On Sep 21, 6:13 pm, "mindfuc...@bulldoghome.com"
<ad...@outlawbiker.co.uk> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1190361087.932610.122120@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasite
"Inter-specific brood-parasites include the Old World cuckoos in
Eurasia and Australia, cowbirds and Black-headed Ducks in the
Americas, and indigobirds, whydahs, and the honeyguides in Africa.
Most avian brood parasites are specialists which will only parasitize
a single host species or a small group of closely related host
species, but four out of the five parasitic cowbirds are generalists,
which parasitize a wide variety of hosts; the Brown-headed Cowbird has
221 known hosts. They usually only lay one egg per nest, although in
some cases, particularly the cowbirds, several females may use the
same host nest."
Creationists and ID-iots frequently try to "challenge" evolution on
grounds of morality, spewing insane lies about what acceptance of the
fact of evolution has purportedly caused. One of these claims is that
if we believe we're descended from animals then we'll behave like
them.
Let's set aside the fact that "animal behavior" is all-too-frequently
exhibited by the very people who claim a belief in a god. Let's
instead focus upon the fact that never once have the theists had the
integrity to openly acknowledge that if they are right in their basic
beliefs, then it is their god is the one who created these animals and
designed their behaviors as examples of a perfect nature that he saw
were *good*!
Better still, focus on the fact that people display 'animal behaviour'
because that is exactly what they are - highly developed animals, and part
of that development process involved developing the capability for abstract
thought - a feature that has directly facilitated both religious belief and
scientific thought.
No one is disputing that except the theists, who claim that simple
acceptance of evolution leads to moral degeneracy. Case in poijnt is
this thread posted by that vacuous cowardf "Sound of trumpet":
http://tinyurl.com/2sw9f8
This assertion is quite simply a LIE. Those who make it offer not a
shred of science to support their claims, but they continue to repeat
them even after they've been shown to be flawed, LIES, or irrelevant.
Focus on the fact that religious belief has been a feature of human
socialisation throughout countless millennia - presumably because the
development of a shared belief system - regardless of whether the content
thereof accurately represented any objective external reality or not - was
evolutionally advantageous in some
(perhaps many) way(s) - and the fact that the adoption of religious belief
has been enormously useful in the evolutionary development of human
society.
No one is arguing that but you, evidently.
Focus on the fact that individuals will adhere to their chosen shared belief
system, rejecting others who don't share them - whether those beliefs are
evidence based or faith based - presumably they evolved that way, again
because it was evolutionally advantageous to do so.
This is nonsense. People grow up in a religion based not on any
objective stimulus but solely on the region in which they were born.
There are of course exceptions to this, but in general, this is what
happens. It has nothing whatsoever to do with objective reality.
The scientific method, which has brought us knowledge and results
consistently has nothing to do with where you were born. It has
solely to do with where the evidence leads.
Scientists are not the ones trying to ban religion in churches. It is
the creationists who are trying to ban teaching science in schools.
Get that right first.
This series is not about banning or circumscribing what people can
believe. People can believe whatever they want and no one can stop
them.
This series is about confronting those who LIE in pursuit of forcing
their religious beliefs upon others.
There are apparently 20,000 different Christian sects alone in the
world:
http://tinyurl.com/2vym6w
(and reported in "Life" magazine a few years back).
There is only *one* theory of evolution.
And you talk about truth? What truth can there possibly be in 20,000
different versions of the purported one god and purported one word?
Theists need to get their own house in order before they even begin to
dream they can imagine taking on others.
Focus on the fact that it doesn't matter whether those belief systems are
based on evidence or faith - all that matters (if anything) is that those
belief systems are useful in whatever context they developed to perform.
Why do you feel a need to persistently misrepresent the facts? No one
is denying that weak people desperately need to cling to a magic giant
in the sky. This is a fact of life.
The problem is not what people blindly believe. That's their
prerogative. The problem is that all-too-many of them are not content
to keep their private religious beliefs to themselves and instead are
attempting to force such beliefs upon others.
Focus on the fact that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the
adoption of religious belief is inherently 'wrong'
Where have I said it is? Where has anyone said it is? Why are you
tossing out all these straw men? The issue is **not what people
believe** The issue is that these people are too frequently trying to
force these blind beliefs upon others, and the main offenders are
Christians and Muslims.
