Darwinism is made up

hackenslash · February 15, 2011, 06:33:51 AM

Quote from: "Tanker"You'd think people would stop quote mining on the internet. As though a search engine can't check in less than a second. I guess I could understand if they we're given a quote mine as fact and are mistaken, but then it would become their responsability to check it as fact or not. Good call.

To be fair, I suspect that a lot of them don't know they're doing it. Thing is, they rattle off the work of Dumbski, Kalamity Kraig, Bananaman an other such professional fuckwits and liars for doctrine, who present a lot of their work in book form. The average member of the credulous flock merely parrots what they've read (it's in a book, so it must be true, oh my!) without once checking to see if it accurately reflects what the author actually said.

QuoteDefendor: I'm going to assume it was an honest mistake rather then malicious, however that was a silly thing to do really. First you should really check your own sources before you post them as fact and second you should assume that any source you post but especialy a quote from a skeptic or scientist will be fact checked by someone here. Thirdly when your quote mine collapses, weather intentionaly mined or not, it takes away ALOT of your credability so even if the rest of your points are good they may not be taken as serriously because you have proven yourself to use dishonest sources.

On at least one forum I visit, quote-mining is a sanctionable offence, as are most other forms of discoursive malfeasance.

defendor · February 17, 2011, 06:10:26 AM

I'm not sure how the rest of that quote disqualifies what the main statement says?

Could someone explain to me the true meaning of what Hume is trying to say?

Tank · February 17, 2011, 06:53:09 AM

Quote from: "defendor"I'm not sure how the rest of that quote disqualifies what the main statement says?

Could someone explain to me the true meaning of what Hume is trying to say?

Why? You brought Hume up to support your case, he was a well known atheist thinker and your original quote mine (intentionally or not) misrepresented that position. Hume's body of work is what matters, not the odd sentence here or there.

defendor · February 17, 2011, 06:55:01 AM

The question I was asking, is if I somehow misrepresented what he was saying, I would prefer someone tell me how and where I was wrong. But if I did not misrepresent what Hume was hinting at, I'm not sure why I'm being accused of quote mining. For all intensive purposes, I do not know how that quote was a misconstrued understanding of what particular message David Hume was trying to convey.

I'm also a little unsure of quote mining. It seems to be a misconstruing of the intent of an idea by taking out a small phrase and twisting it. So when people take one or two verses out of its context to try and disprove the Bible, that would then be considered quote mining, right?

Quote from: "hackenslash"
Quote from: "defendor"You're right, what sense does it make that a positive nucleus plus a negative electron cloud, times a few billion equals consciousness..? The sum of its parts does not add up.

You''re right, what sense does it make that two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, times a few billion equals wetness? The sum of its parts does not add up.

The property of wetness is not in the molecular or atomic structure of water. It is not evidence by mathematical formula. Sure, we can still say, at this temperature, these particles behave as such. But the observation of wetness is mechanical in our perception. Just as we see the color blue. For the wave (photon) has peculiar characteristics including frequency, wavelength, the depth and height of the trough and crests, but the observation of blue is purely intangible to our perception. The light hits the eye, then we begin to associate what properties of light are recognize with particular words, such that we see blue. The color blue is not a property or part of the light wave in itself.

So how (unless energy and particles and the laws of mathematics are essentially conscious) can we have such inordinate characteristics add up to define consciousness?

Tanker · February 17, 2011, 10:19:59 AM

If by out of context you mean blatently twisted and willfully quoted in a manner not the authors intent then yes.

Here would be examples of Me intentionaly quote mining Jesus (just for examples sake).These are all delibratly taken out of context and parts of the entire quote were left out to change thier meaning (aka quote mining). This is what you did to Hume's original quote.

"cast the first stone" -Jesus- Gee what a mean guy Jesus was to egg others to violence

"Verily say unto you, none will be saved" -Jesus- See even Jesus say noone can't get into heaven.

"good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world -Jesus- Look Jesus wants you to be a materalist.

"compassion is empty" -Jesus- Wow look how amoral Jesus is.

If I had gone to a Christian forum and posted one of these quote mines how serriously do you think they would take me? Do you think I would hurt my credability if I did? Would I look silly to them? Do you think they might have difficulty listening to anything else I had to say regardless of how poinient if I had used one of these? Do you understand now why quote mining is wrong?

defendor · February 17, 2011, 08:43:20 PM

I agree, also seems like you have some biblical background

So was my quote taken out of context then?

McQ · February 18, 2011, 03:35:02 AM

Quote from: "defendor"I agree, also seems like you have some biblical background

Thumpalumpacus · February 18, 2011, 03:57:17 AM

Do you accept gravity? You Einsteinist. You're obviously replacing the Judeo-Christian god with a mortal scientist.

Do you accept QM? You Bohrist! Off with your head, but not until you type goodbye on the computer you're on (which uses QM to work).

Perhaps You think the continents move? Wegenerian heresy. Off with you.

Do you now see how silly the label "Darwinist" is? Natural selection has easily as much evidence as any of these other disciplines. The only reason believers get their panties bundled by evolutionary theory is because it means that their god(s) aren't needed to create humans.

defendor · February 18, 2011, 04:33:42 AM

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Natural selection has easily as much evidence as any of these other disciplines. The only reason believers get their panties bundled by evolutionary theory is because it means that their god(s) aren't needed to create humans.

maybe you're right, but evolution can't explain anything else.

Tanker · February 18, 2011, 04:58:41 AM

Quote from: "defendor"I agree, also seems like you have some biblical background

So was my quote taken out of context then?

