Skip to comments.
Do you HATE Evolution? Black Student Throws a Fit in Florida Evolution Class
Cure Socialism ^
| March 22, 2012
| Jonathon Moseley
Posted on 03/22/2012 7:44:32 AM PDT by Moseley
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 321-322 next last
To: tacticalogic
It's also possible somebody convinced her she should hate evolution because Darwin was a white guy. Oh pul-eeze....
Talk about a "straw man argument!"
101
posted on
03/22/2012 4:11:12 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
To: PapaBear3625
Being attracted to a particular characteristic in a mate is ITSELF an evolutionarily-significant characteristic, which may tend to be passed to offspring.
Absolutely false. This is simply you ASSUMING THE CONCLUSION -- which is a fundamental error of evolutionists.
You assume that the selection of a mate has a purpose in terms in terms of the type of offspring that will result, and that use your assumption to try to justify your erroneous conclusion.
A human being can (usually does) choose a mate based on how that mate makes THEM feel, without the slightest interest in any factor (conciously or subconsiciously) affecting their offspring.
A woman may marry a man simply because he makes her laugh. You will then want to concoct some strained assumption that laughter has some evolutionary benefit. No, that is circular reasoning trying to assume the end point and then use that to get you from her to there. Marrying someone who makes you laugh may have NO value other than FEELING GOOD RIGHT NOW in the present, without any long-term benefit, intended or accidental. In fact, a man who makes a woman laugh may be impractical, lazy, distracted from getting work done, always focused on jokes instead of providing for his family, having fun while procrastinating, etc. In other words a BAD provider for the children.
Similarly, animals may "choose" a mate for no other reason than phsyical proximity. In Alaska there may be an owl in mating season. In Maine is an owl whose mating with the Alaska owl would produce an evolutionary superior result. However, the Alaska owl is going to "choose" the owl in the next tree over, NOT the preferable choice living in Maine. The "choice" may be nothing more than whatever animal recognizably of the same species is CLOSEST. In fact, I would dare say that this the case 90%+ of the time.
Ever try to get a cat to eat? One would think it would make sense for a cat to eat when there is food. It may always be the same food. But whether the cat eats or not may have nothing to do with SELECTING the food, but just whatever mood the cat is in. So "selecting" a mate may be nothing more than whichever cat of the opposite sex is nearby when the finicky cat gets in the right mood.
Especially for animals with large RANGING territories, the very idea of "selection" is a fallacy. Whatever specimen happens to be somewhere nearby when the mood strikes may be all the "selection" that is going on. Following the scents, there is more "selection" derived from whether the wind is blowing from the East or the wind is blowing from the West than any evolutionary characteristic.
And any evolutionary pressure that might still exist is wiped out, erased, and overwhelmed where there is a significant amount of randomness such as which way the wind blows.
So the assumption that any choice of mate serves an evolutionary function is simply ASSUMING evolution as true in order to try to prove evolution.
102
posted on
03/22/2012 4:16:01 PM PDT
by
Moseley
(http://www.curesocialism.com)
To: betty boop
Strawman you say? They’re teaching things like “Critical Race Theory”, and you’re telling me that it’s just not possible someone convinced her of that. Only your assumptions and your conclusions can possibly be valid.
103
posted on
03/22/2012 4:24:06 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: betty boop
What mechanism do you propose accomplishes evolution?
What evidence do you have that the teacher was doing anything OTHER THAN explaining the scientific principles behind a phenomena that you purportedly accept?
Would there be any way to teach the scientific principles of evolution without presenting a “Darwinist” argument?
Could you do so?
You don't think death threats are the least bit irrational in response to presentation of a theory you purport to accept?
104
posted on
03/22/2012 4:45:27 PM PDT
by
allmendream
(Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; YHAOS; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; exDemMom
Theyre teaching things like Critical Race Theory, and youre telling me that its just not possible someone convinced her of that. To that, my riposte:
If she's bright enuf to understand what a swindle Darwinism is, then maybe she's bright enuf to understand what a swindle Critical Race Theory is.
Whatever the case, you do not know this young lady from a hole in the ground. And so I believe it is extremely ill-advised of you to impute motives to her.
But such a thing if you do it falls squarely into the "straw man argument" category.
Sorry. Try again. But please do not further abuse this young lady. It seems to me, she has far more common sense than you have.
105
posted on
03/22/2012 5:00:46 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
To: Moseley
A woman may marry a man simply because he makes her laugh. You will then want to concoct some strained assumption that laughter has some evolutionary benefit. No, that is circular reasoning trying to assume the end point and then use that to get you from her to there. Marrying someone who makes you laugh may have NO value other than FEELING GOOD RIGHT NOW in the present, without any long-term benefit, intended or accidental. In fact, a man who makes a woman laugh may be impractical, lazy, distracted from getting work done, always focused on jokes instead of providing for his family, having fun while procrastinating, etc. In other words a BAD provider for the children. Right. And if this was two hundred years ago, a woman selecting a bad provider just because he was funny would likely have resulted in her and her offspring starving to death. Today, not so much.
Natural selection only operates in an environment where non-optimum characteristics tend to result in death.
106
posted on
03/22/2012 5:04:27 PM PDT
by
PapaBear3625
(In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
To: allmendream; tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; YHAOS; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; ...
Would there be any way to teach the scientific principles of evolution without presenting a Darwinist argument?.... Could you do so? Certainly! I would simply refer you to Genesis 1 and 2.
These books do not purport to be "scientific" texts. But it seems to me that all of science indeed, all of human rationality is absolutely premised on them.
