| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Immortalist" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2006 02:40:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
I think that human memory and the uses of "history" are like that.
These things really exist to create social harmony and any ole working
lie will do do, just ask Sir Fred! Actually we would get along well
with a revised history, as well as the capacity evolved "for."
Folk Biology
Folk biology is the cognitive study of how people classify and reason
about the organic world. Humans everywhere classify animals and plants
into species-like groups as obvious to a modern scientist as to a Maya
Indian. Such groups are primary loci for thinking about biological
causes and relations (Mayr 1969). Historically, they provided a
transtheoretical base for scientific biology in that different theories
-- including evolutionary theory -- have sought to account for the
apparent constancy of "common species" and the organic processes
centering on them. In addition, these preferred groups have "from the
most remote period . . . been classed in groups under groups" (Darwin
1859: 431). This taxonomic array provides a natural framework for
inference, and an inductive compendium of information, about organic
categories and properties. It is not as conventional or arbitrary in
structure and content, nor as variable across cultures, as the assembly
of entities into cosmologies, materials, or social groups. From the
vantage of EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY, such natural systems are arguably
routine "habits of mind," in part a natural selection for grasping
relevant and recurrent "habits of the world."
http://cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/Entry/atran
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/31b3a6c96c35464e/8d0ed64605a464a3
If we are to accept that evolution is the result of a collection of
random changes due to an everchanging environment in a fundamentally
chaotic world: we cannot use evolution for teleological or predictive
uses. As evolution is not a force of nature; it does not guide change;
nor does it cause change; it is not a law of nature; it is no more than
a recognition that things change therefore they evolve.
One of the most famous arguments of the creationist theory of the
universe is the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley's: Just as
a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into
existence by accident, so too must all living things, with their far
greater complexity, be purposefully designed. But as Richard Dawkins,
professor of zoology at Oxford University, demonstrates in this
brilliant and eloquent riposte to the Argument from Design, the analogy
is false. Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet
essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose
in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it
is the blind watchmaker.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/blind.shtml
But scientists have overworked evolution by continuing to apply the
language of intelligent design. Naturalists stupidly continue to
describe biological traits by such language was present before Darwin..
Why does s butterfly have colourful wings, why do elephants have long
trunks or big ears -such questions are incoherant. One can say what
elephants do with their ears on hot days but to suggest a purpose for
them is an appeal to an intelligent creator. It is no wonder that
people are confused and continue to accept religious reasons for
biological attributes and the existence of animals and plants.
folk psychology - The common-sense conceptual framework that we, as
human beings, employ to understand, predict, and explain the behavior
of other humans and higher animals.
``... the rough-hewn set of concepts, generalizations, and rules of
thumb we all standardly use in explaining and predicting human
behavior''
``[folk psychology] is a theory whose generalizations connect mental
states to other mental states, to perceptions and to actions''
P S Churchland (1986)
Folk psychology is the psychological theory implicit in our everyday
ascriptions of beliefs (e.g. "he thinks that Bush is wise"), desires
(e.g. "he wants that piece of cake"), fears (e.g. "she's afraid of
terrorists"), hopes (e.g. "she hopes that he's on time today") etc.
People have developed this very useful and oftentimes strikingly
successful tool for predicting the behavior of other humans as well as
that of some "higher" animals (e.g. "usually, when you think that your
actions have been inappropriate, you try to figure out some way of
dealing with the situation that doesn't exacerbate the problem" or
"usually, when the dog thinks that there's someone at the door, it
starts barking").
Folk theories, i.e. theories that are based on common, everyday
experiences, but not subjected to rigorous experimental techniques,
underlie many (likely, all) of our actions. For instance, a fairly
sophisticated folk physics (the theory of the behavior of middle-sized,
common objects, such as tables, chairs and bowling balls) is essential
to our everyday interactions with the surrounding environment. (Just
think of all the assumptions you make about the clothing you're
currently wearing, e.g. that's it's not going to melt, that it stays at
a certain temperature range in standard conditions, that it won't
protect you from missiles, etc.) Similarly, folk psychology is the
basis for (all?) our social actions and judgements about the psychology
of others. It encompasses all of the assumptions we make about the
correlations between people's behavior, mental states, and surrounding
conditions.
