GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[Strider77]

I only remember that gay Barbie kid using the term as a positive, I didn't realise it was part of the feminist power lexicon. Kind of a scary descriptor, all told.

They stole it from the gay crowd, well from all the non CIS white male ones that is.

[Giest118]

...

So let's bring this back to a topic more pertinent to the themes of this thread (ie, feminism).


Over in the Donald Trump thread, you mentioned a couple of times that transgenderism (that is, deviation from the gender binary, such as those who switch genders or identify as a different gender) is spiritually damaging. If I'm remembering wrong, please let me know.

This is a subject more pertinent to our differences of morality because we actually disagree on the wrongness of being transgendered; you believe it's wrong, and I believe it's fine and dandy. Would you say it's some intellectual deficiency on my part that leads me to think that way? Is my thinking necessarily a rebellion against the one divine archetype? Was I born with this rebelliousness, or did I develop it later?

[Squire Grooktook]

Geist, why
.
Why do you want to hear his opinion on this subject.

Men and women have different brains, which has been proven. It's possible to be born with the brain of the opposite sex through a variety of possible causes (hormonal imbalances in the womb, for example), which has also been proven. There's absolutely nothing wrong with feeling wrong in your body and absolutely nothing wrong with trying to live the way that makes you happy (at least, as long as it's not at the expense of anyone else, which it isn't for any decent trans person).

Now I have to listen to him try to rationalize that transgenders are evil for being born the way they are. I think I'm done reading this thread now

[Giest118]

I don't see how he could rationalize it when he's against rationalism. :V

Anyway, I guess the reason I want to hear it is anthropological curiosity. There's value to having an understanding of the opinions of those you don't agree with.

[Squire Grooktook]

I'm already familiar with the ideology he follows, so I have no such curiosity.]

^^^Last post right there, since your second one came as I was editing my last one.

[Opus131]

Well, since you guys want to keep talking about this, i'll address what i think is the main point here:

Now I have to listen to him try to rationalize that transgenders are evil for being born the way they are.

I didn't say that transgenders are "evil". What i said is that the acceptance of transgendering as "normal" is evil. The same point applies to homosexuals. Now i don't think earthly existence can be made to be perfect, but i do believe societies ought to strive to mirror what i believe to be an higher cosmic reality, and in that sense the "normalization" of every facet of relative manifestation, including those things which are quite clearly contrary to the order in question, would appear to me to be highly damaging to those high aspirations which i think all societies ought to strive towards to. I'm not an advocate of violence against homosexuals or similar individuals and i think those attempts to change who they are using Freudian psychology or chemical manipulation (to wit: Alan Turing) to be monstrous and symptomatic of a very modernist world view, even when those attempts stem from a religious initiative. As far as i'm concerned, the best place for those individuals is at the margins of human society, tolerated but not "accepted" (if by accepted we mean normalized).

For a more in depth look into my position on this subject, i'd recommend the following article:

http://www.sacredweb.com/online_article ... orial.html

The relevant bit:

The homosexual error is, among other things, that of isolating one pole of a binary cognate and treating it as an absolute, which does violence to the imperatives of the cosmic order."

To speak of the “homosexual error” should not be construed as a condoning of the legitimate grievances that homosexuals have regarding various forms of societal discrimination or abuse, which in themselves constitute an abrogation of tradition. However, though tradition demands tolerance and a compassionate understanding of the human margin, metaphysical truths are not subordinate to contingent needs nor the circumscriptions of “political correctness”. “There is no right greater than that of Truth”. What is at stake here is the very foundation of traditional order. The imperatives of the cosmic order mandate an equilibrium which results from the complementarity and union of the polarities inherent in the Supreme Principle. To violate those imperatives is thereby to invoke the disequilibrium that we are now experiencing in the modern world. Equilibrium within the lower order can only be achieved by reference to the higher order, which is the sole source of objectivity. We must take care not to subvert our spiritual purpose, for its effects reverberate not only here-below but throughout eternity.

[Opus131]

I'm already familiar with the ideology he follows, so I have no such curiosity.

You are?

That's strange, because i consider my views to be rather rare. What do you know about them?

[Squire Grooktook]

Well, I caved to curiosity and took another look.

Your response isn't quite as bad as I feared, though I still have major issues and disagreements with it. But as I said earlier, I'm not here to debate. So, rather then go into it, I'll just give you the courtesy of admitting that your post managed to fall just short of giving me cancer :3

[Giest118]

Now i don't think earthly existence can be made to be perfect, but i do believe societies ought to strive to mirror what i believe to be an higher cosmic reality, and in that sense the "normalization" of every facet of relative manifestation, including those things which are quite clearly contrary to the order in question, would appear to me to be highly damaging to those high aspirations which i think all societies ought to strive towards to.

Okay. So why should we strive to mirror higher cosmic reality? Like, what's our motivation here? When we achieve transcendence, what do we get? Greater understanding of our place in the universe? The capability to produce art that outshines even Beethoven? The knowledge that we achieved our perfection by selfishly ignoring the needs of millions of people?

Or is this not a reward-motivated goal? Is the higher cosmic reality worth pursuing on its own simply because it's our purpose? Where do homosexuals fit into this purpose? It seems like, in the grand scheme of things, the only role homosexuals can serve is as an obstacle to mankind's transcendence. We need to resist the pull of the "pity" (heh) we feel for their plight so that we might continue our ascension with minimal interruption. If a homosexual adopts your philosophy, do they become aware that they can't have a role in our transcendence because their existence runs contrary to it?

[Opus131]

Not homosexuals, but homosexuality. You are still making the same fallacy.

As for the role those people have in man's spiritual journey, the answer is that they have none, qua homosexuals. You talk about their "needs" but that sounds dangerously close to argue that the human ego has greater rights than the truth. I mean, what about the needs of someone like that guy who thinks he is a six year old girl? What about the "needs" of pedophiles, or murderers? Where do you draw the line?

Okay. So why should we strive to mirror higher cosmic reality?

Because there is no other reality, our world being mostly an illusion, and because unification with the divine is our final destiny. Anyone who isn't a monster already has a desire to seek some form of transcendence or meaning out of life so that's a pretty weird question to begin with.

[Mischief Maker]

Okay, I'm sick of dealing with Hillarybots. Let's talk evolution.

First let's review evolution basics. The process of evolution is twofold: Random mutation AND environmental adaptation (natural selection). You cannot have evolution from random mutation alone. If you would like to learn more the best place to start is by reading The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin for free off Project Gutenberg.

Well, here's something for you to start with:

http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewp ... oddart.pdf

I'm throwing you a bone with this because i don't really find a lot of those points to be necessary.

That's okay, I'll knock down all six anyway:

(1) Logical The greater cannot come from the lesser. (A biological example: The acorn gives rise to the oak-tree precisely because it already “is” an oak-tree. The acorn is not some nondescript “unicellular organ” or an ameba.)

The "greater" in terms of the biosphere is the sun (and in some places the Earth's radioactive core) whose rays are harnessed by life forms of lesser energy such as photosynthetic oak trees.

(The theory of evolution does not propose creation of entirely different species (let alone phyla) in a single generation, as the author's biological example seems to imply.)

Also they're spelled "organism" and "amoeba."

(2) Physical (entropy; the second law of thermodynamics) Complexity tends towards degradation. Systems naturally move to a greater degree of randomness. Things run down, not up; they proceed from a state of order to a state of disorder. Order does not emerge from disorder (or organization from disorganization). Order is conferred on disorder by the input of “information” (“intelligence”), and cannot arise by chance. “Intelligence” is not the product of disorder! Nothing has ever been known to contravene this law, but the evolutionary hypothesis contradicts it.

The sun is moving from a state of higher order to lesser order as it breaks down its component matter and dissipates energy and matter into the surrounding universe. That this dissipated energy fuels the process of photosynthesis on Earth (building more highly ordered glucose molecules from disordered carbon dioxide molecules) does not break the second law of thermodynamics because the overall entropy of the Solar System is increased.

(3) Biological (the stability of species) There is no conclusive evidence that one species ever changed into another. (If there were, evolutionists would trumpet it from the house-tops!) “Parents” have never been known to give rise to other than their own kind. (There is evidence only for intraspecific variation, not for the formation of new—and self-reproducing—species.) This is because of the fundamental “stability” of species. A species is a Platonic archetype. Evolutionists try to “blur” this as much as possible; some even deny the reality of species.

Actually there is conclusive evidence of one species changing into another all over the fossil record and every day new fossils are uncovered that fill in new gaps in the evolutionary history of various species.

The theory of evolution posits species change from the gradual accumulation of novel traits in different environments over a process of millions of generations, not a single generation. That's a strawman argument.

(4) Statistical (not enough time) Evolution requires that there should have been a spontaneous generation of life, but the simplest of living cells is so complex that the probabilities of its coming into existence by chance cannot be expressed in meaningful figures. No matter how much one extends—on a realistic basis—the time-scale envisaged, it is statistically impossible for the generation of life, and for evolution, to have taken place by chance in the time available.

(The rather fantastical theory that life “may have come from outer space” merely sets the problem one stage further back; it does not solve it.)

The original chemical event of life is outside the scope of the theory of evolution and not necessary to its function. If you like, you could take the Deist view of God the Clockmaker who set the chemical and energetic process in motion then let it perpetuate on its own without any harm to the theory of evolution. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God, merely the necessity of God's intervention.

(5) Teleological (the argument from design) “It is impossible that blind, deaf, and dumb evolution could have given rise to eye, ear, and voice.” “The miracle of consciousness did not arise from a heap of pebbles.”

Now clearly the author of this document did not do his homework because there is an entire chapter of The Origin of Species that discusses the gradual development of the human eye titled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication." To quickly sum it up, a patch of photosensitive pigment gives a survival advantage, pigments attached to an overall nerve give a greater advantage, pigment covered by a translucent glob of tissue to magnify the light gives an even greater advantage, and so on.

What's more, if you want to look for perfection in the human body, don't look at the eye, because we have a blind spot where the optic nerve penetrates the retina before branching outward in front of it. In comparison, squids have similar eyes, but their optic nerve branches out behind the retina and they have no blind spot. Either God fucked up, squids are greater than humans, or it's the messy result of random mutations being selected for in different environments over the course of eons.

(6) Philosophical (the relativist pitfall) The evolutionist hypothesis is fatally impaired by the well-known contradiction of relativism, often demonstrated by means of the statement “All men are liars.” (If they are, then this statement, also made by a man, is false.) Specifically, in the present case: man, who is said to be evolving (and is therefore relative), cannot all of a sudden step out of the evolutionary process, take up a stationary position, and dare to make absolute statements regarding the continuing process. It is this that is absurd.

Okay, the entire method of science is about removing relativism from observation. The simplest example would be measuring the length of something using a ruler instead of eyeballing it and making a guess on your own. Same thing with double-blind studies and a variety of other methodologies used by scientists throughout history.

Now back to you:

It is sufficient for me to say that the "greater cannot come from the lesser", from a metaphysical rather than strictly logical point of view. That is, it is not possible that Bach (or the miracle of consciousness and human intelligence for that matter) could have rose out of an ape. Rather, there is an ultimate reality from which every relative and "lesser" thing descends from in various hierarchical stages, which was known in antiquity as the "great chain of Being".

The problem I have here is that you're using adjectives (greater and lesser) without stating the noun they're supposed to modify.

If you're saying that animals cannot comprehend music, I give you this video of a wolf pack howling. The thing to note is that the wolves harmonize their shared howl.

If you're saying that ape intelligence could not gradually over the course of generations come to comprehend human subjects I offer you this video of Bonobo Chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative, engaging in everything from creating stone tools, to building a fire, to playing Ms. Pac-Man (and comprehending the difference between when to avoid the ghosts and when to chase them down).

And if you're saying that humans represent some unreachable level of greatness over apes just because it's what you feel in your heart, then you're walking into the jaws of point 6 in your paper, the relativist pitfall. What's more you lack the means of objective measure beyond yourself demanded by science in order to climb your way out.

I'm reminded of a quote from the late great Douglas Adams making a parable about a sentient puddle:

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

[Giest118]

Not homosexuals, but homosexuality. You are still making the same fallacy.

Homosexuality doesn't exist without homosexuals, so...

As for the role those people have in man's spiritual journey, the answer is that they have none, qua homosexuals.

So the cosmos creates souls, and then it forces those souls to occupy bodies that make them homosexual, and then abandons them to a fate of being perpetually second-class with no hope of transcendence. This sort of sounds evil. This sounds like your cause is evil.

I mean, come on, man. At least Christians have the good sense to chalk this stuff up to demonic influence that we're supposed to resist.

You talk about their "needs" but that sounds dangerously close to argue that the human ego has greater rights than the truth.

Heheheh, I'll get back to this one.

I mean, what about the needs of someone like that guy who thinks he is a six year old girl? What about the "needs" of pedophiles, or murderers? Where do you draw the line?

Damn, you're right. A middle ground is fundamentally unachievable. It can't happen. Ever.

The United States gave homosexual couples the right to marry. They didn't then immediately make it legal to rape a baby in the face. They also are never going to. There you go.

Because there is no other reality, our world being mostly an illusion, and because unification with the divine is our final destiny. Anyone who isn't a monster already has a desire to seek some form of transcendence or meaning out of life so that's a pretty weird question to begin with.

There you go elevating your opinions to divine status again. What was that you were you saying about human ego having greater rights than the truth? Pot, meet kettle.

[Squire Grooktook]

So the cosmos creates souls, and then it forces those souls to occupy bodies that make them homosexual, and then abandons them to a fate of being perpetually second-class with no hope of transcendence. This sort of sounds evil. This sounds like your cause is evil.

I mean, come on, man. At least Christians have the good sense to chalk this stuff up to demonic influence that we're supposed to resist.

I'll be nice and give Opus his due here.

I think what he meant is that homosexuals can still go to heaven (transcendence), but homosexuality is just an ephemeral birth defect that would not be practiced in an ideal world, making way for the divinely approved heterosexual relationships. I'm guessing he believes that homosexuals would be "cured" in heaven.

