The Killing Joke

[Varqanir]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

The “nescient” crack was in response to Bismarck’s post.

[/quote]

I know.

I was responding to the passage in the quotation you presented, in which Churchill implies that the reason modern Europe had not collapsed like the Roman Empire was because Christianity, its dominant religion, was protected by science, which it had heretofore struggled against.

I think the 26 year old Winnie was full of shit to a certain extent. Christianity, mainly Catholicism, had definitely resisted some aspects of Christianity over the centuries but all in all no religion in the history of civilization had ever allowed as much advancement of science as Christianity.

I observed that some proponents of Christianity didn’t seem to be done struggling against the “strong arms of science”, an observation to which you sarcastically objected.

You’d have to enlighten us with which proponents are currently doing what struggling?

The fact of the matter is modern Christianity does no struggling against “the strong arms of science.” Do some proponents struggle against some theories (really only one theory)? Of course. Are they then struggling against science – the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe – or against a pet theory advanced by those especially steeped in scientism and the cult, yes cult, of that particular theory?

[/quote]

theory = testable explanation and prediction about nature and the universe[/quote]

Yes, it’s quite a stretch to call any proposed explanation of the beginning anything more than a hypothesis(of course, since no explanation is testable, the question lies outside the realm of science and firmly in religion’s).[/quote]

Push is referring to the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Which an astute observer may recall has come up in discussion on this forum once or twice.

[Bismark]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

The “nescient” crack was in response to Bismarck’s post.

[/quote]

I know.

I was responding to the passage in the quotation you presented, in which Churchill implies that the reason modern Europe had not collapsed like the Roman Empire was because Christianity, its dominant religion, was protected by science, which it had heretofore struggled against.

I think the 26 year old Winnie was full of shit to a certain extent. Christianity, mainly Catholicism, had definitely resisted some aspects of Christianity over the centuries but all in all no religion in the history of civilization had ever allowed as much advancement of science as Christianity.

I observed that some proponents of Christianity didn’t seem to be done struggling against the “strong arms of science”, an observation to which you sarcastically objected.

You’d have to enlighten us with which proponents are currently doing what struggling?

The fact of the matter is modern Christianity does no struggling against “the strong arms of science.” Do some proponents struggle against some theories (really only one theory)? Of course. Are they then struggling against science – the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe – or against a pet theory advanced by those especially steeped in scientism and the cult, yes cult, of that particular theory?

[/quote]

theory = testable explanation and prediction about nature and the universe[/quote]

Yes, it’s quite a stretch to call any proposed explanation of the beginning anything more than a hypothesis(of course, since no explanation is testable, the question lies outside the realm of science and firmly in religion’s).[/quote]

Sure, except the four mechanisms of evolution are readily observable in the present.

[NickViar]

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Yes, it’s quite a stretch to call any proposed explanation of the beginning anything more than a hypothesis(of course, since no explanation is testable, the question lies outside the realm of science and firmly in religion’s).[/quote]
Sure, except the four mechanisms of evolution are readily observable in the present. [/quote]

The four mechanisms of evolution do nothing to explain macroevolution(i.e., the type of evolution that is debated).

Mechanisms: the processes of evolution - Understanding Evolution

[smh_23]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Yes, it’s quite a stretch to call any proposed explanation of the beginning anything more than a hypothesis(of course, since no explanation is testable, the question lies outside the realm of science and firmly in religion’s).[/quote]
Sure, except the four mechanisms of evolution are readily observable in the present. [/quote]

The four mechanisms of evolution do nothing to explain macroevolution(i.e., the type of evolution that is debated).

Mechanisms: the processes of evolution - Understanding Evolution

[/quote]

Always read your sources before offering them (proof here, by the way, that you are hunting for what confirms your inexpert opinion, rather than hunting for, you know, the right answers):

"Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms – mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection – can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."

What is macroevolution? - Understanding Evolution

[smh_23]

^ This being yet another example of the creationist inability to formulate a legitimate argument that does not destroy itself, because each legitimate authority a creationist cites – thereby establishing and actuating that authority’s authoritativeness – stands, on the whole, in direct and explicit opposition to his argument. This is an inevitable consequence of the fact that legitimate scientific authority affirms evolution by natural selection: http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Voices_3e.pdf

[NickViar]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Yes, it’s quite a stretch to call any proposed explanation of the beginning anything more than a hypothesis(of course, since no explanation is testable, the question lies outside the realm of science and firmly in religion’s).[/quote]
Sure, except the four mechanisms of evolution are readily observable in the present. [/quote]

The four mechanisms of evolution do nothing to explain macroevolution(i.e., the type of evolution that is debated).

Mechanisms: the processes of evolution - Understanding Evolution

[/quote]

Always read your sources before offering them (proof here, by the way, that you are hunting for what confirms your inexpert opinion, rather than hunting for, you know, the right answers):

"Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms – mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection – can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml[/quote]

I was only posting a list of the four mechanisms of evolution; I wasn’t concerned with anything else on the site.

The link you posted also does nothing to explain macroevolution. It just says that a, b, c, etc. CAN produce these changes if given enough time. Time is to evolution what God is to creation.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
LOL

…and now a discussion about Muslims hatin’ and killin’ each other and anyone else in their path…or not in their path…will fully develop into another C v E extravaganza.[/quote]

Don’t look now, but a discussion about Roe vs Wade seems to be showing every sign of going and doing likewise.

I swear I had nothing to do with it.

Not much, anyway.

