Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
false equivalency. like avoidance, its used when a less valid claim bumps up against a more valid claim.
you did it twice today. the first time is when you pointed to me not filling in my profile as proof of something. lamo, it was actually comical that you resorted to that. And here you are doing it again by stating there are no victories and loses. Usually, its the less valid claim claiming that.
religions do it all the time.
I'm going to practice avoidance right now -- ignore.
Try reading a science paper that was written AFTER Darwin. You have over a century of work to catch up on.
So why do the alternatives have to lie all the time?
Don't worry, I am aware of what came after Darwin. Neo-Darwinism or the modern synthesis is still the same basic idea, and you know it. Changes in DNA are always assumed to be errors, and natural selection is the only organizing force. You would know this if you ahd kept up with evolution science.
Nobody helps when they crusade against any idea. The dogmatic aspects of organized religion are crusaders for their own causes. I believe this is the behavior atheists are trying to counteract.
But I want to address your guess about atheists. I actually felt more connected to the universe when I let go of religion and of the idea that god is present in my daily life. I could finally sleep at night.
Maybe you had a particular god in mind who wasn't as nice as you thought god should be. And you never learned about any other religions or mystical traditions.
It really has to happen eventually, as more evidence is found against simple-minded Darwinism.
The alternative evolution theories are compatible with spiritual beliefs. It's about time the illusion ends that science and spirituality are in conflict.
What "evidence is found against simple-minded Darwinism"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
There is absolutely no reason for you to assume I was complaining about evolution. Absolutely none. I have NEVER EVER said that I don't believe in evolution.
Do you believe that humans and the other great apes descended from a common ancestor? If not, why do we share so much DNA and what mechanism produced the similarities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Don't worry, I am aware of what came after Darwin. Neo-Darwinism or the modern synthesis is still the same basic idea, and you know it. Changes in DNA are always assumed to be errors, and natural selection is the only organizing force. You would know this if you ahd kept up with evolution science.
If not "errors", how do DNA changes happen? What other "organizing forces" do you mean?
Maybe you had a particular god in mind who wasn't as nice as you thought god should be. And you never learned about any other religions or mystical traditions.
Depending on the circumstances, having lots of dumb people to be manipulated by a handful of smart people is, as is also the case, an evolutionary advantage for one population over another population full of smart people competing against each other without time to notice incoming and growing encroachments from the "lots of cannon fodder" population.
. some famous manipulators quelled their manipulation because they started to discover that they had a moral compass; while other famous manipulators told stories about the melancholy, emptiness, and regret they encrued after a lifetime of manipulation
there are famous people who boast about manipulating people that they underdeveloped. it seems easy to manipulate the very people that the famous that the famous ones helped to underdevelop
it is easy to make fun of people who degraded because of underdevelopnent; however, it is sad for the underdeveloped people who do not know
i dont wish to be the famous people who boast about manipulating people that they helped underdevelop .
i dont see the benefit. i dont wouldnt want to be rewarded for manipulating others. sure, a sociological experiment requires manipulation but
manipulation is not bad; scientfic fields require manipulation to conduct studies and experiments.
i do not, however, envy those who boast about manipulating people that they helped underdevelop.
personally, i wouldnt want to manipulate others; i wouldnt want the reward
thats good for others, not for me
i would rather be poor than take advantage of some unsuspecting person
What "evidence is found against simple-minded Darwinism"?
Do you believe that humans and the other great apes descended from a common ancestor? If not, why do we share so much DNA and what mechanism produced the similarities?
If not "errors", how do DNA changes happen? What other "organizing forces" do you mean?
Go4No derails into yet another evolution debate. or rather - the same one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the first time is when you pointed to me not filling in my profile as proof of something. lamo, it was actually comical that you resorted to that. And here you are doing it again by stating there are no victories and loses. Usually, its the less valid claim claiming that. 