Folk physics has been, to a large extent, discredited and shown to be
thoroughly inadequate in providing robust explanations of various
physical phenomena. This, of course, raises the question of how folk
psychology would fare in this respect.
Philosophers of mind take various attitudes toward the possibility of
vindicating/extending folk psychology by allowing its theoretical terms
(e.g. 'belief' 'desire' etc.) to play a role in serious scientific
theorizing. Among the advocates of such a possibility, Jerry Fodor is
surely the most notorious. For a locus classicus of the defense of this
view see his 1987 book "Psychosemantics". The other extreme is
exemplified by eliminative materialists, such as Paul and Patricia
Churchland and Stephen Stich. Stich's book, "From Folk Psychology to
Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief" has received much attention
in this regard.
http://www.fact-index.com/f/fo/folk_psychology.html
Folk Psychology as a Theory
Many philosophers and cognitive scientists claim that our everyday or
"folk" understanding of mental states constitutes a theory of mind.
That theory is widely called "folk psychology" (sometimes "commonsense"
psychology). The terms in which folk psychology is couched are the
familiar ones of "belief" and "desire", "hunger", "pain" and so forth.
According to many theorists, folk psychology plays a central role in
our capacity to predict and explain the behavior of ourselves and
others. However, the nature and status of folk psychology remains
controversial.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/
Folk Psychology as Mental Simulation
The simulation (or, "mental simulation") theory maintains that human
beings are able to use the resources of their own minds to simulate the
psychological causes of the behavior of others, typically by making
decisions within a "pretend" context. The theory is usually, though not
always, taken to present a serious challenge to the assumption that a
theory underlies everyday human competence in predicting and explaining
behavior, including the capacity to ascribe mental states to others.
Unlike earlier controversies concerning the role of empathetic
understanding and historical reenactment in the human sciences, the
current debate between the simulation theory and the "theory" theory
appeals to empirical findings, particularly experimental results
concerning children's development of psychological competence. These
are detailed in what follows.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-simulation/
.
|
|
| User: "Sean relaxing@earth" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
16 Aug 2006 04:01:56 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore regarding
God or a Creator?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
18 Aug 2006 09:57:42 AM |
|
|
"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44e387c1@news.eftel.com...
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding God or a Creator?
No - that is more a product of your mentally corrupt imagination and
learning.
There is NO valid evidence for ANY of the thousands of "gods" invented by
mankind.
The reality of evolution shows that claims by (fundamentalist) christians
are ludicrous.
Evolution, itself, says nothing about religion.
The zealot's claims came first - and were then shown to be false.
Cultural folklore should ALWAYS be attacked - when it is offered, without a
shred of evidence, as valid science.
The problem is, then, religious zealots cannot tell the difference between
reality and folklore/fairy tales/fables and fantasies;
NOT that scientific facts refute their claims!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
19 Aug 2006 07:14:03 PM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@MYOB.com> wrote in message
news:12eblb87ehi3dd0@corp.supernews.com...
"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44e387c1@news.eftel.com...
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding God or a Creator?
No - that is more a product of your mentally corrupt imagination and
learning.
There is NO valid evidence for ANY of the thousands of "gods" invented by
mankind.
The reality of evolution shows that claims by (fundamentalist) christians
are ludicrous.
Evolution, itself, says nothing about religion.
The zealot's claims came first - and were then shown to be false.
Cultural folklore should ALWAYS be attacked - when it is offered, without
a shred of evidence, as valid science.
The problem is, then, religious zealots cannot tell the difference between
reality and folklore/fairy tales/fables and fantasies;
NOT that scientific facts refute their claims!
There are many examples of science reinforcing the "essence" of many
religious claims. Religion, in my definition, is "spirituality for
children".
In my early years , I was surprised how many intellectuals, including
scientists, also shared that level of consciousness.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
16 Aug 2006 04:08:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:01:56 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore regarding
God or a Creator?
A question based on multiple falsehoods as premises.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean relaxing@earth" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
16 Aug 2006 05:03:51 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:q727e29rfdn1hgpinfcrh18i8asjn8a7mp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:01:56 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding
God or a Creator?
