Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A person that continually harps on someone of faith and calls that person delusional for not believing the same way they do or says they are using their faith as a crutch to avoid fear of death is no better than someone of faith that keeps harping on someone for not believing in God and condemning them for not believing in God.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
      My only problem with Rich atm, is, when I read through his previous posts he was thoroughly insulting about creationism and asserting that evolution was the only way, yet, when criticism came, he tries to defer to other people as if he wasn't even prepared to back up his own statement. After this, he shows personal incredulity by saying that I am simply not understanding. This is even worse than when creationists try to refute evolution from scripture in the bible.
      Do I need to understand all of quantum mechanics to know that spacetime is relative? Your problem is that you're exceedingly arrogant, and you are making less than clear objections, then namecalling when I don't intuitively know what you're talking about.

      I never claimed to have an advanced scientific understanding of natural selection down to individual genetic changes on the molecular level, but, as Lazarus explained to you before, I am aware of it and know that better thinkers than I accept this as the reality, based on observations of the universe, both inside and outside the laboratory. Whereas nobody accepts creationism as a reality based on actual observations of the universe, they accept creationism inherently and then try (usually very comically) to fit the observations to their preconceived notions. To use an extreme example: If carbon dating the dinosaur bones shows them to be several million years old, this was either a trick by God (to test our faith) or Satan (to fool us out of our faith). Obviously this is a wildly speculative conclusion that's not actually supported by the evidence. That dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years, on the other hand, fits with all the data.

      Seriously, if you think a divine hand is necessary to explain how complexity in the natural world came to be, then I do regard your viewpoint as quaint, like someone who thinks a million tiny angels angels hold him down to the earth and keep him from floating into space. It happens by itself. No divine or otherworldly hands are necessary. Every physicist knows this (see what I did there?).

      Whether or not I can list you the entire chains of A-T and G-C bonds involved in sprouting the first proto-eye or proto-wing is irrelevant to my argument. And I couldn't care less if you like me or not. I find you arrogant and self-important, not to mention a very sad and angry person. I'm glad I don't have to live inside your head.
      The Champagne of Beards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
        I have issues with religions that teach that we're flawed beings in need of salvation of some type or flavor to escape the misery of life on this planet. Unfortunately, this describes all the major religions of Eastern and Western civilizations. I'm in love with the old religion(s) of tribal peoples (animism) whose gods live here and whose earthly (only) lives have meaning, rather than being preludes to some kind of afterlife.
        i'm on board with this as well. the idea that we must follow a code that was written a few thousand years ago, and believe in fairytales in order to be accepted to his afterlife is just insanity. despite what turquoise says below, there is no "interpreting" religion. you either believe in those principals or you don't. yeah, you may bee a little more strict or loose, but at the end of the day, if you consider yourself a Christian/muslim/jew, you still have to believe in the basics.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by not on the rug View Post
          i'm on board with this as well. the idea that we must follow a code that was written a few thousand years ago, and believe in fairytales in order to be accepted to his afterlife is just insanity. despite what turquoise says below, there is no "interpreting" religion. you either believe in those principals or you don't. yeah, you may bee a little more strict or loose, but at the end of the day, if you consider yourself a Christian/muslim/jew, you still have to believe in the basics.
          The fact that the related belief-complexes are still tenable for people in light of the discoveries that pushed the birth of man back so many tens of thousands of years before Bishop Ussher's October 23, 4004 B.C., pulled the earth from the Universe's center out into the back corner of one of its walk-in closet, and yes, created us out of the same primordial slime as the amoebas and sponges and liver fluke is truly astonishing.

          But the good news is this: The world is a sacred place (and that fact doesn't require supernatural gods for me) and it is our home. It's okay to love the world and be a stranger to the love of the father, as John warned against. John's God had it all backwards. Man isn't the earth's steward, he was always and will be always its subject. The earth doesn't belong to man. Man belongs to the earth. This was universal wisdom amongst the tribal peoples our culture destroyed on its path to world domination. We disagree at our peril.

          The universe has had it right all along. We never needed a savior. We need to demand the fulfilling, sacred lives here, on this planet that our ancestors took for granted for so many thousands of decades. And then maybe we can inhabit the earth without consuming it.
          The Champagne of Beards

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
            Man isn't the earth's steward, he was always and will be always its subject. The earth doesn't belong to man. Man belongs to the earth. This was universal wisdom amongst the tribal peoples our culture destroyed on its path to world domination. We disagree at our peril.

