The Satanic Character of Social Darwi...

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#132 Aug 19, 2014
Here are my affirmations of Millerite doctrine:
everythingimportant.org/Millerites
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#133 Aug 19, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you double down on your own double talk.
I do not support forced vaccinations, and I am a neo-Darwinist. Furthermore my position is perfectly self consistent because there is nothing in neo-Darwinism that connects to any philosophy that one should be forced to do something just because someone else decides its "good for humanity".
In fact, I would point this in exactly the opposite direction. As someone who respects the scientific method and understands its strengths and limitations, I am with Karl Popper who would have strenuously disagreed with forced vaccination. His book "Open Society and its Enemies" specifically rejects the Platonic notion of "wise control from the elitist centre", and allows that people have a perfect right to choose their own course, on the basis, consistent with the scientific method, that any human's knowledge is only ever partial and incomplete, therefore nobody is in a position to declare what everyone should do.
There is an arrogant liberal hard left, but they are schooled for the most part in social sciences that often fail to meet the standards of the scientific method, they are infused with doctrinaire and elitist attitudes, and they are often out of touch with reality, in my experience. They do not speak for Darwinism and for that matter Darwinism hardly speaks to them. This situation is righting itself as the disciplines of biology and neuroscience increasingly come to bear on social sciences, largely replacing the doctrinaire formulations of Freud and Marx etc. But the beast is dying too slowly.
Interestingly, one of your own favourite authorities, the execrable Noam Chomsky, is one of their leading lights.
There are several questions I have though on this post.

First: I do not see the connection between Karl Popper and neo-Darwinism. Sure Popper would probably not agree on forced programs that overrule individual choice. But that was his political view. And it had no bearing upon Darwinism.

Second: if an individual is an adult, he rules his own life. when that person does not want to be vaccinated, I'm with you. But - as always - there is a catch in the deal. Children. How would you assess a parent refusing his or her child medical attention when it falls ill? Let's imagine a child catching a nasty infection and its parents refuse to bring it to a doctor. The child dies or becomes disabled for its life. I think major neglect is the least to designate this. Now, in the same fashion, how would you assess it when the child catches a disease that would never had happened when it was vaccinated.

Third, there is a little bit more in the social sciences between Freud and Marx on one hand and the disciplines that are bearing upon biology and neuroscience on the other hand.

Fourth, although Freud and Marx are criticized a lot, much of their ideas still stand. For instance, Freud:
- the concept of the unconscious was central to Freud's account of the mind. Now one of the most revealing facts of modern neuroscience is the recognition that most of our mental processes are unconscious. For instance, neuroscientist Damasio comes very close to important concepts introduced by Freud, including the role of emotions. Popper indeed was right when he said that many of Freud's ideas are lacking falsifiability. But the results of modern neuroscience forces us to re-evaluate some of Freud's central concepts, rather than abandon them
- also Freud's notions that emotional trauma in childhood indeed have life-long effects, are part of our modern knowledge.

Fifth, Popper also received considerable criticism. To mention one: Thomas Kuhn explained that if science had strictly followed Popper's epistemology, many of its most important discoveries never could have taken place.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#134 Aug 19, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
Ah! So it's a conspiracy!
(Which reminds me: Meeting at my place next Tuesday. Bring your own Evolution/Satanic ritual items.
Pie and coffee following the ceremony)
No. The cowardice of neo-Darwinists and presstitutes is indisputable, transparent and in the open.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#135 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text>No. The cowardice of neo-Darwinists and presstitutes is indisputable, transparent and in the open.
As is your pathology.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#136 Aug 19, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
As is your pathology.
Sure, from your perspective, condemning evil is a greater evil than doing evil.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#137 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Debunking with eyes closed. That would be a nice magic trick if you could really pull it off.
Yet the very next post without any substance, not addressing anything, by a loser.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#138 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> No. The cowardice of neo-Darwinists and presstitutes is indisputable, transparent and in the open.
WE are addressing all posts, YOU not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> I stand with highly acclaimed scholars, the best informed, award-winning journalists and the world's most courageous political activists. And they are all opposed to the false prophet power (Rev. 13). It's interesting that all my enemies are thrilled by the deceit and satanically crafted propaganda of that power, but you shouldn't trouble yourself with what the world's greatest dissidents are saying. My advice to you is revere your leaders. You will be rewarded double for your unthinking devotion and approval of their evil deeds.

You stand with your delusions. You are very foolish.

Your curse is that everyone but you can see your foolishness for what it is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#140 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> No. The cowardice of neo-Darwinists and presstitutes is indisputable, transparent and in the open.

I am done with this guy. He has nothing and is nothing.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#141 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> If neo-Darwinist academics, journals and organizations are only secretly opposed to forced vaccinations, then obviously they can't be trusted for what they say about science since they have the moral fortitude of the presstitutes.
You know, for someone who claims to be a math whizz, your understanding of statistics is woeful. You do realise that a single ranting youtube video is not necessarily representative of the opinions of all "neo-Darwinist academics, journals and organizations", right?

Mind you this does not surprise me. You already showed that you fail to grasp the concept of a Markov chain, and that the ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutations is not static but must logically increase as fitness declines, leading to an equilibrium below perfect fitness but above the error catastrophe in normal circumstances.

