Darwinists offer $1M prize for Test Tube Meat

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

An article for you:

Let me guess. :hmm: This article came from a Christian website that you have previously linked to on issues of creationism and evolution, that site being Breakpoint. Am I correct?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Let me guess. :hmm: This article came from a Christian website that you have previously linked to on issues of creationism and evolution, that site being Breakpoint. Am I correct?

Hmm. Let me see. What is your first clue? That the article talks about creationism vs darwinism? Not sure you'd find an article referencing god that wasn't Christian related in some way. And the article is be a man known for being opinionated and his name is Chuck Colson? I'd say I'd expect you to know who this is. This guy clashes with plenty of people all the time, but the best part - he makes sense where there is none.

Anyway, I read his articles from time to time since he is one very smart guy.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

It's hilarious how Subman "forgets" to link its sources sometimes :rotfl:

I do. When I'm going fast (notice the short replies too?) - doing several things at once right now. Doesn't change the message does it?

Anyway, I wonder how many phone calls I would get if I took an email server offline right now. My DLT tape drive just got back from repair.

-S

[mrbeast]

Subman we've had all this out before about Darwinism and PETA.

Posting a bunch of nonsense from Chuck Colson doesn't demonstrate anything.

[Letum]

Deja vous. :hmm:

Last time we discussed this you ran off citeing a "major problem at work".

Care to pick up where we left off and reply to my last post here?

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

It is the logical conclusion to the ideas of pure Darwinism. You are nothing more that an animal with two opposable thumbs competing for survival on this planet. Forget any idea about human dignity. An ant is an equal in PETA's and Darwanists eyes.

See now where this idea of pure Darwinism is taking us? PETA is your answer.

Originally Posted by Letum

Are your moral principles really so flimsy that you would think it fit to abandon them if
you believed that animals, bacteria and viruses change over generations depending on
their environment?

Oh, and boo to peta etc.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I didn't say that didn't happen, and you can't deny that PETA is not the logical conclusion of Darwanism either. Face it - you already know your future!

Originally Posted by Letum

You can not get moral conclusions from logic.
Unless you have found a way round the is-ought gap.

PETA may be a irrational conclusion from Darwinism, but that just shows peta is
irrational and we all know that.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You think its irrational, and I think its irrational, but they think we are irrational, so this is defintitely not a moral conclusion since whos morals are we talking about? A Darwanist has no morals. Morals simply do not exist in Darwinism, and no Darwanist yet can show morals in Darwinism without turning into a babling wreck based on self interest that is clearly wrong as seen by any plain man. This is where Darwinism fails miserably as a theory, such as trying to explain 'Alltruism'. It can not explain this adequately and has more holes that makes even a shotgun approach miss completely. THis is why I personally believe it is all grey area when pure Darwanist see all in black and white.

So do not come at me from a moral perspective here. That will fail miserably.

Originally Posted by Letum

Of course there are no morals in Dawinism!
Just like there are no morals in the theory of gravity or the way steel rusts in salt
water. Thats my point!

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Exactly my point as well. So why did you bring morals into it then?

My guess is you are looking for traction where there is none or very little.

Originally Posted by MrBeast

Why won't you explain your reasoning?

Come on........don't be bashful

Sounds to me like your trying to skate over something Subman. More wooly thinking and childs logic perhaps? :hmm:

Maybe along similar lines to Ozzy Osbourne is a satanist or to solve gun crime in the US you simply need to add more guns or how about communism has nearly taken over the world........

.........On second thoughts, might be better if you do keep it to yourself.:hmm:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

What part about what I have not explained have you not been able to comprehend? If all animals on the planet are vying for survival, and all animals being equal subsequently and having an equal stake in the planet, and Peta uses this logic to dictate their reasoning, it is obvious that you are not the brightest bulb in the planet! It goes back to Ozzy / Black Sabbath and upside down crucifixes - you don't have the intelligence to comprehend what most other people here can see. Its pathetic. It's actually quite hilarious in one respect since you have made me spew beer from laughing uncontrollably at some of your 'I can't think for myself' comments, but outside of that, it is a waste of time to bother replying to someone when they are so closed minded and black and white.

