Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Revoltingest]

Understood.
But his own statements suggest the same thing. I would only be criticizing in context to the statements made in this thread.

So long as we're aware, we'll tread lightly enuf to avoid knuckle rapping from mods.

 

[outhouse]

So long as we're aware, we'll tread lightly enuf to avoid knuckle rapping from mods.

Thanks for the head up. I need it. I don't want any vacations.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.





Rhetoric

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES what you state is not true.

Screechy nonsense. I have never seen an honest evolutionist, which is because honesty requires subjectivity. First thing an evolutionist does is surpress and cancel their own subjectivity. Repressed emotions do not provide for honesty. That's how evolutionists become like these pitbulls for Darwin, completely prejudiced.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for the head up. I need it. I don't want any vacations.

Hey, I like a style of moderation where we advise each other, instead of having staff issue warnings
& demerits. It avoids drama, saves them time, & advances the intended spirit of the place.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

I agree.

 

[leibowde84]

Screechy nonsense. I have never seen an honest evolutionist, which is because honesty requires subjectivity. First thing an evolutionist does is surpress and cancel their own subjectivity. Repressed emotions do not provide for honesty. That's how evolutionists become like these pitbulls for Darwin, completely prejudiced.

These are all merely assumptions based on the assumption that your claim of subjectivity being denied by evolutionists necessarily. Do you mean to speak to materialism instead? Because they are vastly different.

 

[suncowiam]

honesty requires subjectivity.

WHAT??? Does this mean?

Are you sure you understand those words?

 

[Revoltingest]

Screechy nonsense. I have never seen an honest evolutionist, which is because honesty requires subjectivity. First thing an evolutionist does is surpress and cancel their own subjectivity. Repressed emotions do not provide for honesty. That's how evolutionists become like these pitbulls for Darwin, completely prejudiced.

These statements are so inscrutable, disconnected, & unsupported that there's nothing to respond to.
Could you address some of the individual claims with a supporting argument & evidence?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Oh, maybe I wasn't clear. I agree that certain people have used evolution as a pretext for horrible things, just as Islam has been. But, that doesn't point to the theory of evolution or the religion of Islam being incorrect. Much more evidence is needed to show this, as, up till now, you have only pointed to straw men about things that evolution doesn't claim and historical figures who have perverted the theory for their own interests.

 

[leibowde84]

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

I don't know what you mean. I haven't claimed that. I certainly believe in subjective freedom, in that we have real freedom in the choices we make. I am not a determinism. This leads me to believe that you don't really understand what the term subjective means, as it is not negated through recognizing neurology in general.

 

[suncowiam]

Logic and reason were never part of the OP.

Its POE

What is POE?

 

[dust1n]

Can you provide some support for this claim?

Was this a rhetorical question?

 

[dust1n]

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.

So, still no math, right? You know, to show what the mathematical ordering of the DNA system is? Also, could you provide that for the physical universe as well, since they work the same.

 

[leibowde84]

Was this a rhetorical question?

It is certainly looking that way now.

 

[dust1n]

It is certainly looking that way now.

Oh, because mine certainly was.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Sometimes it seems as if you consciously disregard all evidence that contradicts your theory of subjectivity. Isn't that a confirmation bias?

 

[leibowde84]

Oh, because mine certainly was.

Ok

 

[Revoltingest]

What is POE?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

 

[outhouse]

What is POE?

When people create post for the fun of reactions.

Or to try and fool other, like a fictional thread that has no meaning.


In this case OP knows better, he is just feeding on all the negative attention. In the past he has tried to purposely invoke hatred and emotions of other to have them banned.


Basically throwing wood on the fire

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

What?? Why??