The gospel is ridiculous!

[Whitney]

if you can't find the post you are looking for go to: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6626

I just merged the derail into the meaning thread where it belongs.

[McQ]

Of all the bizarre assertions defendor has made, and logical fallacies he's used, I'm most astounded by his misuse of "survival of the fittest". However, it at least let's me know there's zero level of knowledge of biology and evolution going on with him.
Defendor, you need to stop arguing by using straw man debate techniques and stop being disingenuous with people who are trying to have a rational discourse with you.

[defendor]

Of all the bizarre assertions defendor has made, and logical fallacies he's used, I'm most astounded by his misuse of "survival of the fittest". However, it at least let's me know there's zero level of knowledge of biology and evolution going on with him.
Defendor, you need to stop arguing by using straw man debate techniques and stop being disingenuous with people who are trying to have a rational discourse with you.

Not sure on what a straw man debate techniques are, I do not mean to be disingenuous with people but here's a few thoughts 1.  How am I misinterpreting the survival of the fittest?  2. you are obviously upset with me on violating such code of ethics, why are you upset with me if I haven't violate any of my own morality laws?

[McQ]

Of all the bizarre assertions defendor has made, and logical fallacies he's used, I'm most astounded by his misuse of "survival of the fittest". However, it at least let's me know there's zero level of knowledge of biology and evolution going on with him.
Defendor, you need to stop arguing by using straw man debate techniques and stop being disingenuous with people who are trying to have a rational discourse with you.

Not sure on what a straw man debate techniques are, I do not mean to be disingenuous with people but here's a few thoughts 1.  How am I misinterpreting the survival of the fittest?  2. you are obviously upset with me on violating such code of ethics, why are you upset with me if I haven't violate any of my own morality laws?

Straw man example: you just accused me of being obviously upset with you on violating a code of ethics, when I made no such statement. Arguing against a point that was never made is an example of putting up a straw man. Google is your friend.

(edited for typos)

[defendor]

Of all the bizarre assertions defendor has made, and logical fallacies he's used, I'm most astounded by his misuse of "survival of the fittest". However, it at least let's me know there's zero level of knowledge of biology and evolution going on with him.
Defendor, you need to stop arguing by using straw man debate techniques and stop being disingenuous with people who are trying to have a rational discourse with you.

Not sure on what a straw man debate techniques are, I do not mean to be disingenuous with people but here's a few thoughts 1.  How am I misinterpreting the survival of the fittest?  2. you are obviously upset with me on violating such code of ethics, why are you upset with me if I haven't violate any of my own morality laws?

Straw man example: you just accused me of being obviously upset with you on violating a code of ethics, when I made no such statement. Arguing against a point that was never made is an example of putting up a straw man. Google is your friend.

(edited for typos)

I'll say this, I'm sorry for being disingenuous, I do not mean to, as you read what I have posted, in context and made assumptions, I am merely addressing the premise on which the argument has been made.

As one who is so educated in the sciences and theory of evolution as yourself, should it not be easy to spot the incorrect context and easy to illustrate how wrong I used it?  For if religion is the way of the masses, would it not be assumed correct to join with them to survive this strong wave of change?  If this is the new struggle of existence, how can we rebel if its simply the next stage in evolutionary processes?

[Davin]

For if religion is the way of the masses, would it not be assumed correct to join with them to survive this strong wave of change?

No. Do you believe that our sun revolves around the earth? Do you believe that applying leeches to ones self can cure diseases and infections? If you answered no to either of those questions, then you should also agree that it's not correct to join the masses.

If this is the new struggle of existence, how can we rebel if its simply the next stage in evolutionary processes?

Scientific progress is the things that is showing an evolutionary advantage, so those not accepting of and those not supporting scientific research and it's conclusions are going against survival. Personally, I want to see the day when energy, food and water are made so abundant, at will and so cheaply that there will be no starving people or killing over those resources. I see things like teaching bad, religiously skewed, faux science to children as a hindrance to what I want see of scientific progress.

[defendor]

For if religion is the way of the masses, would it not be assumed correct to join with them to survive this strong wave of change?

No. Do you believe that our sun revolves around the earth? Do you believe that applying leeches to ones self can cure diseases and infections? If you answered no to either of those questions, then you should also agree that it's not correct to join the masses.

I don't think the Catholic Church does believe that, anymore at least

If this is the new struggle of existence, how can we rebel if its simply the next stage in evolutionary processes?