I understand wisdom will come in time for you, but you must get rid of your moon is made of cheese mentality because your king told you so. This is the type of argument we are having right now. I'm sure you made some people smirk however, so maybe its good for the entertainment factor alone.

Originally Posted by Letum

You have made a logic leap there.

How do you get from "all animals vying [trying(?)] for survival" to "all animals being equal" ?

I don't see the connection between the two.
It's like saying gold and iron fall to the ground at the same speed, therefore they are equal.

There is no link and there can be no link. You can not make a observation about the world
i.e. "all animals reproduce" and then conclude a moral judgement from that i.e. "therefore
they are all equal / should be treated equally"

The above is just an example, the same is true of all "is" prepositions with "ought" conclusions.
You simply can not make links between the way things are and what we ought to do.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

In that sense, you are right, since I should be looking at it backwards instead of forwards even though the end result is the same - Humans are not special and on an equal plane as all other species. That would be a more proper way to put it from a logic perspective. I stand corrected in this sense.

Originally Posted by Letum

The leap is still there.

How do you get from "all animals vying [trying(?)] for survival" to "Humans are not
special and on an equal plane as all other species" ?

How does one follow from the other?

The truth (or otherwise) of the preposition in no way guarantees or reveals the truth
(or otherwise) of the conclusion.

I hate to repeat my self, but it is still like saying "gold and iron fall to the ground at the
same speed, therefore gold is not special and on an equal plane as all other metals"

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Simple - past logic dictates that humans are from a divine nature. This has been this way through the ages. Darwanism however removes this logic and puts humans on an equal plane as all other species who are simply vying for survival, even though it fails to answer some key questions. So what you have done is lower several notches the standing of the human element in peoples minds. Darwanism stops short of actually saying that humans and animals are equal, but it doesn't need to since it implies it. A group like Peta comes along then (it was inevitable) and follows and unfinished theory to its one and only logical conclusion, which raises animals and lowers humans into an equal catagory. Matter of fact, Darwin goes so far as to put humans in the animal catagory so Peta didn't even need to do this.

End conclusion - Peta sees animals and humans as equals. Peta then starts their mad campaign to stop people from eating animal protein or harming animals in any way shape or form based on this logic.

End of story. I wonder if there is any net data on this idea? I will do a search. THis could get interesting to see if anyone has taken this further. Must search.

-S

PS. DOn't get me wrong. I think most parts of Darwins theories are accurate. Just it is a flawed theory in that it can't explain certain things based on survival of the fittest.

Originally Posted by Letum

eh?
What does logic have to do with the divine?

Some past reasoning dictates that humans are from a divine nature, but logic does
not deal with that kind of thing.

Logic is the syntax of good reasoning, but logic can not be based on prepositions
outside of its own structure and therefore can not make conclusions on its own.

This has only been the way in certain cultures, not all, and only for the last 10,000
years or so as far as we know.

This is the same logic leap rephrased yet again.

how are you getting from "humans are simply vying for survival as all other species" to "humans on an equal plane as all other species"?

Where is the connection between the preposition and the conclusion here?
What is it about adapting to survive that makes humans equal?

What does genetic history have to do with equality.




Secondly, what makes you think that animals or humans are "vying for survival"?

[you don't have to read this bit as on reflection is is a little obscure]

Vying implies it is something done with purpose i.e. "the evolutionary purpose of
animals is to survive/reproduce". This is a flawed use of language and meaning.
"purpose" is often talked about in evolution because it helps us understand the
process. On the face of it the purpose of fish's gills is to breathe and the ultimate
purpose of breathing is to live and reproduce. It is helpful to think of gills, breathing
and fish in this way, but it is also false and misleading because it confuses what
happens with why happens. Even worse, it implies design i.e. if something has
purpose, then it must have been designed by evolution for that purpose (for
example gills have evolved for breathing / evolution designed gills for breathing).

The truth is that gills, fish, breathing or humans do not have purpose, they are just
what happens when you have certain starting conditions. There is no why
happens.
The purpose of a human is no more to pass on DNA than the purpose of water is to
rain, condense and evaporate.

A object (even living ones) can have the properties of mass, size, heat etc. but no
object can possess a property of "purpose". Mass, size, etc. are properties
determined by the atoms/matter that make a object. Atoms/matter can not hold
"purpose" as a property.

"purpose" is a false property like "beauty" that humans and (perhaps) other animals
give objects. That does not necessarily mean that "purpose" is nor real, it just mean
we individually choice what the purpose of a object is. The purpose of a watch
might be to tell the time, or it might be to bang nails into a bit of wood, depending
on what purpose you give the watch.

We also do something more complex with purpose which leads to confusion. We try
to guess what the purpose of one object is to another object or non-object. For
example, we might suppose that a chair leg has a purpose for the chair; to keep it
up.

In reality, the chair has not given the leg a purpose because chairs can not think.
We also might suppose that evolution (a non-object) has a purpose for a fish; to
spread fish DNA. Of course, abstract theories can not give something purpose.

So, the only objects that truly have purpose are the objects of praxis that we use. I
use the sun, so it has purpose for me. I use this keyboard, so it to has purpose.

Back to the original statement: "humans are vying for survival". No! evolution is a
abstract theory and abstract theories can not think and give things purposes like
"survival". A machine with no purpose is not a machine, it is just a thing that
happens. The purpose of a river is not to take water to the sea, water just flows
down hill without purpose.

It isn't meant to answer questions, it's just want to explain biological processes.

.

Is that really all it takes to lower the standing of humans in your mind?
It is a good thing that most peoples ideas about how to treat people stand on firmer
ground.

All it implies is the workings of a biological process.

Physics books don't imply that murder is wrong, even if they explain how a gun works.

Chemistry books don't imply that we are equal to rocks because both humans and rocks have roughly the same chemical composition.

Biology books don't imply that humans are better, worse or equal to animals because both adapt to their environment over a series of generations.

If you think animals and humans must be equal because they are in a equal category,
then surely humans and cars must be equal because they are both in the categories
of animate objects and also the category of things made of matter.

That is ridiculous.

Long before Darwin and long before the study of biology at all PETA's far less imposing Eastern cousin, Jainism was practicing Ahimsa towards animals
to such an extent that the Jain monks sweep everywhere they walk to avoid
stepping on ants and wear masks to avoid breathing in amoeba and killing them.

PETA's ideology shares much more in common with this than it does with
evolutionary theory, the theory of gravity or any other work of modern science.



My own thaughts on the matter.

From the scientific perspective humans are not better, worse, or equal. Science just
does not make subjective judgements like that. humans, and everything else just are. Science does not tell us what is good, bad or equal. Logic tells us nothing other
than it's own structure and reason is constrained by our solipsistic lack of direct
access to the world, our rational limitations and the subjective nature of experience.

Humans are clearly special when we look at them from the human perspective. This
is the human perspective and it is the only perspective we have on the world.
It is not changed by the redundancy of a deity in our explanations of the world
firstly because the fact that humans are special and above the animals is not a
fact about the world, it is a fact about our prospective; the only perspective there
is in the world for man to have, and secondly because the things that make us
special are not things like our genetic history or means of physical existence.

Humans are special because we are humans. Sheep are not special, because we are
not sheep.
Or in other words: "What we are is special because we are it"

If we where sheep, the sheep would be special because sheep would be what we
where, but they are not what we are and so are not special.

[SUBMAN1]

Oh! Did we not finish this? Maybe it is time - but I am running out of time today. Hold that thought! And don't post big replies before weekends. I don't post on Subsim much during weekends! We need to finish this this week.

-S

[Skybird]

Anyone still want to complain about the length of my postings?

[joegrundman]

So Subman,

anyone who belives in evolution doesn't eat meat, right? and anyone who eats meat is a christian.

Do i have you correct there?

What are you on?

Originally Posted by joegrundman

So Subman,

anyone who belives in evolution doesn't eat meat, right? and anyone who eats meat is a christian.

Do i have you correct there?

What are you on?

I belive in evolution And I eat meat , what's that make me? Confused

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by darius359au

I belive in evolution And I eat meat , what's that make me? Confused

I think you must be mistaken!

[August]

I wish i could eat meat but my doctor says i can't anymore. It's a sad, sad day for this Omnivore...

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by August

I wish i could eat meat but my doctor says i can't anymore. It's a sad, sad day for this Omnivore...

That's too bad. I feel for you. I married a (mostly) vegetarian and so don't get nearly as much meat as i wish for.

Luckily we both like indian food, and indian food works well in vegetarian format.

Can you still eat fish?

[Safe-Keeper]

My first thought:

What on earth does this have to do with Darwin?!

First of all, 'Darwinist' is a weasel word used by opponents of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE is not an 'ism' but a proven scientific theory explaining how life as we know it developed from primitive lifeforms. There's no belief or politics or religion to it. There's simply no reason to call someone who acknowledges the ToE an 'ist' any more than there is to call a supported of atomic theory a 'Daltonist'.

And even if evolution-supporters were 'ists', it wouldn't make the use of the word in the title relevant, as this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It's like me saying 'People with two arms offer $1M...'

What does that have to do with Darwinism? Everything. To a Darwinist, you see, there is no distinction between human beings and animals. We all came about by chance; we are made of the same “stuff,” and we all end up as nothing more than dust. Instead of recognizing humans as bearers of God’s image, Darwinism sees us as nothing more than competitively successful bipeds with opposable thumbs. Forget any talk of human dignity.

Typical dehumanizing: 'If you're an atheist, you're basically a psychopath who cares nothing about anything and can't see the majesty of the world the same way we awesome believers do, and that makes us sooo much better than them!'.

And the real tragedy is that people like PETA are more faithful in following their worldview than many Christians are in following ours. Christians who buy into Darwinian evolution need to understand what they are really saying: that their God considers them of no more value than a rat, or a pig, or a dog.

"And the real tragedy is that people like RoundEarthists are more faithful in following their worldview than many Christians are in following ours. Christians who buy into RoundEarthist and Galileoism need to understand what they are really saying: that their God considers their planet of no more value than a radioactive asteroid, a dirty backwater planet full of toxins, or a mode of dust floating out in deep space by itself."

Same logic.

More on-topic, though:

I don't even eat much meat (sometimes I go for weeks without eating any, actually), but I think it's absurd to deny the nature of a sizeable part of humanity as omnivores in the truest sense.

Well... I don't find appeal to nature a very good argument as it's basically a logical fallacy.

If this new development means a future where we still eat meat, but without animals having to suffer for it, it's fantastic news, not something to shun.

Liver from a pig or liver grown in an artificial environment... doesn't matter to me. Food is food.

[August]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

That's too bad. I feel for you. I married a (mostly) vegetarian and so don't get nearly as much meat as i wish for.

Luckily we both like indian food, and indian food works well in vegetarian format.

Can you still eat fish?

Yeah but it's a poor substitute for a big juicy steak.

[Safe-Keeper]

I had a vegetarian hot dog once, and it tasted pretty much like ordinary sausage. I don't eat sausage, but I could learn to like those 'fake' ones.

On the other hand, I once purchased a can of 'fake meat' that tasted pretty bad. So it's a chance game in some respects, I guess.