Whatever the case, read these texts with an open mind and an open heart.
Maybe if you do, you will learn something new and valuable about cosmic and terrestrial evolution....
107
posted on
03/22/2012 5:06:03 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
To: betty boop
Whatever the case, you do not know this young lady from a hole in the ground. And so I believe it is extremely ill-advised of you to impute motives to her. Seems you've already done as much to the instructor and everyone else in the class.
108
posted on
03/22/2012 5:21:15 PM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: betty boop
That would be a big zero.
Genesis 1 and 2 is no more an instruction on the scientific principles of evolution than it is an instruction on the scientific principles of nuclear fusion.
What do you think the mechanism of this evolution you say you believe in is?
Is it natural selection of genetic variation?
Would explaining the mechanism you say you believe in be a Darwinist argument?
109
posted on
03/22/2012 8:57:05 PM PDT
by
allmendream
(Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
To: Moseley
I hope she was expelled from the college and charged with assault or whatever charges apply. No one there seemed very afraid; they were laughing at her. But, there should be consequences for that kind of behavior.
To: Moseley
111
posted on
03/22/2012 8:59:32 PM PDT
by
metmom
( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
To: tacticalogic
Seems you've already done as much to the instructor and everyone else in the class. Well, as to the instructor, it seems reasonable to infer that he was a Darwinist giving instruction to his "pupils" with regard to Darwinist theory. As for the rest of the class, I cannot characterize them. If they're students, however, they are probably at the mercy of the instructor....
All I know is that one person in that room objected to the "instruction": the young lady who has so far drawn a considerable amount of scorn on this thread.
But certainly not from me.
I don't have impute any motive to the young lady at all to simply recognize that she may have been the only person in the room at the time who was troubled by the instruction. And it seems to me she had good logical grounds on which to object....
FWIW.
112
posted on
03/22/2012 9:04:52 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
To: xzins
When arguing they are little different than a rock, then they also argue they can be crushed.
So very true, dear brother in Christ! Evidently they are not thinking clearly.
To: betty boop
Truly, they are up to their eyeballs in "epistemic difficulties!"
But this problem rarely seems to catch the attention of Darwinists and other professional atheists. Matter is king; random processes somehow cause matter to create "order" but it's an order that cannot even be thought about really, since in Darwin's theory there is no (non-random) criterion by which the resulting order itself can be evaluated.
Indeed. Their reasoning gets twisted like a pretzel as they try to eliminate final cause (which suggests first cause) - without which it makes no sense to discuss purpose or function in nature. And of course biological systems are characterized by just that: purpose or function. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
To: Moseley
‘Every woman alive is capable of behaving that way if she feels deeply threatened and rejected in the core of who she is.’
I beg to differ. I have NEVER known a woman that acted that way or ever would act that way. Ive known women that have been humiliated by their husbands and left alone to pick up the pieces but they handled themselves with dignity and respect.
A women that finds her self worth in others especially in men may act that way when rejected. A woman that finds her self worth in God would not.
To: allmendream
Genesis 1 and 2 is no more an instruction on the scientific principles of evolution than it is an instruction on the scientific principles of nuclear fusion. Oh pul-eeze, allmendream, will you stop torturing me with nonense like this? I never said Genesis was an instruction manual on "scientific principles." My claim is that it gives us humans the very CONTEXT in which scientific principles can arise in the first place.
What do you think the mechanism of this evolution you say you believe in is?
I do not believe evolution involves any concept of "mechanism" whatsoever, at least not at the level of first principles. The creative Word of God is not a "mechanism."
Would explaining the mechanism you say you believe in be a Darwinist argument?
Obviously not on the basis of my own statements, above.
116
posted on
03/22/2012 9:13:08 PM PDT
by
betty boop
(We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
To: betty boop
And yet what kind of a science can biology be, if it refuses to ask the most essential question that ostensibly belongs to a science of Life (biology = study of Life): What is Life itself?
Oh so very true. It's quite easy to find publications in Biology cataloging what life looks like - but precious few that discuss what life "is", e.g. Rosen.
Thank you so much for all your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!
To: betty boop
Perhaps if such folks could be disabused of the widely prevailing notion nowadays that faith and reason, science and philosophy (including theology, the "queen of metaphysics") are necessarily mutually-exclusive, basic intellectual sanity could be restored. They are not mutually-exclusive: This notion posits a false dichotomy. What they are instead, are complementary knowledge domains which have been mutually assisting one another for some seven millennia by now.
That would be very helpful to everyone! Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
To: House Atreides
This woman is mentally ill and could have snapped in an Accounting 101 class Not according to some posters here.
This is one of the sickest FR threads I can remember.
Hint to Freepers: Don't defend a hate-filled racist who is issuing death threats while she is having a mental breakdown. People will suspect that you are just as crazy as she is.
119
posted on
03/22/2012 10:57:34 PM PDT
by
TChad
To: betty boop; YHAOS; tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; Moseley; metmom; exDemMom
betty: This I suppose would be news to those people who hold human history in so much contempt
Spirited: But then time (unfolding story of history) itself is one of their primary enemies.
God the Father called all things into existence, set celestial bodies in motion and time began to tick away the days and the story of history to unfold. Its’ unfolding had one end and no other: the Kingdom of God.
Thus history itself is therefore an enemy. How to escape? By turning time back upon itself. By uncreating history/reality/mankind(Darwinism), Nietzsche’s eternal return, reincarnation.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 321-322 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson