The So-called "Tree of Life" has been debunked

[Nanashi]

You honestly cannot see that was the point I was making-- how did you pass any sort of rudimentary reading comprehension? Yes, people believe in dangerous things. Like eugenics or ID (christian or atheist, both parties can hold the same destructive pattern). Eugenics was dismissed long ago, like ID. I can't believe I have to type this much out for you.

 

I will make it simple: Man creates God to create Man.

[gendao]

I will make it simple: Man creates God to create Man.

Hmm, could you quote a peer-reviewed scientific journal proving that assertion?

 

If not, then how did you come to that conclusion?

Edited May 11, 2011 by vortex

[Immortal4life]

Aha, so now we're getting somewhere...

 

So, perhaps your real problem here is with "barbaric rich white guys" - not ID

 

+1

[Nanashi]

Hmm, could you quote a peer-reviewed scientific journal proving that assertion?

 

If not, then how did you come to that conclusion?

 

+1

By all means, continue to debate using childish syllogism.

 

We have Marblehead, Ralis, Blasto, myself and others using facts against all their silliness. It is almost amusing.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Nanashi

[Immortal4life]

I have lots of peer reviewed research. How about this, I won't make another claim unless the next claim I make contains peer reviewed articles included with it? Not the mainstream summary articles, peer reviewed data.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

I have lots of peer reviewed research. How about this, I won't make another claim unless the next claim I make contains peer reviewed articles included with it? Not the mainstream summary articles, peer reviewed data.

 

Which journals are you referring to?

Edited May 11, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

There are so many journals out there that an article could cite that are peer reviewed. For starters, Science, Nature, PNAS, what journal you could cite depends on what the subject is, whether it's biology, evolution, history, archaeology, anthropolgy. I am intereste din all these things.

[Immortal4life]

You honestly cannot see that was the point I was making-- how did you pass any sort of rudimentary reading comprehension? Yes, people believe in dangerous things. Like eugenics or ID (christian or atheist, both parties can hold the same destructive pattern). Eugenics was dismissed long ago, like ID. I can't believe I have to type this much out for you.

 

I will make it simple: Man creates God to create Man.

 

I see your point you are making, trying to equate Eugenics and Intelligent Design, which I would say is grasping and bordering on ridiculous.

[ralis]

There are so many journals out there that an article could cite that are peer reviewed. For starters, Science, Nature, PNAS, what journal you could cite depends on what the subject is, whether it's biology, evolution, history, archaeology, anthropolgy. I am intereste din all these things.

 

Why not cite a real example from 'The Journal of Evolutionary Biology'

Edited May 11, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

I very well could

Edited May 11, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

I very well could and can

 

 

I am waiting.

[Immortal4life]

Good, anticipation makes things more interesting

[ralis]

Good, anticipation makes things more interesting

 

 

I think your strategy here is an attempt to win a one sided argument without the need to make a rational defense.

[Immortal4life]

I think your strategy here is an attempt to win a one sided argument without the need to make a rational defense.

 

I think you read into things way too much.

[Nanashi]

I see your point you are making, trying to equate Eugenics and Intelligent Design, which I would say is grasping and bordering on ridiculous.

 

No-- that is part of the problem, you do not see the point I am making.

 

I was not equating eugenics with ID, I was comparing how ridiculous both ideas are as avenues of thought.

 

Vortex believes in alien creationism, I4L believes in... debunking something factual. Yet I am the ridiculous one.

[Marblehead]

I am still here reading the posts. It is just that I have nothing to add to the conversation at the moment.

 

However, life is wonderful if you stop and smell the roses.

 

Sad thing is that many places around the world have no roses to smell because man has killed them all.

[三江源]

I just looked at this thread for the first time. It was even worse than I expected.

 

A brief skimming suggest to me that this thread is one giant troll-feeding zoo. I4L is trolling (and probably doesn't even realize it) and people are feeding him with their anger, ridicule, insults, etc. It "feels" very similar to Vajrahridaya troll feeding threads, even though the issues are different. Does this not suggest that this problem is not the intellectual issues (whether it is Buddha vs. Tao or I.D. vs. Darwinism), but the tendency toward emotional reactivity?

 

I would like to thank Apech for bringing his sensibility to this thread.