In other words, your understanding of maths is selective and applies only to those ideas that you think support your religious extremism.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#142 Aug 19, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
you fail to grasp the concept of a Markov chain, and that the ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutations is not static but must logically increase as fitness declines,
You're speaking gibberish. I was at the top of my class when I studied stochastic processes for my math degree at UCSD.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#143 Aug 19, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
You do realise that a single ranting youtube video is not necessarily representative of the opinions of all "neo-Darwinist academics, journals and organizations", right?
You misunderstood me. I simply asserted that Dr. Russell Blaylock M.D. is an authoritative voice.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#144 Aug 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
There are several questions I have though on this post.
First: I do not see the connection between Karl Popper and neo-Darwinism. Sure Popper would probably not agree on forced programs that overrule individual choice. But that was his political view. And it had no bearing upon Darwinism.
Neo-Darwinism is a theory in conformity to the scientific method, which Popper did a better job than anyone of elucidating. At the same time, Popper defended the Open Society and railed against authoritative or coercive elitism from the SAME philosophical base. This being, that human knowledge is always incomplete, theories are never proven, and so there is always the possibility of error. Nobody is in the grand position of knowing enough to dictate to everyone else. Popper was strongly democratic.
Second: if an individual is an adult, he rules his own life. when that person does not want to be vaccinated, I'm with you. But - as always - there is a catch in the deal. Children. How would you assess a parent refusing his or her child medical attention when it falls ill?

Let's imagine a child catching a nasty infection and its parents refuse to bring it to a doctor. The child dies or becomes disabled for its life. I think major neglect is the least to designate this. Now, in the same fashion, how would you assess it when the child catches a disease that would never had happened when it was vaccinated.
Look at the transition you are making, from saving a child from a known and existing life threatening situation, to coercion for a theoretical possibility of an illness in the future which may never eventuate. And applying a preventative (not a cure), that some people are convinced is itself a clear and present danger to their child.

If its NOT a danger, then its up to scientists to present the evidence for their case and still up to the parents to decide what to do. I believe vaccination is good. But I also understand that there are ALWAYS "great reasons" to restrict freedom and they ALWAYS have unintended consequences.
Third, there is a little bit more in the social sciences between Freud and Marx on one hand and the disciplines that are bearing upon biology and neuroscience on the other hand.
Fourth, although Freud and Marx are criticized a lot, much of their ideas still stand.
My issue is not whether Marx or Freud ever got anything right. Its that they built conjectures on an often non-falsifiable non scientific basis and became authorities without proper empirical backing for their ideas. They SOUNDED sciency, and since the scientific revolution everyone wants to sound sciency, but their science was very weak. They in fact developed doctrines, which developed into doctrine wars and in the case of Marx resulted in mass murder on a greater scale than even Hitler managed.

We know what is right because we have SCIENCE on our side is always a dangerous attitude and its not one the either Popper or Kuhn would endorse.
Fifth, Popper also received considerable criticism. To mention one: Thomas Kuhn explained that if science had strictly followed Popper's epistemology, many of its most important discoveries never could have taken place.
And Popper himself would be the first to agree that his position was imperfect too. I have followed Kuhn as well, but think the differences between them are less important than the similarities. Kuhn's skepticism about the universality of scientific truth was also anti-elitist in the coercive sense, and he was aware that paradigm shifts could cause us at any unpredictable future time to throw out a lot of our current knowledge.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#145 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> You're speaking gibberish. I was at the top of my class when I studied stochastic processes for my math degree at UCSD.
The "gibberish" claim simply means you still do not understand the concept.

Its actually very simple. As a population moves from an optimal genome to a suboptimal one, the proportion of random mutations that are likely to be beneficial increases. Thus in wild populations subject to both new mutations and natural selection, there is an equilibrium point below perfect fitness and above the error catastrophe.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#146 Aug 19, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> You misunderstood me. I simply asserted that Dr. Russell Blaylock M.D. is an authoritative voice.
You used his voice to make a general claim on behalf of all neo-Darwinists that you cannot back up with either survey statistics nor can you link the logic of Darwinism to the belief that vaccination should be enforced.

One could equally insist it is banned on Darwinian principles, and that those lacking natural resistance should die "for the good of humanity" as you put it...but then one would be making the same mistake in the opposite direction. And that fundamental error of yours is to confuse a theory of how we came to be who we are, with a normative theory of how we should behave.

For the record, I support vaccination, but believe it is up to parents to decide, and to scientists to convince them, not coerce them, if they believe vaccinations are worth having.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#147 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Debunking with eyes closed. That would be a nice magic trick if you could really pull it off.
As I noticed 1000 times before: you DON'T address posts.
You are miserably failing to address ANY post.
It is your "nice magic trick if you could really pull it off."
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#148 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> You're speaking gibberish. I was at the top of my class when I studied stochastic processes for my math degree at UCSD.
As I noticed 1001 times before: you DON'T address posts.
You are miserably failing to address ANY post.
It is your "nice magic trick if you could really pull it off."
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#149 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> So you don't believe the funnel of smoke who correctly acknowledged that Noam Chomsky is one of my "favourite authorities." Please understand that Chomsky is Jewish and a Zionist.
Here are some other Semites that I greatly love for their stand against Zionism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Em_PbN8nPPUXX
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
???????
???????
???????
???????

As I noticed 1002 times before: you DON'T address posts.
You are miserably failing to address ANY post.
It is your "nice magic trick if you could really pull it off."
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#150 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> You're a liar and a marvelously deceived religious fanatic.
I stated my religious affiliation. I am a Millerite. But you are so greatly deceived that facts mean nothing to you.
Millerism is the very next American Protestant cult, Adventists, founded in another Protestant cult, Baptism.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#151 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
Millerism is the very next American Protestant cult, Adventists, founded in another Protestant cult, Baptism.
The Millerites today, circa 2014, are defined by their fundamental beliefs.
http://everythingimportant.org/Millerites
They're a far cry from what William Miller originally believed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 min Eagle 12 30,181
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min Subduction Zone 70,274
G-d versus Evolution? 3 hr Paul Scott 26
Known human ancestors (Nov '16) 4 hr Paul Scott 49
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr Paul Scott 3,800
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 6 hr Subduction Zone 31
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 17 hr ChromiuMan 161,443
More from around the web