A question based on multiple falsehoods as premises.
Seek professional help for your sensitivities will you Mr Lee. I am only
interested in Imms. reply. You're a classic example of a raving hell bent
athiest if ever there was one, seen enough of your instability and
intolerance before. Not interested. back onto the block list before you get
a foot in the door. goodbye.
and, have a nice day!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 11:04:25 AM |
|
|
"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44e39643$1@news.eftel.com...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:q727e29rfdn1hgpinfcrh18i8asjn8a7mp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:01:56 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding
God or a Creator?
A question based on multiple falsehoods as premises.
Seek professional help for your sensitivities will you Mr Lee. I am only
interested in Imms. reply.
Then perhaps you should stick with email since you seem unable to comprehend
Usenet.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
18 Aug 2006 08:43:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:03:51 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
- Refer: <44e39643$1@news.eftel.com>
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:q727e29rfdn1hgpinfcrh18i8asjn8a7mp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:01:56 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding
God or a Creator?
A question based on multiple falsehoods as premises.
Seek professional help for your sensitivities will you Mr Lee. I am only
interested in Imms. reply. You're a classic example of a raving hell bent
athiest if ever there was one, seen enough of your instability and
intolerance before. Not interested. back onto the block list before you get
a foot in the door. goodbye.
and, have a nice day!
Mr. Lee calls it as he sees it.
What is wrong with that?
You explicity and deliberately misrepresented atheists.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
16 Aug 2006 06:20:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:03:51 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:q727e29rfdn1hgpinfcrh18i8asjn8a7mp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:01:56 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding
God or a Creator?
A question based on multiple falsehoods as premises.
Seek professional help for your sensitivities will you Mr Lee. I am only
interested in Imms. reply. You're a classic example of a raving hell bent
athiest if ever there was one, seen enough of your instability and
intolerance before. Not interested. back onto the block list before you get
a foot in the door. goodbye.
and, have a nice day!
Might as well killfile me too. I happen to agree with Chris.
You're a liar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
16 Aug 2006 05:12:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:03:51 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:q727e29rfdn1hgpinfcrh18i8asjn8a7mp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:01:56 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding
God or a Creator?
A question based on multiple falsehoods as premises.
Seek professional help for your sensitivities will you Mr Lee. I am only
interested in Imms. reply. You're a classic example of a raving hell bent
athiest if ever there was one, seen enough of your instability and
intolerance before. Not interested. back onto the block list before you get
a foot in the door. goodbye.
So why did you lie about atheists on an atheist newsgroup, moron?
1. There is no such thing as a "hell bent Atheist".
2. Nobody "uses Evolution or Science as a tool to try and attack any
and all cultural folklore regarding God or a Creator".
3. That is a paranoid slander by theists who imagine that the response
to having it pushed where is neither wanted nor needed, is an
initial action.
4. ***** and can the deliberately nasty personal lies.
and, have a nice day!
Hypocrite.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
16 Aug 2006 05:34:33 PM |
|
|
Sean wrote:
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding
God or a Creator?
A question based on multiple falsehoods as premises.
Seek professional help for your sensitivities will you Mr Lee. I am only
interested in Imms. reply. You're a classic example of a raving hell bent
athiest if ever there was one,
It's spelled "a-t-h-E-i-s-t," dear, and unless it's the first word in a
sentence, it doesn't need to be capitalized. If you can't even spell
it, you probably don't know the first thiing about it.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
16 Aug 2006 07:02:49 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:q727e29rfdn1hgpinfcrh18i8asjn8a7mp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:01:56 +1000, "Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding
God or a Creator?
A question based on multiple falsehoods as premises.
A good point, but as hard as I try, I find it difficult to look at a rose
and not think creator in the same way as I hear a peice of music and not
think of composer.
At core level, there is just vibrating energy, but to behold HOW that energy
is organised is one of the great joys of life.
When I first heard of the principles of quantum mechanics, I suspected that
there is more to each of us than "meets the eye" regarding creation, which
is why I like the phrase. The Creator Created Creators. We all feel great
elevation whenwe are in a creative mode. These few lines just proved it once
again (to me at least hehehe)...
