Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[justlookinla]

Do you see me disagreeing with posters like Diz and his belief in God or other Christians who declare they believe on faith and do not reject reality.

Please show where I do, I challenge you. I will await.

Isn't the very nature of disagreement one of attempting to defend your view of a certain position? Do you react with a 'I'm not sure of what I believe' when opposing views are presented, or do you react with 'I know I'm right and you're wrong' and then add a bit of personal ridicule, mockery, and personal disparaging remarks toward those who disagree with you?

 

[justlookinla]

What part of the definition says that those are the sole mechanisms, and that they are mindless, purposeless, and without meaning?

"natural selection of small, inherited variations". Remember, that's addressing all life, all species.

Actually, that's random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (except for procreation) and directionless.

 

[bhsmte]

Isn't the very nature of disagreement one of attempting to defend your view of a certain position? Do you react with a 'I'm not sure of what I believe' when opposing views are presented, or do you react with 'I know I'm right and you're wrong' and then add a bit of personal ridicule, mockery, and personal disparaging remarks toward those who disagree with you?

To you, presenting evidence that goes against your beliefs is personal ridicule, so it is all relative. The fact that you keep insisting, that those who disagreed with your justlookinlaism were "demanding" you accept their views was telling, very very telling.

You have something to protect and since you don't have objective evidence to support it, you take the extreme view of trying to discredit anything that goes against you and paint it as bad. Adding pieces to definitions that are not present, etc. etc... This is all very typical of what you call yourself; a fundie, the phenomenon is present all over these boards.

As I said, you have revealed yourself in the words you choose to type and it is all very predictable behavior.

Carry on, we are all eager to here more; justlookinlaism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, that's random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (except for procreation) and directionless.

That is not found in the definition of Darwinism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Isn't the very nature of disagreement one of attempting to defend your view of a certain position? Do you react with a 'I'm not sure of what I believe' when opposing views are presented, or do you react with 'I know I'm right and you're wrong' and then add a bit of personal ridicule, mockery, and personal disparaging remarks toward those who disagree with you?

I responded with a long post full of scientific evidence and peer reviewed papers. How is that ridicule?

 

[bhsmte]

"natural selection of small, inherited variations". Remember, that's addressing all life, all species.

Actually, that's random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (except for procreation) and directionless.

Justlookinlaism.

 

[bhsmte]

I responded with a long post full of scientific evidence and peer reviewed papers. How is that ridicule?

If it requires the defense mechanisms to kick into overdrive, it is perceived as ridicule.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by justlookinla

Darwinism, from Wikipedia....

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."​

What part of the definition do you take exception with?​

​

What part of the definition says that those are the sole mechanisms, and that they are mindless, purposeless, and without meaning?

Originally Posted by justlookinla

Actually, that's random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (except for procreation) and directionless.
​

That is not found in the definition of Darwinism.

Justlookinlaism.

.

 

[justlookinla]

To you, presenting evidence that goes against your beliefs is personal ridicule, so it is all relative. The fact that you keep insisting, that those who disagreed with your justlookinlaism were "demanding" you accept their views was telling, very very telling.

Your use of "justlookinlaism" is a prime example of the typical ridicule response from those who oppose those who oppose Darwinism. In reality, the ridicule, mockery and personal disparaging of the individual has no effect on the truth, or falsity, of a position. If behaving in such a manner makes you feel good about yourself, by all means do it. It has nothing to do the the issues being discussed though.

You have something to protect and since you don't have objective evidence to support it, you take the extreme view of trying to discredit anything that goes against you and paint it as bad. Adding pieces to definitions that are not present, etc. etc... This is all very typical of what you call yourself; a fundie, the phenomenon is present all over these boards.

Many people are fundies, including atheists, including Darwinists, including theists. The label "fundie" isn't limited to theists only.

I've given the definition of Darwinism many times now, pointed out why it's an inherently atheistic creationist philosophy and will continue to do it, in spite of disagreement from various persons. One certainly does not have to agree with me, that's for each person to decide for themselves.

As I said, you have revealed yourself in the words you choose to type and it is all very predictable behavior.

We all reveal ourselves in the words we type, you, me, everyone. Some choose to reveal themselves by responding with ridicule, mockery and personal disparaging responses. Those individuals apparently believe such words they type will somehow prove the truth of their position. It doesn't.

Carry on, we are all eager to here more; justlookinlaism.

Oh, I plan on carrying on. I'm enjoying myself.

 

[justlookinla]

I responded with a long post full of scientific evidence and peer reviewed papers. How is that ridicule?

Next time want me to point it out?

You've responded with nothing which proves that a single life form became humanity solely, completely and totally by naturalistic mechanisms.

I've asked you point out where the photo of humanoid skulls, A to N, is evidence for such a creationist view. Now we find out that the A skull isn't part of the process and that none of them are ancestral. And this is your proof?

 

[bhsmte]

Your use of "justlookinlaism" is a prime example of the typical ridicule response from those who oppose those who oppose Darwinism. In reality, the ridicule, mockery and personal disparaging of the individual has no effect on the truth, or falsity, of a position. If behaving in such a manner makes you feel good about yourself, by all means do it. It has nothing to do the the issues being discussed though.

No. It is simply a new definition designed by you, in which words were added etc., so it is yours and you need to own it - justlookinlaism.

Many people are fundies, including atheists, including Darwinists, including theists. The label "fundie" isn't limited to theists only.

You have your own definition of fundamentalist, no surprise there.

I've given the definition of Darwinism many times now, pointed out why it's an inherently atheistic creationist philosophy and will continue to do it, in spite of disagreement from various persons. One certainly does not have to agree with me, that's for each person to decide for themselves.

You added pieces to the definition many times. Again, YOU added pieces to the definition. When you did this it became; justlookinlaism.

We all reveal ourselves in the words we type, you, me, everyone. Some choose to reveal themselves by responding with ridicule, mockery and personal disparaging responses. Those individuals apparently believe such words they type will somehow prove the truth of their position. It doesn't.

Yes we do reveal ourselves in the words we type and this is how reputations are built and intellectual honesty can be determined.


Oh, I plan on carrying on. I'm enjoying myself.

Please do.

 

[justlookinla]

No. It is simply a new definition designed by you, in which words were added etc., so it is yours and you need to won it - justlookinlaism.

You added pieces to the definition many times. Again, YOU added pieces to the definition. When you did this it became; justlookinlaism.

When definitions are given, certain conclusions are reached from the definitions. That's the nature of definitions.

The conclusion of Darwinist creationism, the creation of humanity from previous life forms, is that all creation of all life forms is completely, solely, only, totally by naturalistic processes. If you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.

 

[Loudmouth]

When definitions are given, certain conclusions are reached from the definitions.

Those conclusions are yours, not the conclusions of Darwin, Darwinism, or scientists.

The conclusion of Darwinist creationism,

No, those are YOUR conclusions.

 

[bhsmte]

When definitions are given, certain conclusions are reached from the definitions. That's the nature of definitions.

The conclusion of Darwinist creationism, the creation of humanity from previous life forms, is that all creation of all life forms is completely, solely, only, totally by naturalistic processes. If you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.

You're personal conclusion and hence; justlookinlaism.

You conclude it, you own it.

 

[justlookinla]

Those conclusions are yours, not the conclusions of Darwin, Darwinism, or scientists.



No, those are YOUR conclusions.

If you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.

 

[Loudmouth]

You've responded with nothing which proves that a single life form became humanity solely, completely and totally by naturalistic mechanisms.

I've asked you point out where the photo of humanoid skulls, A to N, is evidence for such a creationist view. Now we find out that the A skull isn't part of the process and that none of them are ancestral. And this is your proof?

It isn't a creationist view. It is a scientific theory, and I have presented the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is the transitional fossils, and the ERV evidence that you still haven't dealt with. It is evidence that humans evolved from an ancestor shared with other apes.

All you can do in return is try to ridicule the evidence by calling it a religion, or creationism. You never actually discuss the evidence using reason, logic, or even basic scientific principles. Never.

 

[justlookinla]

You're personal conclusion and hence; justlookinlaism.

You conclude it, you own it.

If you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.

Those are your conclusions. You support them.

 

[bhsmte]

If you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.

Naturalistic processes, that is what it says and that is what science looks at.

Anything else?

 

[justlookinla]

It isn't a creationist view. It is a scientific theory, and I have presented the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is the transitional fossils, and the ERV evidence that you still haven't dealt with. It is evidence that humans evolved from an ancestor shared with other apes.

All you can do in return is try to ridicule the evidence by calling it a religion, or creationism. You never actually discuss the evidence using reason, logic, or even basic scientific principles. Never.

Let's first talk about the first part of the alleged evidence you posted, the photo of the various skulls A through N. If I remember correctly, you wanted to take it one step at a time, something I agreed to. Remember, you presented the photos as proof, as evidence, that humanity is the result totally, completely, solely of naturalistic processes acting upon a single life form from long long ago. That was my request and the photo you posted was response.

You aren't addressing the issue with the photo though. A isn't part of the process, why is it there. What does that have to do with proof that humanity is the result of a totally, completely naturalistic process acting upon a single life form from long long ago. Next, would you explain why you submitted the photo as proof when the skulls in the photo aren't even ancestral life forms. How is this establishing proof for creation of life from a single life from entirely, solely, completely, totally by naturalistic processes?