Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[leibowde84]

The intentionality of a drug addict mostly. They get high on factual certitude about what is good and evil. As a side effect they destroy knowledge about how things are chosen. Like with nazi's, they propose to know worth of people as fact, and as a side effect of that they propose people's behaviour is predetermined by their heridity.

I'm confused. "good" and "evil" are subjective, at least that is about all science could ever say about these terms.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't think that there is anything 'wrong', about the OP. I think you might have a point with your proposal, but I need to research your ideas further, as I'm not totally sure what it entails.

What do you think creationism vs evolution is about?

It's about accepting subjectivity is valid, belief in the soul and belief in God. Subjectivity operates by freedom, we just need any science theory which establishes freedom is real and relevant. The rest is technical stuff the scientists can sort out among themselves.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It doesn't say that organisms do this. There is no intent. It just claims that those more capable of survival and reproduction will have a better shot at passing on their DNA. How can you argue with that?

It is also shown that evolution scientists regard good and evil as fact by that evolutionary psychologists regard emotions as like software to the brain hardware, which means they regard emotions as factual and not subjective. Also professional biologists explain choosing of organisms in terms of a sorting algorithm (like a chess computer calculating). Etc. Etc. Etc.

It all fits with positing survival as an ought, and then saying what ought is a fact.

Evolution scientists are terrible at fundamental issues, which is really more a philosophical discipline. That is how they all have become social darwinists.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm confused. "good" and "evil" are subjective, at least that is about all science could ever say about these terms.

Subjectivity is a creationist concept. There is no subjectivity except in relation to agency of decisions. By rejecting creationism evolutionists demonstrate that they are social darwinists who regard good and evil as fact.

 

[leibowde84]

It is also shown that evolution scientists regard good and evil as fact by that evolutionary psychologists regard emotions as like software to the brain hardware, which means they regard emotions as factual and not subjective. Also professional biologists explain choosing of organisms in terms of a sorting algorithm (like a chess computer calculating). Etc. Etc. Etc.

It all fits with positing survival as an ought, and then saying what ought is a fact.

Evolution scientists are terrible at fundamental issues, which is really more a philosophical discipline. That is how they all have become social darwinists.

Social Darwinists?! That is a pretty absurd claim. I've never met an evolutionist that was a social darwinist. Can you provide some support for this claim?

 

[leibowde84]

It is also shown that evolution scientists regard good and evil as fact by that evolutionary psychologists regard emotions as like software to the brain hardware, which means they regard emotions as factual and not subjective. Also professional biologists explain choosing of organisms in terms of a sorting algorithm (like a chess computer calculating). Etc. Etc. Etc.

It all fits with positing survival as an ought, and then saying what ought is a fact.

Evolution scientists are terrible at fundamental issues, which is really more a philosophical discipline. That is how they all have become social darwinists.

And, with emotions, it has been proven that certain chemicals/hormones in the brain have a lot to do with emotions. But, that in no way means that they aren't still subjective to the person having them. So, how do you reconcile this fact?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism.

A pink flamingo proves nothing more than that that flamingo is eating a good diet of shrimp.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Social Darwinists?! That is a pretty absurd claim. I've never met an evolutionist that was a social darwinist. Can you provide some support for this claim?

I already did. viz evolutionary psychology, how professional biologists regard choosing as sorting out an optimal using the facts about good and evil as sorting criteria.

Nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz advocated nazism and worked for the nazi's as a psychologist. Darwin regarded emotions as fact in his book about emotions. Heackel gave eugenics and anti semitism academic respectability. Galton who helped develop statistics advocated a religion of natural selection. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And, with emotions, it has been proven that certain chemicals/hormones in the brain have a lot to do with emotions. But, that in no way means that they aren't still subjective to the person having them. So, how do you reconcile this fact?

You are simply rejecting subjectivity. Your idea about how subjectivity works is wrong. Creationist subjectivity, based on freedom, is real subjectivity

 

[outhouse]

Nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz advocated nazism

We require honesty here. half truths are not honest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Lorenz

Lorenz later described that he once saw transports of concentration camp inmates near Poznań, which made him "fully realize the complete inhumanity of the Nazis"[10]

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Either way, I was addressing only to the content of this thread, so I would be following guidelines here.