 

I would also like to thank Blasto for posting the Discovery Institute's charter. Scary stuff. My impression of it is that it is creating a false dichotomy, where there are Theists and Atheists/Materialists, whose views about things are very well defined and opposing, and there is no middle ground on any of the issues. Blasto pointed this behavior out in I4L, a very astute observation I must say, and I agree completely that it is a major impediment to moving forward. But let's remember that this behavior happens on both sides. Look at Richard Dawkins going around calling religion a mental disorder. Talk about "no middle ground"!

 

Which brings me to:

 

Jetsun,

 

I submit that this is precisely what will make the problem worse. It just causes more polarization which gives more fuel to each side's propaganda machine.

 

It's just like how people work: when someone represses childhood memories, the negative emotions and beliefs that came from that memory resurface later in life as irrational destructive patterns of thinking and behavior, and they try to repress and control those, then more pop up, etc. The same reactionary impulse to repress is happening here (on both sides) and indulging it will do nothing but prevent the actual wound in our collective psyches from being healed.

 

I have to echo Freeform and say "Creation, I am increasingly impressed with your posts!"

[Nanashi]

 

or

 

[ralis]

One would assume that if we came designed, then learning would be unnecessary. Just nice little programmed compliant robots. After all, that is the ID agenda! :lol:

Edited May 11, 2011 by ralis

[Encephalon]

[thelerner]

 

I think this cartoon captures an important point. Good science (even when its not right?!) makes for good models for predicting the future.

 

The theory of Evolution lays out a science where we can understand, track, and sometimes predict how things change. Its not a stretch to say modern farming- animal and vegetable has been based knowingly and unknowingly on it for years. So has much of modern medicine and disease prevention.

 

As a model it works. If its thrown out and ID is taken up, then answers and predictions fall away. We're left with thats the way Gd wanted it.

 

I think that why some are so passionate to defend it. On the other hand, sometimes it takes skeptics to push a theory further and explore its deficiencies.

Edited May 11, 2011 by thelerner

[gendao]

As a model it works. If its thrown out and ID is taken up, then answers and predictions fall away. We're left with thats the way Gd wanted it.

But, I don't exactly see why ID, Creationism, evolution & "God" have to be "mutually-exclusive?" Why not "Intelligent Evolution," for example?

 

Eventual mainstream awareness of alien intervention is going to completely redefine this whole outdated paradigm anyways...

[ShaktiMama]

One would assume that if we came designed, then learning would be unnecessary. Just nice little programmed compliant robots. After all, that is the ID agenda! :lol:

 

 

I, for one, would have been more successful if the operating instructions came with the design plan. Obvious design flaw that makes me wonder about the premise of intelligent design. Why design something and give no or very bad instructions on how to run the thing? Certainly, someone who didn't care about the end product made this non user friendly. So that makes me wonder if it was just a vanity project.

[Encephalon]

But, I don't exactly see why ID, Creationism, evolution & "God" have to be "mutually-exclusive?" Why not "Intelligent Evolution," for example?

 

Eventual mainstream awareness of alien intervention is going to completely redefine this whole outdated paradigm anyways...

 

That's fine. You can believe whatever the hell you want. You can even believe in UFOs if you want to as long as hot dates with intelligent and educated women are goals you have crossed off your list.

 

I fail to see where the intellectual roadblock to this simple understanding exists. We use the scientific method to acquire empirical data because science makes use of testability. You can't test the mind of god or the intentions of ETs but you can subscribe to a faith tradition and evolution as long as you understand the difference between the two cognitive processes.

 

You could be right about this ET explanation but why would anyone with your ample intelligence crawl out on the flimsiest limb of the tree to make such a meaningless point? It's one thing to entertain the possibility and think "Oh, woldn't it be cool if that were really true?" You seem ready to bet your life, if not your intellectual credibility, on this piece of science fiction. I thought you said you were gonna get one of those education thingies?

[Machin Shin]

 

Eventual mainstream awareness of alien intervention is going to completely redefine this whole outdated paradigm anyways...

 

The energy required to travel here from a different world system is prohibitive to an actual hostile take over. The nearest stars with planets in the habitable zone are tens of light years away. So far only 54 stars have been found with planets that might support life. There is a science that is being created in this culture at this time about the probability of life occurring on different world systems.

 

If there is a method to eradication of an intelligent species it involves the use of biological and chemical warfare. We all are sitting at the bottom of a well looking out and it is so easy to drop something in.

 

Has anyone studied Debt for Nature Swaps?

Edited May 11, 2011 by Machin Shin