The Satanic Character of Social Darwi...
wondering

Morris, OK

#152 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
here is another good example. he does not have to address your questions as long as he can keep your attention. again what does that say about you?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#153 Aug 20, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
here is another good example. he does not have to address your questions as long as he can keep your attention. again what does that say about you?
There is no evidence that TurkeyBoy watched any of the videos I posted, including the 14 minute documentary in the opening post.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#154 Aug 20, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You tell me what I already knew. I know Popper. I even agree with him on his open society idea. For instance, one of the reasons why I am fiercely against death penalties is exactly his idea that human knowledge is always incomplete, theories are never proven, and so there is always the possibility of error. And nobody indeed is in the grand position of knowing enough to dictate irreversible decisions.

But proving that compulsory vaccination does not follow from neo-Darwinism by referring to the epistemology of Popper and next his ideas of an open society is a bit too agile in reasoning I think.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I think you didn't get my point.
My point was: isn't restraining a child from vaccination not a case of neglect LIKE restraining it from adequate medical help when such is needed? Because every civilized country has Child Protective Services who intervene when a child is neglected, abused or maltreated.
My simple question is: wouldn't be restraining children form vaccination an example of severe neglect? For instance, catching polio causes severe disability for the rest of a child's life.
You answered: "...still up to the parents to decide what to do". And what to do if parents decide to not vaccinate their children and they catch one of those diseases?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Pertaining Freud, acknowledging that major parts of his ideas are indeed scientifically found to be obsolete and incorrect, I think his following ideas have found both empirical and theoretical affirmation in modern psychology and often in biological neuroscience too:
- the existence of unconscious mental processes;
- the importance of conflict and ambivalence in behavior;
- the childhood origins of adult personality;
- mental representations as a mediator of social behavior;
- stages of psychological development.
Of course not in the exact rendition Freud presented them but in its basic outlines of major importance.

>>> see next post.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#155 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> There is no evidence that TurkeyBoy watched any of the videos I posted, including the 14 minute documentary in the opening post.
I don't need to.
They are completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion.

There is abundant evidence that Zog Has Fallen systematically doesn't answer the posts of his opponents but by irrelevant, evading and dodging nonsense.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#156 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
1003 example of NOT addressing someone's post.

Millerism is the very next cult of Protestantism.
Protestantism is founded on the work of Martin Luther.
Martin Luther was one of the most ardent anti-Semitists ever lived.
You are a follower of one of the cults that was founded on his teachings.
You are a anti-Semitist.

For instance, let's see what "lovely" Ellen White had to say about it, as testified by one of her former followers: http://new.exchristian.net/2010/09/amalgamati... - pertaining her "amalgamation" ideas.

You are a Christian.
Christianity, like all other religions, constantly interferes with the personal lives of people and politics: what to eat, what to drink, what to think, how to think, what to dress, when having sex, how having sex, how (women) to behave, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. It also constantly interferes with politics and often with a hidden or even overt agenda to restore theocracy.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#157 Aug 20, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

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.

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.
But your saying was that the social sciences are now under the scrutiny of the exact sciences and until then, it was nothing but pseudo-science, Freud and Marx as examples, infested the social sciences were by their ideas.

I still object. There is much more in the social science than Freud and Marx. If we go back to the beginning of sociology, we have, besides Marx, August Comte, Herbert Spencer,Émile Durkheim and Max Weber. Marx and Spencer are pre-sociologists who combined "sciency" with a heavy political agenda. They were not quite sociologists in the scientific meaning. I think that honour goes to Émile Durkheim who profoundly grounded his sociology on empirical observations, like his famous study on suicide.

Durkheim wrote this famous monograph in 1897, that's a long way to sociobiology and biological psychology. That what I meant with "in between". there is much empirical foundation in psychology and sociology between Marx and Feud and the modern integration of biology into the social sciences.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#158 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
You tell me what I already knew.
We both do that to each other at times.
But proving that compulsory vaccination does not follow from neo-Darwinism by referring to the epistemology of Popper and next his ideas of an open society is a bit too agile in reasoning I think.
The common thread, and that includes Kuhn, is a humility before one's own understanding and an acceptance that one's position may be wrong or incomplete. That will tend to work against the view that coercion is justified unless there is a very clear and present danger - not on the basis of theoretical possibilities.