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kent" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
16 Aug 2006 08:56:30 PM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
A good point, but as hard as I try, I find it difficult to look at a rose
and not think creator in the same way as I hear a peice of music and not
think of composer.
The human mind is so good at finding patterns it finds them were none
exits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 12:37:48 AM |
|
|
"Kent" <musquodster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155779790.442587.89770@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
A good point, but as hard as I try, I find it difficult to look at a rose
and not think creator in the same way as I hear a peice of music and not
think of composer.
The human mind is so good at finding patterns it finds them were none
exits.
For example .....?
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kent" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 08:01:11 PM |
|
|
Brian Fletcher wrote:
"Kent" <musquodster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155779790.442587.89770@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Brian Fletcher wrote:
A good point, but as hard as I try, I find it difficult to look at a rose
and not think creator in the same way as I hear a peice of music and not
think of composer.
The human mind is so good at finding patterns it finds them were none
exits.
For example .....?
BOfL
Most superstitions.
You might also try plotting up some random numbers and see if the eye
does not spot patterns in them. Its an occupational hazard in fields
like physics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
16 Aug 2006 10:28:39 PM |
|
|
Kent wrote:
Brian Fletcher wrote:
A good point, but as hard as I try, I find it difficult to look at a rose
and not think creator in the same way as I hear a peice of music and not
think of composer.
The human mind is so good at finding patterns it finds them were none
exits.
You are of course talking ONLY of the mystic's mind
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 12:40:36 AM |
|
|
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155785318.980354.277530@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Kent wrote:
Brian Fletcher wrote:
A good point, but as hard as I try, I find it difficult to look at a
rose
and not think creator in the same way as I hear a peice of music and
not
think of composer.
The human mind is so good at finding patterns it finds them were none
exits.
You are of course talking ONLY of the mystic's mind
Not so assgropper......
A mystic will tell you of the universality of the mind, and also how to
seperate yourself from "the" mind in a state of consciousness.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 01:54:30 AM |
|
|
off topic
Brian Fletcher wrote:
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155785318.980354.277530@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Kent wrote:
Brian Fletcher wrote:
A good point, but as hard as I try, I find it difficult to look at a
rose
and not think creator in the same way as I hear a peice of music and
not
think of composer.
The human mind is so good at finding patterns it finds them were none
exits.
You are of course talking ONLY of the mystic's mind
Not so assgropper......
A mystic will tell you of the universality of the mind, and also how to
seperate yourself from "the" mind in a state of consciousness.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 07:47:25 PM |
|
|
You introducing the subject of "off topic" :-)
BOfL
"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155797670.805583.183360@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
off topic
Brian Fletcher wrote:
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155785318.980354.277530@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Kent wrote:
Brian Fletcher wrote:
A good point, but as hard as I try, I find it difficult to look at a
rose
and not think creator in the same way as I hear a peice of music and
not
think of composer.
The human mind is so good at finding patterns it finds them were none
exits.
You are of course talking ONLY of the mystic's mind
Not so assgropper......
A mystic will tell you of the universality of the mind, and also how to
seperate yourself from "the" mind in a state of consciousness.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kent" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
16 Aug 2006 10:34:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Kent wrote:
Brian Fletcher wrote:
A good point, but as hard as I try, I find it difficult to look at a rose
and not think creator in the same way as I hear a peice of music and not
think of composer.
The human mind is so good at finding patterns it finds them were none
exits.
You are of course talking ONLY of the mystic's mind
Actually not, I have seen too many scientists see pattterns where none
exist. It is very easy to fall into the trap of numerology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
20 Aug 2006 06:49:35 AM |
|
|
Kent wrote:
Actually not, I have seen too many scientists see pattterns where none
exist.
Name them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kent" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
20 Aug 2006 09:05:22 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Kent wrote:
Actually not, I have seen too many scientists see pattterns where none
exist.
Name them.
Myself. Naming others would be an invasion of privacy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 01:55:06 AM |
|
|
Kent wrote:
mikegor...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Kent wrote:
Brian Fletcher wrote:
A good point, but as hard as I try, I find it difficult to look at a rose
and not think creator in the same way as I hear a peice of music and not
think of composer.
The human mind is so good at finding patterns it finds them were none
exits.
You are of course talking ONLY of the mystic's mind
Actually not, I have seen too many scientists see pattterns where none
exist. It is very easy to fall into the trap of numerology.
OFFF THREAD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 11:49:12 AM |
|
|
Sean wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore regarding
God or a Creator?
Yes, well mostly I would say that some evolutionists and creationists
use science as a tool to attack some other contention. This would be
like using something as a "means to an end" and not as an "end"
in-itself. We humans are notorious for this, why point out atheists?
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always
at the same time as an end."
--kant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean relaxing@earth" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 12:33:34 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155833352.004234.304770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sean wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding
God or a Creator?
Yes, well mostly I would say that some evolutionists and creationists
use science as a tool to attack some other contention. This would be
like using something as a "means to an end" and not as an "end"
in-itself. We humans are notorious for this, why point out atheists?
Random natural selection, of course. ;-)
Tomorrow I'll pick on Genesis fundamentalists for balance.
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always
at the same time as an end."
--kant
There are only two ways find unhappiness. Not getting what you wanted. And
getting what you wanted.
--Tolle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 07:49:54 PM |
|
|
"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44e4a870@news.eftel.com...
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155833352.004234.304770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sean wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened,
or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore
regarding
God or a Creator?
Yes, well mostly I would say that some evolutionists and creationists
use science as a tool to attack some other contention. This would be
like using something as a "means to an end" and not as an "end"
in-itself. We humans are notorious for this, why point out atheists?
Random natural selection, of course. ;-)
Tomorrow I'll pick on Genesis fundamentalists for balance.
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always
at the same time as an end."
--kant
There are only two ways find unhappiness. Not getting what you wanted. And
getting what you wanted.
--Tolle
Now thats what I wanted to hear. I'm now very happy. ;-)
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean relaxing@earth" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
18 Aug 2006 02:06:19 AM |
|
|
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always
at the same time as an end."
--kant
There are only two ways find unhappiness. Not getting what you wanted.
And getting what you wanted.
--Tolle
Now thats what I wanted to hear. I'm now very happy. ;-)
BOfL
LOL
I like the smell of paradox in the afternoon. ;-))
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 12:16:20 PM |
|
|
EH WHAT?
Immortalist wrote:
Sean wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore regarding
God or a Creator?
Yes, well mostly I would say that some evolutionists and creationists
use science as a tool to attack some other contention. This would be
like using something as a "means to an end" and not as an "end"
in-itself. We humans are notorious for this, why point out atheists?
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always
at the same time as an end."
--kant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: The teleology of evolutionism |
17 Aug 2006 02:04:16 PM |
|
|
chazwin wrote:
EH WHAT?
If some times are times when scientists have overworked evolution by
continuing to apply the language of intelligent design and possibly
naturalists stupidly continue to describe biological traits by such
language was present before Darwin then it is apparent that people have
been inappropriately using something that should be an end in-itself as
a means to some other ends, namely that thing is science?
Immortalist wrote:
Sean wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155757207.569732.180520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
chazwin wrote:
I accept Darwin's words and conclusions. But I do also agree with
"Evolution is
a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the
progress
of science. It is useless." But for utterly different reasons than
suggested by its author :-
After the dust had settled on 1859 and the new century emerged with
eugenics and naziism, the uselessness of evolutionary theory had run
its course and descended into the worst extreme excesses of mankind.
Whilst providing us with a means to describe and understand the
emergence of life on planet earth (against a rather more silly one:
god), its job is done and has like much science no explanatory value
whatever. It merely describes what is very likely to have happened, or
at least the mechanism.
Therefore if a theory becomes incorperated into the cultural folklore
[the mainstream] then we should destroy it whether true or not because
it hurts cultural progress?
Isn't that exactly what hell bent Atheists do when they use Evolution or
Science as a tool to try and attack any and all cultural folklore regarding
God or a Creator?
Yes, well mostly I would say that some evolutionists and creationists
use science as a tool to attack some other contention. This would be
like using something as a "means to an end" and not as an "end"
in-itself. We humans are notorious for this, why point out atheists?
"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but
always
at the same time as an end."
--kant
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