I try and treat each poster on their own merit. Some are valuable members who contribute to intellectual growth and academia. Other are just trolling and proselytizing and POE and reducing any chance for educational value to be passed on.

Anybody who can't see what a great theory that dna worlds theory is based on the astounding finding that the mathematical ordering of the dna system is the same as that of the physical universe, is just not thinking straight.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are simply rejecting subjectivity. Your idea about how subjectivity works is wrong. Creationist subjectivity, based on freedom, is real subjectivity

Why are you still going on with this when pretty much everyone has told you that what you say is not what they believe, and that what you say is wrong?

 

[Koldo]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general. ''Oh but it could happen''. Well, purple unicorns on Mars could happen as well.

Where is the facepalm emoticon when I need it the most ?

Ok... here we go:

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

We require honesty here. half truths are not honest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Lorenz

Lorenz later described that he once saw transports of concentration camp inmates near Poznań, which made him "fully realize the complete inhumanity of the Nazis"[10]

Lorenz first lied that he wasn't a member of the nazi's. Untill his application for party membership turned up. lorenz doesn't do honesty. And after the war his work was still replete with obscure social darwinist eugenic drivel.

 

[outhouse]

Lorenz first lied that he wasn't a member of the nazi's. Untill his application for party membership turned up. lorenz doesn't do honesty. And after the war his work was still replete with obscure social darwinist eugenic drivel.

He is 100% non sequitur to anything of topic here or for evolution.


You also quote mined him in error. Your required to provide credible sources for your statements.

You refuted nothing but your own bias and CONSTANT proselytizing

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why are you still going on with this when pretty much everyone has told you that what you say is not what they believe, and that what you say is wrong?

Uh I am right, they are all wrong. If anybody had some sophisticated understanding hiw choosing worked, had a bit of sophistication about dealing with a logic in which things can turn out several different ways, then they would have some argument. But the truth is that they all without any exception have no idea about it whatsoever. There is never any argumentation presented, it is all just debating tactics with evolutionists, intellectually it is zero.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

He is 100% non sequitur to anything of topic here or for evolution.


You also quote mined him in error. Your required to provide credible sources for your statements.

You refuted nothing but your own bias and CONSTANT proselytizing

The goings on of Lorenz has been described by Ute Deichmann in the book biologists under hitler. Funding for biology increased 10 times over under the nazi's.

Accepting the validity if subjectivity is what creationism vs evolution is all about.

 

[Shad]

I already did. viz evolutionary psychology, how professional biologists regard choosing as sorting out an optimal using the facts about good and evil as sorting criteria.

Present evidence that good and evil are dictated by biologists. Your statement is dismissed as empty until you do so.

Nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz advocated nazism and worked for the nazi's as a psychologist. Darwin regarded emotions as fact in his book about emotions. Heackel gave eugenics and anti semitism academic respectability. Galton who helped develop statistics advocated a religion of natural selection. Etc. Etc. Etc.

These views have nothing do to with the merit of their work. Ad hominem. You know know that tool logic you like to bring up? You are failing to use it correctly.

 

[Shad]

Accepting the validity if subjectivity is what creationism vs evolution is all about.

Nope. Its about people's subjective views have no merit and their gnashing of teeth when objective evidence provides information that contradicts a subjective view. It is about people imposing their subjective religious beliefs into a field that does not hold their, and billions of others, subjective opinions in high regards since these opinion lack evidence.

 

[outhouse]

The goings on of Lorenz has been described by Ute Deichmann in the book biologists under hitler. Funding for biology increased 10 times over under the nazi's.

So what! NON SEQUITUR.

They were breeding people, not working on anything to do with a new species.

He factually had no bearing on the validity and credibility of evolution, and he was not a EVEN biologist.

Your unarmed here.

Accepting the validity if subjectivity is what creationism vs evolution is all about.

Rhetoric

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES what you state is not true.