism," which are really nothing more than ID strawmen.

No, it does matter. This website explicitly claims it supports the Genesis account of creationism in at least one of the articles. If you want to try to state on other threads about how intellectually superior you are to everyone else here, don't link a random site you never read which actually disputes the foundation of everything you said. Of course, the last major ID proponent on WP said, when shown the Wedge Document, that lying to get a certain objective is perfectly OK (it is what the Wedge Document basically is - a plan to ease ID in so it supplants at a later time the more complicated collection of facts which best fit the observations/experiments/etc.), so it wouldn't be a surprise to me if your posts are just facades to promote ID.

So, which ones on your link which you supplied did you read, or have read on other websites?

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

18 May 2015, 2:41 pm

Oldavid wrote:

You bods need to define what you mean by "religion". Materialism is a religion, and it is unsubstantiated by any observations... empirical or otherwise.

I like Durkheim's definition: "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things". Materialism is not a religion by that definition or any other worthwhile one.

Materialism is not substantiated by any observations, but it also isn't invalidated by any. In other words, there's no reason to reject the null hypothesis.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

18 May 2015, 2:47 pm

Oldavid wrote:

Tollorin wrote:

A prediction of Darwin that turned out to be true.
http://io9.com/darwin-predicted-this-animals-existence-decades-before-1703223208

As always, these things evolve slowly over time.

There will always be natural variation in flower depths and proboscis lengths. The animal with the shorter proboscis cannot reach the nectar in the deeper flowers. Those with longer proboscises find that they don't have to share the nectar in the deeper flowers with as many others, so they specialise on these ones. This creates two niches were before there was only one. We soon have a "long proboscis" population of insects and a "deep flower" population of plants. Again, there's natural variation within both those populations, and the process repeats itself.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

18 May 2015, 3:16 pm

....and sometimes these things evolve quickly over time if the selection pressure is intense enough. And us humans have exerted some pretty intense selection pressure. Usually the go-to example is bacterial antibiotic resistance. The ID'ers have evolved :wink: their own defense to that example by coining the term microevolution. But today I'm feeling a little silly so I'm going with Cracked's unique take on animals rapidly responding to human-made selection pressure.

Cracked on evolution

They have the obligatory "pepper moth gets pollution-esque coloring" that we all learned in high school biology. But I thought the one about the dogs on the Russian subways was more fun.

Quote:

Today, there are around 35,000 strays roaming Moscow, as dog catching fell behind when the Soviet Union collapsed. Over several generations of breeding, those dogs have gotten very, very smart. If Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure taught us anything, besides some sweet-ass songs, it's that street dogs have to rely on their wits to get vittles. And since only 3 percent of Moscow's strays survive long enough to breed, only the toughest and more importantly, the smartest, end up procreating.

Among these Einstein strays, hundreds have taken up residence in the underground metro stations and have freaking learned how to travel their territories via subway train. They'll stand and wait for the train, just like everyone else, then sneak on, go to sleep, and get off at their stops. Day after day. Scientists figure they use smell and the recorded names of stations to navigate.

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

18 May 2015, 5:02 pm

That a dog is a creature with the ability to learn to perform in a circus means that it can also learn how to find food in streets and subways. Thousands of generations of shepherds know that dogs and sheep are easy to train because they come equipped with very good memories for places and things.

Your ideology would imply that they should evolve wheels to run on train tracks so they wouldn't have to wait for trains, though.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

18 May 2015, 5:36 pm

Oldavid wrote:

Per the beginning of this thread.....no.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

19 May 2015, 5:03 am

Janissy wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

Per the beginning of this thread.....no.

I'm not so keen on the example of dogs taking the train. That's something a dog can pick up in its lifetime. If the frequency of the ability to learn it is changing, then that's evolution, but just seeing dogs do it doesn't move me.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

23 May 2015, 3:01 pm

They would evolve wheels to be faster to evade predators assuming there are smooth surfaces. They would need all terrain wheels for the rocky ones and ridges in the wheels, for muddy surfaces, like you see in tires.

They would evolve them for the same reasons we invented them.

Page 6 of 8 [ 113 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

SERIOUS Wonderment Concerning Evolution... Post Reply New Topic

SERIOUS Wonderment Concerning Evolution...