Scientific progress is the things that is showing an evolutionary advantage, so those not accepting of and those not supporting scientific research and it's conclusions are going against survival. Personally, I want to see the day when energy, food and water are made so abundant, at will and so cheaply that there will be no starving people or killing over those resources. I see things like teaching bad, religiously skewed, faux science to children as a hindrance to what I want see of scientific progress.

So scientifically, if a group came together under one single banner to wipe out the earth (i.e. Nazi's) or promote the theory of a "master race" (isn't that thought evolution?)  On what scientific theory would you say that contradicts the explanation of "survival of the fittest"?

Why do you want to see energy, food and water made so abundant?

[Whitney]

Why do you want to see energy, food and water made so abundant?

So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world

[McQ]

I'll say this, I'm sorry for being disingenuous, I do not mean to, as you read what I have posted, in context and made assumptions, I am merely addressing the premise on which the argument has been made.

You were creating Straw Man arguments. Strike one for ignoring your error and trying to shift the blame to me. That won't fly.

As one who is so educated in the sciences and theory of evolution as yourself, should it not be easy to spot the incorrect context and easy to illustrate how wrong I used it?  

Yes, it is easy to spot, and I've already answered your other question by clearly stating that I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you those subjects. Another strike for making me repeat myself when I was very clear with you.

For if religion is the way of the masses, would it not be assumed correct to join with them to survive this strong wave of change?  If this is the new struggle of existence, how can we rebel if its simply the next stage in evolutionary processes?

Blather and nonsense.

Here is what you need to do:

Stop being disruptive on this forum, or you will be banned. The forum does not exist for you to post nonsense or to play games. If you wish to have rational discourse, and have a genuine desire to continue here, then knock off the trolling, and show that you can participate without being disruptive. This is your second warning.

[Davin]

For if religion is the way of the masses, would it not be assumed correct to join with them to survive this strong wave of change?

No. Do you believe that our sun revolves around the earth? Do you believe that applying leeches to ones self can cure diseases and infections? If you answered no to either of those questions, then you should also agree that it's not correct to join the masses.

I don't think the Catholic Church does believe that, anymore at least

The important part of your sentence is: "[...]anymore at least[.]"

If this is the new struggle of existence, how can we rebel if its simply the next stage in evolutionary processes?

Scientific progress is the things that is showing an evolutionary advantage, so those not accepting of and those not supporting scientific research and it's conclusions are going against survival. Personally, I want to see the day when energy, food and water are made so abundant, at will and so cheaply that there will be no starving people or killing over those resources. I see things like teaching bad, religiously skewed, faux science to children as a hindrance to what I want see of scientific progress.

So scientifically, if a group came together under one single banner to wipe out the earth (i.e. Nazi's) or promote the theory of a "master race" (isn't that thought evolution?) On what scientific theory would you say that contradicts the explanation of "survival of the fittest"?

I have no idea what you're asking here, I could make an assumption, but I'd rather not.

Why do you want to see energy, food and water made so abundant?

So that no one has to starve or be killed for those things. If you're going to try to regress this down an very boring trial of why questions I have some advice: just save some time and get to your point.

[Davin]

Why do you want to see energy, food and water made so abundant?

So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world lol

[defendor]

So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world

So how is that not survival of the fittest.

McQ you didn't answer a single question of mine, I don't have the "correct" techniques to setting up a debate, but how does that disqualify my ideas as false?

[McQ]

So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world

So how is that not survival of the fittest.

McQ you didn't answer a single question of mine, I don't have the "correct" techniques to setting up a debate, but how does that disqualify my ideas as false?

And, strike three. Banned for failing to follow the directives of a forum moderator after two board warnings. And by the way, I don't answer to you until you show you are not here simply trolling, as you were warned of.

[LegendarySandwich]

So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world

So how is that not survival of the fittest.

McQ you didn't answer a single question of mine, I don't have the "correct" techniques to setting up a debate, but how does that disqualify my ideas as false?

And, strike three. Banned for failing to follow the directives of a forum moderator after two board warnings. And by the way, I don't answer to you until you show you are not here simply trolling, as you were warned of.

Seven day ban?

[Whitney]

So huge masses of people won't suffer due to lack of the above.  It's just part of the evil atheist conspiracy to spread joy and compassion throughout the world :hmm: I'm not nor did I or anyone else imply that they are a Social Darwinist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Dar ... Darwinists