            The universe has had it right all along. We never needed a savior. We need to demand the fulfilling, sacred lives here, on this planet that our ancestors took for granted for so many thousands of decades. And then maybe we can inhabit the earth without consuming it.
            this needs to be the preface of every religious text printed from here on out. perhaps if this mindset was prioritized and taught to children before the religious hogwash is forcefed in to their hungry young minds, life here on earth would be a lot better.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
              But the good news is this: The world is a sacred place (and that fact doesn't require supernatural gods for me) and it is our home. It's okay to love the world and be a stranger to the love of the father, as John warned against. John's God had it all backwards. Man isn't the earth's steward, he was always and will be always its subject. The earth doesn't belong to man. Man belongs to the earth. This was universal wisdom amongst the tribal peoples our culture destroyed on its path to world domination. We disagree at our peril.

              The universe has had it right all along. We never needed a savior. We need to demand the fulfilling, sacred lives here, on this planet that our ancestors took for granted for so many thousands of decades. And then maybe we can inhabit the earth without consuming it.
              Ha! I now see why you are growing a beard Rich, you are aiming to be a prophet for your own private New age religion...
              "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

              - Schopenhauer

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                Ha! I now see why you are growing a beard Rich, you are aiming to be a prophet for your own private New age religion...
                Well, technically speaking, animism is the oldest religion, and it has/requires no prophets, but if the beard fits...
                The Champagne of Beards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                  Ha! I now see why you are growing a beard Rich, you are aiming to be a prophet for your own private New age religion...
                  nice

                  Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                  Well, technically speaking, animism is the oldest religion, and it has/requires no prophets, but if the beard fits...
                  your beard is kinda weak son...you must be low on the animism totem pole

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by not on the rug View Post
                    nice



                    your beard is kinda weak son...you must be low on the animism totem pole
                    Ha, and you saw it before I trimmed it, when it was like its own state of matter, semi-penetrable and spongy like a bed of moss. But I had to chop it down to 1/2" for work, and now I look like a normal person again. Dammit.
                    The Champagne of Beards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by not on the rug View Post
                      this needs to be the preface of every religious text printed from here on out. perhaps if this mindset was prioritized and taught to children before the religious hogwash is forcefed in to their hungry young minds, life here on earth would be a lot better.
                      I think every religious text should be prefaced with:

                      "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."

                      And a postface that reads:

                      "Story by George Lucas"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by quikky View Post
                        "Story by George Lucas"
                        That would explain the shitty dialog....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by canio6 View Post
                          That would explain the shitty dialog....
                          Haha, I guess it would

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                            Ha, and you saw it before I trimmed it, when it was like its own state of matter, semi-penetrable and spongy like a bed of moss. But I had to chop it down to 1/2" for work, and now I look like a normal person again. Dammit.
                            I took about 1/2" off mine right after I saw you guys. it's growing strong now. in fact, a girl at the halloween party I was at on saturday grabbed it and pulled on it because she didn't think it was real.

                            Originally posted by quikky View Post
                            I think every religious text should be prefaced with:

                            "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."

                            And a postface that reads:

                            "Story by George Lucas"
                            well, I think dogma was pretty spot on in terms of how to execute a religious movie. and kevin smith's dialogue is way better then george' lucas'

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                              Do I need to understand all of quantum mechanics to know that spacetime is relative? Your problem is that you're exceedingly arrogant, and you are making less than clear objections, then namecalling when I don't intuitively know what you're talking about.

                              I never claimed to have an advanced scientific understanding of natural selection down to individual genetic changes on the molecular level, but, as Lazarus explained to you before, I am aware of it and know that better thinkers than I accept this as the reality, based on observations of the universe, both inside and outside the laboratory. Whereas nobody accepts creationism as a reality based on actual observations of the universe, they accept creationism inherently and then try (usually very comically) to fit the observations to their preconceived notions. To use an extreme example: If carbon dating the dinosaur bones shows them to be several million years old, this was either a trick by God (to test our faith) or Satan (to fool us out of our faith). Obviously this is a wildly speculative conclusion that's not actually supported by the evidence. That dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years, on the other hand, fits with all the data.

                              Seriously, if you think a divine hand is necessary to explain how complexity in the natural world came to be, then I do regard your viewpoint as quaint, like someone who thinks a million tiny angels angels hold him down to the earth and keep him from floating into space. It happens by itself. No divine or otherworldly hands are necessary. Every physicist knows this (see what I did there?).

                              Whether or not I can list you the entire chains of A-T and G-C bonds involved in sprouting the first proto-eye or proto-wing is irrelevant to my argument. And I couldn't care less if you like me or not. I find you arrogant and self-important, not to mention a very sad and angry person. I'm glad I don't have to live inside your head.
                              I made my objections abundantly clear. I will touch up on a few more of them here, but this seems relevant to what's going on here: "The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their flagrant usage of fallacies of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion." Sound familiar? You best believe in it, Rich, you're living in one. It is not I that is not making my objections unclear, it is you who is not interpreting it. It does not matter if people smarter than you or I believe in it, without proper grasp of the knowledge yourself; as in, fully equipped to debate it against a creationist, you cannot distinguish fact from fiction. No different than faith.

                              Now, on to the topic at hand. Note, I have no actual stance in this topic, despite my posts, so your tricks of ad hominen, and ad hoc do not work. If you're not diversified in the subject at hand, you will make key fundamental errors in things that do not make sense, this is why you refer to ring species as evidence of macro evolution, with this you make the mistake of assuming open-ended evolution(like 0Angel0), where phenotypic changes just keep going on and on with a never-ending accumulation of changes. You have no evidence for this at all, not even a grasp of the subject at hand to properly argue it, so instead you defer and deflect(Hox genes) and feint ignorance when backed into a corner(this above post) with a "quaint" appeal to authority fallacy(Jesus rescue me from your kind that have strayed from your word). Evolutionists accept that lack of genetic diversity is a problem with evolution, they just do the same thing, except they try to apply it to proper context with bottlenecks and ignoring the processes of speciation themselves.

                              I did make the mistake of assuming you'd know intuitively what I was talking about, after all, how could I not with the way you assert your opinion in this thread? It is an error on mine, albeit much smaller than the personal incredulity which you showcased. What I was referring to, in my last post, was this loss of genetic diversity, with the reduction of heterozygosity to homozygosity, seen in your example of ring species, which you erroneously claim is refutation of my posts and proof of macro evolution. Cells are homozygous for a particular gene when identical alleles are present in both homologous chromosomes; a homozygote, this means that organisms are homozygous for the traits that are to be held constant. When a subpopulation of a species is reproductively isolated from its parent lineage, or other populations of the same species(always the same species), even through your "speciation", its traits are going be fixed. For it to stick in its new population, or continue to characterize and form the new population, the opposing, or competing alleles for that trait must be removed from that gene pool. This is a genetic law necessary reduction in genetic diversity in your speciation event, and in no way proves macro evolution. In fact, this punctures so many holes in your theory, because it already refutes open-ended evolution where traits supposedly accumulate. Homozygosity, literally is the thorn in your theory, which you have repeatedly tried to shoehorn in as proof of evolution blissfully unaware of your grave error.

                              Get it yet? Your natural selection theory, despite never offering your own explanation for it, is clearly based on Dawkins or Darwin's theory, that this is the driving force between macro evolution, these tiny variables and variations in creatures but in no way offer proof that they will eventually change that species entirely into something else. This is never observed in real time, no transitional species, no transitional fossils, absolutely nothing. Only speculation, and, in Darwin's words "use your imagination". Hmm... Darwin is quite clear with his argument that there has to be lots of gradations between them, hence your use of "lots of tiny changes lead to big ones". So, surely, there would still be transitional species around? Not just extinct versions(explained through my above post). I'm not seeing any. Fossil records are obviously imperfect evidence of a macro evolution, and the fact the people in this topic have straw man'd this in repeatedly is laughable evidence at best; on par with your laughing at the bible.