Yes. That would be the problem. You left out more then half the original quote to dilibratly use his words in a manner the author never intended. This is dishonest, this was lying, this was bearing false witness. The fact that you seem to totaly not care about your dishonesty is frustrating to say the least. What exactly was your justification? Were you "lying for Jesus" or do you simply think that we don't deserve honesty as you do? Do you still somehow think this behavior is OK? I'm at a loss to understand your position on this. Please explain it to me.

Answer me this, if you prove yourself to be a lier why should I or anyone trust, believe, or listen to anything you have to say? Would you continue to listen to a lier?

Quote from: "defendor"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Natural selection has easily as much evidence as any of these other disciplines. The only reason believers get their panties bundled by evolutionary theory is because it means that their god(s) aren't needed to create humans.

maybe you're right, but evolution can't explain anything else.

Evolution doesn't claim to. It is ONLY regarding how species change over time.

defendor · February 18, 2011, 05:15:47 AM

What about the last part of his quote makes it misinterpreted?

"I never asserted such an absurd proposition as that anything might arise without a cause. I only maintained that our Certainty of the Falsehood of that Proposition preceded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration, but from another Source."

About the statement of evolution- It doesn't pretend to do anything more, but the Naturalist world view that insinuates evolution does say that the universe came into being is by some random happening of chance or by the omnipotent law of gravity.

Also, in scientific community, people are fine not knowing all the answers, same as with people in the faith, so why is there is so much criticism to the Faith from the scientific community about saying God could be an answer?

Tank · February 18, 2011, 06:15:46 AM

Quote from: "defendor"What about the last part of his quote makes it misinterpreted?

"I never asserted such an absurd proposition as that anything might arise without a cause. I only maintained that our Certainty of the Falsehood of that Proposition preceded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration, but from another Source."

About the statement of evolution- It doesn't pretend to do anything more, but the Naturalist world view that insinuates evolution does say that the universe came into being is by some random happening of chance or by the omnipotent law of gravity.

Also, in scientific community, people are fine not knowing all the answers, same as with people in the faith, so why is there is so much criticism to the Faith from the scientific community about saying God could be an answer?

Because there is no evidence for the existance of the supernatural, or that part of the supernatural is sentient, or that the sentient part of the supernatural in any way cares about how we behave, or that based on our behaviour that sentient part of the supernatural will send people who do what it considers bad to hell (itself another unproven fantasy), or that the unproven sentient part of the supernatural has an ego that needs to be worshipped etc.etc.etc.

However there is overwhelming evidence that when faced with knowledge but a lack of understanding people fantasise about a 'big sky daddy' that will make everything right if you're a good little child.

If god exists nothing makes sense at all, if god does not exist everything fits into place like a huge jigsaw puzzle. Science is an infinity better tool to discover reality than superstition is. That's why science beats theology hands down every time, and the better we get at science the more irrelevant theology, theism and superstition become.

Your beliefs are based in the cold dark fear of the night when animals howled in the forest and people got ill and died for no reason. It's an historical comfort blanket, no more and no less.

defendor · February 18, 2011, 06:31:41 AM

Isn't the bible supposed to be proof God exists? Assuming that was true, right?

I'm not sure things of science make more sense without a God, if anything, they make more sense with one.

For example, what philosophically created the universe? you don't have to go into quantum theory or mechanisms, I'm just curious how you know the universe was created..?

JoeBobSmith · February 18, 2011, 08:06:56 AM

don't you agree?

TheJackel · February 18, 2011, 08:53:02 AM

QuoteThe Low molecular weight liquid hydrocarbons from various sources, would have formed an oil layer covering the primeval ocean (present already 4.0â€"4.4 Ã— 109 yr ago), preventing water from evaporating into the atmosphere. Water from other sources, precipitated by cold traps at higher altitude in the atmosphere, becomes trapped in the ocean. In a thereby more dry and presumably reducing atmosphere (before 3.9 Ã— 109 yr ago) even more hydrocarbons, as well as reactive molecules will form. An oil layer can possibly act as a dry solvent for reactions, where the reactive molecules can produce monomers and condensing agents. Monomers and eventual polymers formed could become strongly concentrated at the oil-water interface, favoring molecular interactions at high mobility and low dilution, without exposure to the destructive action of UV-light. Increased water leakiness of the oil layer due to accumulation of polar molecules within, would lead to photo-oxidation of liquid hydrocarbons, and subsequent emulsification at the oil-water interface, forming cellular structures. The atmosphere would then have lost its reducing character. Not only this, volcano's make up the majority of the amino acids required for life on early Earth.

Also found to be true here:

* NASA - Oil-Seeps:
* Mud Volcano oil Discharge:
* Volcanoes produced much of the world's oil:
* Amino acids, oil / water:
* NASA: Life origins - Volcanic amino acids:

Further insights:

Synthetic Life 1
Video: Synthetic Life 2
Self Orgainization and Complexity
Self organizing algorithms through the study of RNA
Gene self-organizing maps
Self-Organizing Biochemical cycles
Physical Role in Biochemical Self Organization
Protein: Thermodynamics
Photon Energy and Life
Photon is the energy evolution of everything

Further synthetic life links:

* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... gists.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life
* http://gizmodo.com/307958/craig-venter- ... en-created
* http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... rentPage=2
* http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003908.html

DNA Robots:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33483705/ns/...nnovation/

DNA robots that can reproduce themselves:

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8412.php
http://2020science.org/2008/01/26/synthe...echnology/

The Self-organized gene:
http://blog.peltarion.com/2007/04/10/th ... ne-part-1/

RNA:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162009.htm (no human intervention)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/

News:

Darwinism is made up