[smh_23]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Yes, it’s quite a stretch to call any proposed explanation of the beginning anything more than a hypothesis(of course, since no explanation is testable, the question lies outside the realm of science and firmly in religion’s).[/quote]
Sure, except the four mechanisms of evolution are readily observable in the present. [/quote]

The four mechanisms of evolution do nothing to explain macroevolution(i.e., the type of evolution that is debated).

Mechanisms: the processes of evolution - Understanding Evolution

[/quote]

Always read your sources before offering them (proof here, by the way, that you are hunting for what confirms your inexpert opinion, rather than hunting for, you know, the right answers):

"Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms – mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection – can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml[/quote]

I was only posting a list of the four mechanisms of evolution; I wasn’t concerned with anything else on the site.
[/quote]

That makes little sense, but it doesn’t matter because what you’re saying is no defense against what I’m saying. You said something nonsensical – “The four mechanisms of evolution do nothing to explain macroevolution” (even creationists understand that the mechanisms are central to both theories) – and then, for whatever reason, provided a link. The link you provided, in fact, directly contradicts what you said. This is what will always happen, because the most credible and authoritative bodies to which you can appeal give the lie to your interpretation of the subject of the appeal. This is inevitable and obvious, and you can follow the link I supplied if you’d like to think on it more.

Edited.

[smh_23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

…can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."

[/quote]

“Given enough time” anything ever imagined in all the wild recesses of man’s mind can occur. It doesn’t have to be observed, just imagined.

I luv the quackery that insists a basic scientific principle, i.e., testability, can be ignored in lieu of imaginations “given enough time.”
[/quote]

I don’t think you picked up what I was putting down there. I am not appealing to that source – I am highlighting the fatuity of Nick’s appealing to it.

But do you need some more straw to build that man? If so, there is a farm down the road from me.

Anyway, no, I’m not going to make this into a big CE debate, I don’t have the time, and I’m still not inclined to revisit the matter after the last big battle.

[NickViar]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
That makes little sense,[/quote]
-I posted it after Bismark said something about the four mechanisms of evolution. I posted a list of the four mechanisms I know of just in case he had some other mechanisms in mind.

but it doesn’t matter because what you’re saying is no defense against what I’m saying. You said something nonsensical – “The four mechanisms of evolution do nothing to explain macroevolution” ( even creationists understand that the mechanisms are central to both theories)

-I understand that the mechanisms are central to both theories. In the case of creationism, they explain how lions and tigers came to be. In the case of evolution, they explain…well, how lions and tigers came to be. They don’t explain the origin of life or how single-celled organisms evolved into all other forms of life. They do not explain macroevolution.

– and then, for whatever reason, provided a link. The link you provided in fact, directly contradicts what you said. This is what will always happen, because the most credible and authoritative bodies to which you can appeal give the lie to your interpretation of the subject of the appeal.

-I did not use the link to back my argument. It was just used to ensure that we were talking about the same thing.

[smh_23]

[quote]NickViar wrote:
They don’t explain the origin of life or how single-celled organisms evolved into all other forms of life.[/quote]

“Microevolution” exists. So, populations of living things adapt genetically to their environments and to environmental stimuli over time.

If we take a population of living things that reproduce with sufficient frequency for microevolution’s observation, and we observe it from T0 to T0 plus one week, set of changes X will be observed between the population’s beginning and ending characteristics. If we observe from T0 to T0 plus six months, set of changes Y will be observed. If we observe from T0 to T0 plus 100 years, set of changes Z will be observed. If we observe from T0 to T0 plus 75,000 years, set of changes P will be observed. If we observe from T0 to T0 plus 100 million years, set of changes Q will be observed. If we observe from T0 to T0 plus 3.5 billion years, set of changes W will be observed.

Which will be greater, set of changes W, or set of changes X? How much greater might they be, over 3.5 billion years? A little? A lot? Unfathomably?

[smh_23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I luv all you fellers.

Kinda.[/quote]

Right back atcha man (kinda). Always a pleasure – and it wouldn’t be such a pleasure if we agreed. I’m probably about to lose power and be offline for a while by the way.

[smh_23]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

– and then, for whatever reason, provided a link. The link you provided in fact, directly contradicts what you said. This is what will always happen, because the most credible and authoritative bodies to which you can appeal give the lie to your interpretation of the subject of the appeal.

-I did not use the link to back my argument. It was just used to ensure that we were talking about the same thing.[/quote]

And in doing such, you held up that source as an instrument of ensurance – as an authority to which to appeal. And that is where your problem begins (the same problem that will arise for you at every single twist and turn). Of course I know that you could get around it in this case, but there will always arise cases in which – if you are to make a decent argugment – you must appeal to legitimate scientific authority, which, unfortunately for you, will eat and excrete the very argument you hope it to service.

It’s a real Gordian knot, and it can only be solved by cheating – by denying the authority of the scientific community and affirming, instead, the authority of some other body of discredited pseudo-scientists. (Don’t fool yourself: everything we say on this topic is something we get from somebody else. Either that, or you’re a scientist.)

Simply put, you spend your time looking for the sources or fragments of sources which best fit your inexpert prejudice, not for the sources which are best. When you try to avail yourself of the latter – thereby affirming their authority – you lose the argument, because they insist without equivocation that you are wrong.

[SexMachine]

Just in relation to the OP:

84% of Palestinians think Israel behind Charlie Hebdo attack. Palestinian media blames Netanyahu for staging attack:

Palestinians Believe Israel Behind Charlie Hebdo