                              I never said I disliked you, actually the opposite, despite the fact I believe you'd be someone that goes to an amusement park and tells kids around that isn't really Donald Duck, just some guy in a costume. You're really comfortable insulting religion in an echo chamber, but you're quick to back up and merely take it to a critique the moment someone points out your intolerance and lumps you in with every other atheist.
                              Last edited by Derpamix; 11-04-2013, 05:07 PM.
                              Make America Great Again

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                                I made my objections abundantly clear. I will touch up on a few more of them here, but this seems relevant to what's going on here: "The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their flagrant usage of fallacies of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion." Sound familiar? You best believe in it, Rich, you're living in one. It is not I that is not making my objections unclear, it is you who is not interpreting it. It does not matter if people smarter than you or I believe in it, without proper grasp of the knowledge yourself; as in, fully equipped to debate it against a creationist, you cannot distinguish fact from fiction. No different than faith.

                                Now, on to the topic at hand. Note, I have no actual stance in this topic, despite my posts, so your tricks of ad hominen, and ad hoc do not work. If you're not diversified in the subject at hand, you will make key fundamental errors in things that do not make sense, this is why you refer to ring species as evidence of macro evolution, with this you make the mistake of assuming open-ended evolution(like 0Angel0), where phenotypic changes just keep going on and on with a never-ending accumulation of changes. You have no evidence for this at all, not even a grasp of the subject at hand to properly argue it, so instead you defer and deflect(Hox genes) and feint ignorance when backed into a corner(this above post) with a "quaint" appeal to authority fallacy(Jesus rescue me from your kind that have strayed from your word). Evolutionists accept that lack of genetic diversity is a problem with evolution, they just do the same thing, except they try to apply it to proper context with bottlenecks and ignoring the processes of speciation themselves.

                                I did make the mistake of assuming you'd know intuitively what I was talking about, after all, how could I not with the way you assert your opinion in this thread? It is an error on mine, albeit much smaller than the personal incredulity which you showcased. What I was referring to, in my last post, was this loss of genetic diversity, with the reduction of heterozygosity to homozygosity, seen in your example of ring species, which you erroneously claim is refutation of my posts and proof of macro evolution. Cells are homozygous for a particular gene when identical alleles are present in both homologous chromosomes; a homozygote, this means that organisms are homozygous for the traits that are to be held constant. When a subpopulation of a species is reproductively isolated from its parent lineage, or other populations of the same species(always the same species), even through your "speciation", its traits are going be fixed. For it to stick in its new population, or continue to characterize and form the new population, the opposing, or competing alleles for that trait must be removed from that gene pool. This is a genetic law necessary reduction in genetic diversity in your speciation event, and in no way proves macro evolution. In fact, this punctures so many holes in your theory, because it already refutes open-ended evolution where traits supposedly accumulate. Homozygosity, literally is the thorn in your theory, which you have repeatedly tried to shoehorn in as proof of evolution blissfully unaware of your grave error.

                                Get it yet? Your natural selection theory, despite never offering your own explanation for it, is clearly based on Dawkins or Darwin's theory, that this is the driving force between macro evolution, these tiny variables and variations in creatures but in no way offer proof that they will eventually change that species entirely into something else. This is never observed in real time, no transitional species, no transitional fossils, absolutely nothing. Only speculation, and, in Darwin's words "use your imagination". Hmm... Darwin is quite clear with his argument that there has to be lots of gradations between them, hence your use of "lots of tiny changes lead to big ones". So, surely, there would still be transitional species around? Not just extinct versions(explained through my above post). I'm not seeing any. Fossil records are obviously imperfect evidence of a macro evolution, and the fact the people in this topic have straw man'd this in repeatedly is laughable evidence at best; on par with your laughing at the bible.

                                I never said I disliked you, actually the opposite, despite the fact I believe you'd be someone that goes to an amusement park and tells kids around that isn't really Donald Duck, just some guy in a costume. You're really comfortable insulting religion in an echo chamber, but you're quick to back up and merely take it to a critique the moment someone points out your intolerance and lumps you in with every other atheist.
                                Every species is transitional. This is why I don't understand your objection. It's like we're talking different languages. There are no final forms. Just what works in a certain time and a certain place. We're not a final product of evolution, and neither are mosquitoes or cockroaches or crocodiles. I haven't read every word of your response, and I can't right at the moment, but I'll take a look at it later and see if I can better understand your objection. You're right that I didn't understand the process of natural selection correctly until I read Dawkins (and I was reading him long before The God Delusion came out, just for the record, although I do own that book as well as 4 or 5 of his prior works).
                                The Champagne of Beards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X