For example even before the polio vaccine, MOST children never got polio. Now that the majority are vaccinated, the odds are even slimmer. So there is no clear and present danger demanding a removal of freedom here.
<quoted text>
I think you didn't get my point.
My point was: isn't restraining a child from vaccination not a case of neglect LIKE restraining it from adequate medical help when such is needed?
Yes, I did get that point but I disagreed. The fundamental difference is that in one case the child is unhealthy at that moment and about to die or be harmed by neglect. In the case of vaccination, the child is not directly under threat, is not unhealthy, and its parents believe that the vaccination itself may have potentially harmful effects. These are very clearly different situations.
Because every civilized country has Child Protective Services who intervene when a child is neglected, abused or maltreated.
Yes, but the position of parents who opt out of vaccination is NOT one of neglect, abuse, or maltreatment. Its actually an act of caring on their part no matter how misguided you may think it is.

Its up to scientists to prove its safe, not to parents to prove its harmful. And even when scientists do show good evidence, its up to them to persuade, not to coerce. Because our knowledge is incomplete and imperfect, even regarding vaccines.
My simple question is: wouldn't be restraining children form vaccination an example of severe neglect?
And my view is NO - particularly as the intention is NOT neglect of the child but protection from the potential effects of the vaccine itself, as least as the parent understands it.

You claim they do not understand? Then its incumbent on you to explain why you think the vaccine is a good idea, not on them to submit their children to your opinion about what is best for them.
For instance, catching polio causes severe disability for the rest of a child's life.
You answered: "...still up to the parents to decide what to do". And what to do if parents decide to not vaccinate their children and they catch one of those diseases?
I have watched freedoms erode dramatically "for your own good" in my lifetime and I wonder about who decided their holy mission in life was to maximise life expectancy at all costs. There is a cost to freedom, but a bigger cost to losing it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#159 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
But your saying was that the social sciences are now under the scrutiny of the exact sciences and until then, it was nothing but pseudo-science, Freud and Marx as examples, infested the social sciences were by their ideas.
Not "nothing but" pseudoscience, but definitely infested with it. And we now have go-gooding bureaucrats run amok, all convinced they know what is good for everyone, often justified by extremely dubious conclusions drawn from social sciences. Even from weak medical epidemiological studies.

There were obviously always good scientists working in these fields, but the universities also churned out these reprehensible parasites who headed straight for the government and couldn't wait to impose their ideologies dressed as science on everyone.

Who decided that they know what is best for everyone?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#160 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
You are a anti-Semitist.
I already refuted your idiotic lie. So why are you repeating it?

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#161 Aug 20, 2014
I am a Millerite Adventist, not a Seventh-day Adventist. However, I think it's very possible that Ellen G. White had a true revelation on modern science.

I propose that we see what follows when we interpret Ellen G. White's nineteenth century statements on "amalgamation" to mean "horizontal gene transfer."

Let's begin here:

"Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also lateral gene transfer (LGT) or transposition refers to the transfer of genetic material between organisms other than by reproduction. Vertical transfer occurs when there is gene exchange from the parental generation to the offspring. LGT is then a mechanism of gene exchange that happens independently of reproduction."

"Most thinking in genetics has focused upon vertical transfer, but there is a growing awareness that horizontal gene transfer is a highly significant phenomenon."

"In the mid-1980s, Syvanen predicted that lateral gene transfer existed, had biological significance, and was involved in shaping evolutionary history from the beginning of life on Earth."

"There is some evidence that even higher plants and animals have been affected [by horizontal gene transfer] and this has raised concerns for safety." "It should also be noted that the process may be a hidden hazard of genetic engineering as it may allow dangerous transgenic DNA to spread from species to species."

"Artificial horizontal gene transfer is a form of genetic engineering."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_...

Now consider Ellen White's scientifically challenging ideas:

"Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." Spiritual Gifts Vol 3. Page 75.

The interpretation that certain races "are the result of men breeding with animals" can't be derived from the above Ellen G. White quote. I do believe however that it is reasonable to interpret the dinosaurs as being the confused species which God did not create and which did not get on the ark. As to the process of "amalgamation," I think it would be more accurate to look at the science of modern genetics rather than an unscientific 19th century explanation.

The Wikipedia article on transgenic plants says:

Transgenic plants possess a gene or genes that have been transferred from a different species. Although DNA of another species can be integrated in a plant genome by natural processes, the term "transgenic plants" refers to plants created in a laboratory using recombinant DNA technology.

Natural movements of genes between species

Natural movement of genes between species, often called horizontal gene transfer or lateral gene transfer, can occur because of gene transfer mediated by natural processes.

This natural gene movement between species has been widely detected during genetic investigation of various natural mobile genetic elements, such as transposons, and retrotransposons that naturally translocate to new sites in a genome, and often move to new species over an evolutionary time scale. There are many types of natural mobile DNAs, and they have been detected abundantly in food crops such as rice.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#162 Aug 20, 2014
I point out that Ellen White refers to Satan as the agent in "amalgamation" to describe the great variety of transgenic plants:

Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matthew 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. Selected Messages Book 2 (1958), p. 288.

Can anyone prove that the dinosaurs were not transgenic? The Bible does teach that there is a curse on mankind because of the fall of Adam and Eve. If Satan was the agent in creating transgenic plants and dinosaurs, then I find it reasonable to conclude that all humans and animals today are to some degree transgenic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:

Now consider Ellen White's scientifically challenging ideas:
"Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." Spiritual Gifts Vol 3. Page 75."

The interpretation that certain races "are the result of men breeding with animals" can't be derived from the above Ellen G. White quote.
Either breeding or "transgenic amalgamation".

"Certain races of men"???

The racist intent is clear.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#164 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
I point out that Ellen White refers to Satan as the agent in "amalgamation" to describe the great variety of transgenic plants:
Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matthew 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. Selected Messages Book 2 (1958), p. 288.
Can anyone prove that the dinosaurs were not transgenic? The Bible does teach that there is a curse on mankind because of the fall of Adam and Eve. If Satan was the agent in creating transgenic plants and dinosaurs, then I find it reasonable to conclude that all humans and animals today are to some degree transgenic.
The mitochondria in your cells are transgenic, and are part of all eukaryotes, including dinosaurs of course. Adam would not have lasted 5 seconds without them, had he actually existed. Thanks Satan.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#165 Aug 20, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Either breeding or "transgenic amalgamation".
"Certain races of men"???
The racist intent is clear.
I am able to distinguish between Chinese and Indians just by looking at them. If that makes me a racist by your definition, then I confess I'm a racist.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#166 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> I am able to distinguish between Chinese and Indians just by looking at them. If that makes me a racist by your definition, then I confess I'm a racist.
The issue is genetic "amalgamation" of certain races of man with beasts. She was a racist, and that is by your own quote.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#167 Aug 20, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Either breeding or "transgenic amalgamation".
"Certain races of men"???
The racist intent is clear.
White: "The confused species which God did not create..."

There goes the creator of all things right out the window.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#168 Aug 20, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
The issue is genetic "amalgamation" of certain races of man with beasts.
Try the amalgamation of man and of beasts.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#169 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Try the amalgamation of man and of beasts.
And just who in the hell would mankind "amalgamate" with other than mankind?

You're just as stupid as stupid, old Ellen.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#170 Aug 20, 2014
MikeF wrote:
And just who in the hell would mankind "amalgamate" with other than mankind?
"Horizontal gene transfer is a mechanism of gene exchange that happens independently of reproduction." So be careful with what you do with those sausages.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#171 Aug 20, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> "Horizontal gene transfer is a mechanism of gene exchange that happens independently of reproduction." So be careful with what you do with those sausages.
Nice try to evade the points made by shifting the discussion into save heavens.
(1000th time I wrote this on your posts).

Back to:
"Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." Spiritual Gifts Vol 3. Page 75."

She did not mean some idiotic amalgamation between men and beasts but she meant that humans today are amalgamated into races, with the blacks, Indians of course the inferior part.
THAT was she meant.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min marksman11 154,681
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Regolith Based Li... 216,680
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min One way or another 48,495
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 23,492
Science News (Sep '13) 11 hr positronium 3,982
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 17 hr The Northener 642
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 17 hr porkncheese 8
More from around the web