There's a difference on the one hand between asserting that "this is
the way it is" and supporting that assertion with the weight of 150
years of solid scientific evidence, and on the other hand asserting
that this is the way we're going to force it to be because of some 2
or 3 thousand-year-old fairy tales we found, and having zero science
in support of your claims.
and the adoption of
scientific belief is inherently 'right' - completely ignoring what function
each 'evolved' to fulfil, since 'right' and 'wrong' are entirely subjective
value judgements and have no scientific basis whatsoever.
It isn't about right and wrong. That's another straw man. The
morality issue and the right-and-wrong issue are the inventions of the
theists as I've demonstrated, not the scientists. It's about what we
teach children in science classes and why.
It's also pretty hypocritical of you to talk down science and equate
it directly with religion whilst employing the results of scientific
discovery to toss out your straw men and unsupported assertions.
Did you pray to boot up your computer? Did some angel spin up your
hard drive? Do you use a monitor or rely on revelation?
All the things you are using right now as you read this are the
results of solid scientific achievement. They have nothing to do with
religion. They work because the scientific method works. If we had
relied on religion we would still be crusading in the Middle East and
hanging "witches" back home. We would not be having this exchange on
the Internet.
Focus on the fact that a 'scientist' worthy of the name would not be
attacking the holders of religious belief,
Scientists in pursuit of their scientific profession do not attack
holders of religious beliefs. This is yet another straw man of
yours. Scientists have attacked LIARS who pretend that "creation" or
so-called intelligent so-called design are sciences, **regardless** of
whether those asserting such things have religious beliefs or not, or
what those beliefs actually are.
Creation is not science and neither is intelligent design. Simply
believing that they are without a shred of supportive scientific
evidence doesn't make them right or true and it doesn't merit them
equal time in our education system.
What you're apparently trying to pretend is that there's no difference
between people who LIE and offer no support for their claims, and
people who tell the truth based on the best available evidence we can
obtain. Why would you assert such a thing?
acknowledging that religious
belief developed and survived because it was evolutionally advantageous for
the believers thereof, and would instead consider the entirely natural and
presumably socially beneficial cognitive adaptation as worthy of scientific
study rather than subjectively directed derision.
The derision is at the LIES and the vacuity, not at the religion. Get
that right. You seem to forget that a good many scientists are
themselves religious, yet they feel no need to inject their god as an
explanation of the minutiae of their scientific discoveries.
People can believe in whichever gods they want. They're not entitled
to force that belief upon others. Religion and science are not
equivalent.
Focus on the fact that one who confers upon himself the title of
'scientist', who then attacks the evolutionally advantageous social
adaptation known as 'religious belief' is simply functioning in exactly the
same way as the religious believer who attacks those who believe
differently - with the same degree of ignorance - and they don't even
realise it!
This is patent *****.
Focus on the fact that one of the probable reasons they do this in forums
such as this is because they revel in the praise of their equally ignorant
peers - they get an emotional 'kick' out of appearing more 'intelligent' or
'educated' than those they attack.
When you have some evidence for that, please do post it. Because this
is precisely what you are doing: you're saying that science and
religion are exactly equal in all measures, and you're taking the
creation/ID tack to do it: i.e. making endless assertions without
offering a shred of evidence to back up your claims. If you cannot
see the hypocrisy inherent in such a position, you're delusional.
They get a lovely endorphin 'hit' from
reading fawningly agreeable comment on their oh-so-wise verbal attacks on
their 'enemies' from their fellow believers.
And your evidence for this is? Oh, wait a minute, you have none.
You're making another blind-belief assertion.
They cannot justify such
attacks by presenting scientific evidence that the adoption of scientific
belief is inherently 'right'
Yes it *is* right in scientific matters. That's all there is to it.
or the adoption of religious belief is
inherently 'wrong' - there isn't any.
Where did I say there was? Religious belief is a personal choice.
But you cannot force that belief upon others nor can you use that
belief by itself to try and overturn centuries of scientific
discovery.
The only thing that can overturn a scientific position is scientific
evidence to the contrary. Creationists and ID proponents cannot offer
any such evidence. They do not even try to. Instead, they wish to
overturn it purely on religious grounds.
Science is 'supposed' to be
'objective'.\
It *is* objective. Religion is not.
- Without recourse to subjective value judgements such as
'right' and 'wrong'.
You're the expert on creating massive volumes of straw men, I'll
freely grant you that. There was another one. Where did I ever say
anywhere in this thread (or in this series, for that matter) that
science is the arbiter of right and wrong?
Scientific consensus *is* however, the arbiter of what we teach in
science classrooms. Religion is not.
So if you believe in those myths, then it's time to ask yourself, "Is
this really the work of a loving being who wishes us to adhere to a
certain morality? Are these the examples he designed (or could have
designed) to teach us how to live?"
