Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Objectivism and Evolution: No Contradictions


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#141 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,637 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 13 December 2010 - 03:58 PM



AA, is getting at the truth the most important thing to you in this discussion?



If getting at the truth of a something were the most important thing to me, why would I waste time on an Objectivist message board?

My goal is strictly altruistic. I'm merely trying to save a few seriously lost and benighted souls. Isn't that nice of me?


You are indeed one of the nicer dipshits I have ever encountered.

As for your admission that truth is not your top priority, thanks for stating the obvious. And if you believe that you can convert nonbelievers by public exhibitions of stupidity -- well, I suppose that makes you a good Christian. Congratulations. Jesus must be very proud.

Ghs


Beware of altruists bearing arguments.

--Brant
he came to poke at the animals on the other side of the bars

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#142 George H. Smith

George H. Smith

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 5,735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bloomington, IL
  • Interests:Books, ideas, jazz, chess, and intelligent people

Posted 13 December 2010 - 04:40 PM


Beware of altruists bearing arguments.

--Brant
he came to poke at the animals on the other side of the bars


My best guess is that AA is a young Creationist Turk in need of an ego boost who thought he would find easy pickings on an O'ist site. His intellectual immaturity is evident from his inability to adapt to unexpected replies; he merely repeats the same arguments over and over again, apparently in the hope that repetition will succeed where his reason has failed.

I'm not at all sure that AA is a fundamentalist Christian, but if he is, his duplicity makes him a miserable specimen of the species. One thing I have always admired about fundamentalists is their willingness to be upfront about their beliefs. If I were a fundamentalist lurking on OL, I would not be at all pleased with his performance -- and make no mistake, it is a performance.

In any case, every public whipping runs its course, and this one is getting tiresome. From now on, I may praise AA's posts to the skies, while thanking him for guiding me away from the wayward path of atheism. :rolleyes:

Ghs

#143 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 13 December 2010 - 08:20 PM

In any case, every public whipping runs its course, and this one is getting tiresome.

Running away, eh? You still need to explain why we donít have crocoducks running around! And why bananas are so obviously designed for our convenience!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYtgtwJDnyc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A&NR=1

Now I'll grant there is a sound Darwinian explanation for Dawkins' public career: It gets him laid!!! His eyesight must not be so good though, judging from the second video:

width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars="">

Go God Go
Tags: SOUTH
PARK
href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s10e12-go-god-go">more...

style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;">
width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars="">

Go God Go
Tags: SOUTH
PARK
href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s10e12-go-god-go">more...


Prandium gratis non est

#144 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,825 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 December 2010 - 08:47 PM

My goal is strictly altruistic. I'm merely trying to save a few seriously lost and benighted souls. Isn't that nice of me?

AA,

I suggest reading the posting guidelines. This is a discussion forum, not a preaching organization.

Once preachers get on a roll, they usually derail discussions in progress, so I have found (stumbled across, actually) a policy that allows them to preach to their heart's content, but still preserve the main characteristic of this forum as an exchange of ideas, not an indoctrination to any one dogma or the other.

I restrict preachers to 5 posts a day.

Since this is your explicit goal, that's what I'm doing with you.

From observation, I have found that this even improves the quality of the preachers' arguments.

And, frankly, if a preacher can't get his basic religious message across in 5 posts a day, he needs the practice.

Michael

Know thyself...


#145 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 13 December 2010 - 09:07 PM

I restrict preachers to 5 posts a day.

Since this is your explicit goal, that's what I'm doing with you.

From observation, I have found that this even improves the quality of the preachers' arguments.

And, frankly, if a preacher can't get his basic religious message across in 5 posts a day, he needs the practice.

I think he was being sarcastic, but heís certainly worn out his welcome. Hereís a preacher he may as well emulate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaUuSJx-VDA
Such a great movie.
Prandium gratis non est

#146 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,825 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 December 2010 - 10:02 PM

Dennis,

The tone of AA's last remark ("Isn't that nice of me?") was sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure there was truth to the rest of what he said (i.e., I am sure he believes there are "a few seriously lost and benighted souls" that need saving around here and he might be able to do something about it).

To be precise, he is still welcome here--at 5 posts a day. I did this for the health of the forum flow. It was not anything against him, per se, due to his method of discourse.

(I do find it grating, but that was not my reason.)

Michael

Know thyself...


#147 Rich Engle

Rich Engle

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,863 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Myers, Florida, USA
  • Interests:Philosophy, Religion, Psychology, Chess, Music, Spirituality.

Posted 14 December 2010 - 03:32 AM

My goal is strictly altruistic. I'm merely trying to save a few seriously lost and benighted souls. Isn't that nice of me?


If you're really into that, hook up with the JW's. But, they make you go door-to-door, which is much more tedious (and in my neighborhood, more dangerous) than even here.

On the other hand, sometimes you will get invited in for tea, cookies, or maybe even beer. In return for this, you will be expected to fork over one or two of those scary comic books they publish. It is creepy work, but interesting. Might be a fit.

rde

Visit My Blog!

beyondevenbatcountry.blogspot.com


"There is no way that writers can be tamed and rendered civilized or even cured. the only solution known to science is to provide the patient with an isolation room, where he can endure the acute stages in private and where food can be poked in to him with a stick." -- Robert A. Heinlein


#148 RagJohn

RagJohn

    $$$

  • Limited to 5 posts a day
  • 114 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 December 2010 - 01:24 PM

I don't agree that I "owe' anyone anything, really. I don't owe them any respect, nor do I owe them being left unbothered by me. It is to my long term advantage to not PO everyone by attacking them, but that's not OWED to them. Instead, they merely TAKE it from me, by force, or the threat of force, and I come to respect that force. Owing means that I am endebted to them, which I am not. They have done nothing for me, and I owe them the same. I may CHOOSE to help them, or at least, not harm them, but I don't OWE them such nice behavior. It may or may not benefit me to be nice to them, but I don't owe them a thing.

#149 Xray

Xray

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,179 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 08 March 2012 - 10:02 AM


If computers didn't evolve by means of random mutation and natural selection, then neither did cells. Both require intelligent input.


Cells have been around billions of years (or billyuns and billyuns of years, as Carl Sagan would have said). Computers have been around for less than one hundred years. The line of cell development goes all the way back the Archea, at least 2.5 billion years. Fossils of these one cell critters can be found in the stomatilites.

There is no evidence of intelligent design of living things prior to humans. Now that Craig Venter has made a genuine living cell from non-living components the situation has changed. How do we know Craig and his team did it? They have all reported on their activities and have t.v., photographs and documentation to back them up.

When you can present as convincing evidence of an Intelligent Designer making the earliest living cells on this planet perhaps you have case.

Ba'al Chatzaf

One could also ask the question why this Intelligent Designer designed it all quite 'primitively' in the beginning ...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users