Or is there no intelligent design at all, but undirected,
unintelligent, unthinking evolution doing the best it can with
whatever it has to hand?
Since you are so against myths,
I'm not against myths. That's another straw man. You're just full of
them aren't you? What I am against is myth masquerading as scientific
fact without an iota of support.
please explain (using scientific reasoning
and evidence) why the adoption of religious belief is something worthy of
attack on the basis that it's 'wrong' and why the adoption of scientific
belief is praiseworthy and indicative of greater intelligence on the basis
that it's 'right'. Please try to avoid subjective value judgements (such as
'good', 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' ;)) in your answer.
Since that's not my position, but a straw man of yours, I have nothing
to explain. On the contrary, *you* are the one who has to explain
your entire diatribe here in this thread, because it has nothing
whatsoever to do with the thread topic.
This series not an attack on religious belief. I have posted other
series that constitute such an attack. *This* series is an attack
upon the LIES of creationists and so-called intelligent so-called
design advocates. Get that right before you post any more irrelevant
drivel festooned with badly created and unintelligently designed straw
men.
Please tell us why, despite it's enormous success over millennia as a
successful strategy for developing socially cohesive societies (which has
clearly played a part in the human race becoming the dominant species today)
you feel qualified to attack the adoption of religious belief in favour of
the relative newcomer: 'science' which, being a few hundred years old at
most - is by comparison untested.
First you would have to support the assertion you just made before
demanding someone else support something they haven't even asserted.
Duhh!
Please justify your own belief in 'morality', 'goodness' and 'badness',
'rightness' and 'wrongness' - completely objectively, scientifically - using
testable evidence to back up your justifications.
Where did I say this has anything to do with morality?
Referring to another thread by way of analogy, please enlighten us as to why
you would attack the fact that tits bounce,
Where did I ever "attack the fact that 'tits' bounce"? I doubt you
could even find a thread of mine where I use that word! LoL!
Firstly, that wasn't my thread, although I did tag a "design series"
edition to it. Secondly, I said nothing even remotely to the effect
of "tits" bouncing. Instead, I indicated that the creator was
clueless in designing women and once again there was no rebuttal or
refutation from the vacuous creationist/ID camp.
So now you've descended from your sorry state of having to fashion a
multitude of straw men to entertain yourself to out-and-out LYING
about what I said. That's really pathetic.
completely ignoring the fact
that their bounce is entirely incidental to the useful function that they
perform as providers of nutrition to human infants
Now here you take the standard creationist tack of (unintentionally?)
asserting that your god is a boob! You claim that the designer was so
incompetent that he couldn't design a mammary gland or two without
having it too heavy or move too freely, thereby hurting the woman who
owns it.
How pathetic is that? We expect flawed design from human designers,
but there is no excuse for an omnipotent, omniscient designer who has
all eternity in which to work and infinite resources to call upon and
who declares his work to be good, for making such lousy designs.
This observation in itself overturns any claims to design based on
comparison with human efforts. All you could ever hope to determine
from such a comparison is that humans created the universe! LoL!
- citing some modern
physical activity such as 'exercise' as though their reaction to modern
exercise techniques was a consideration when they developed?
So this creator is not omniscient as the Bible declares him to be?
LoL!
Again, my message had nothing to do with anything bouncing or not
bouncing but with design flaws if woman were created rather than
evolved.
Or attack the perceived inefficiencies of human vision on the basis that the
perception of fine detail is somewhat 'wanting' when viewing a modern
computer screen, as if human vision developed with the modern computer
screen in mind, or with regard to what capabilities you think it 'ought to'
have, based on criteria you specify.
That's pretty cowardly, commenting in *this* thread on a thread I
posted almost a year ago to which there was not even one response, let
alone a rebuttal or a refutation from the creationist/ID camp! LoL!
And since at least one of the references I gave in that thread
actually answers your challenge above:
http://tinyurl.com/2rnzrt
there's no need to go into it here. Quite evidently, it's your
reading comprehension skills which are what's at fault, not my
messages.
Feel free to provide scientific evidence....
I will if you ever find that you can! LoL! Why is it that the
pathetic supporters of creation are always in the position of
demanding ever more evidence down to the finest detail from scientists
whilst absolving themselves of any need whatsoever to provide even one
shred of science on their own behalf? Huh? Why is that?
IT'S BECAUSE CREATIONISM AND IDiotism ARE THE MOST VACUOUS "SCIENCES"
ON THE PLANET.
Budikka
.