Of course, I still disagree with this. For similar reasons as the "all art is subjective" position: all that ultimately matters is love. If two people love eachother, then their relationship (whether sexual or not) is just as valid as any other. The only advantage of a heterosexual relationship is the ability to produce children, and perhaps the natural pragmatic benefits that men and women can offer eachother (ie the whole hunter/gatherer thing, in archaic terms). But if individuals are geared towards their own sex, then that's just the way they are and their relationship wouldn't be null in an "ideal" world.

Again, not going to debate anyone on this, just clarifying my position vs what I believe he's stated his as.

[Giest118]

I think what he meant is that homosexuals can still go to heaven (transcendence), but homosexuality is just an ephemeral birth defect that would not be practiced in an ideal world, making way for the divinely approved heterosexual relationships. I'm guessing he believes that homosexuals would be "cured" in heaven.

Man. Divine forces sure are arbitrary with how far their reach goes for the purposes of curing people of obvious shit.

[Ceph]

@Mischief Maker
Just so we are clear, of course I meant the drivel of Opus131 (and his ilk).
Why even take the time to reply? Whoever believes that fundamental forces of nature like gravity, electromagnetism or evolution don't exist obviously lacks basic knowledge of our universe and won't be able to comprehend your reply anyway. It's like trying to explain how a toaster works to a slice of bread.
If this were not the case, they would have accessed the necessary information (available out there for free! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) and altered their views accordingly long ago.

[Strider77]

This thread has gotten really weird...

[Mischief Maker]

@Mischief Maker
Just so we are clear, of course I meant the drivel of Opus131 (and his ilk).
Why even take the time to reply? Whoever believes that fundamental forces of nature like gravity, electromagnetism or evolution don't exist obviously lacks basic knowledge of our universe and won't be able to comprehend your reply anyway. It's like trying to explain how a toaster works to a slice of bread.
If this were not the case, they would have accessed the necessary information (available out there for free! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) and altered their views accordingly long ago.

As I said in the post, I was getting sick of smug condescension from Hillarybots on other forums and needed a little pick me up. Stomping a creationist was just the pick me up I needed, that's why I was being smug and took down all six arguments instead of just the one Opus leaned on. If he reads my post and has his horizons expanded, that would be a great bonus, but it wasn't my primary goal in making it.

Consider it the intellectual equivalent of a pretty girl who's feeling down so she dresses to the nines and goes to a bar and spends all night being hit on by men she has no intention of sleeping with for the ego boost. BOOM! And we're back to gamergate territory.

[Opus131]

There are creationists here? Where?

And i don't know whether throwing "muh science" at me constitutes a "stomping". This is like me arguing that atonal music is not really music and someone going over the specifics of Schoenberg's methodology as if any of that was at all pertinent to the question.

I mean, that you have not really understood what the main argument is can be fully seen by your inability to grasp what is meant by "greater" or "lesser". I'm not even going to talk about your ludicrous suggestion that the howling of wolves is even remotely in the same category as the genius of a Bach. This level of idiocy just beggars belief.

[Bananamatic]

Stomping a creationist was just the pick me up I needed, that's why I was being smug and took down all six arguments instead of just the one Opus leaned on.

[Giest118]

One night, Joseph dreamt.

He dreamt of the stars.

He dreamt of the galaxy.

He dreamt of the cosmos.

He dreamt of the ageless universe.

And he dreamt that he stood at the gates of the radiant palace that oversaw it all.

He knew what his presence here indicated. To dream of this place was to be invited within. The gates opened to allow him forth, and forth he went. He took care to avoid gazing directly at his surroundings; their full majesty would overwhelm his sense of things, tainting his ability to ever appreciate beauty lesser than this hallowed place again. But even as he avoided gazing at it, Joseph felt the platinum radiance of the walls, he heard the harmonious choir of the glass, and he smelled the rich aroma of the Palace of Yahweh.

Yahweh is the one who made his home in this place. Or more accurately, this was the only place in all of existence in which Yahweh deigned to incur into our meager reality. And even then, he picked a location that could only be visited in dreams, and only the dreams of those he deemed as worthy of his wisdom.

Joseph stepped into Yahweh's throne room, and once again, took care not to let his eyes wander. To so much as look at Yahweh's non-euclidian brilliance was to invite annihilation as his beauty would savage one's eyes and obliterate one's mortal brain, as humans were insufficient to comprehend true perfection.

And then, Joseph waited for Yahweh's words. He waited quite a while. He dared not speak to prompt Yahweh's words forth; this encounter was to proceed at Yahweh's pace, and his alone.

And then, after a time, Yahweh spoke. "Joseph."

Joseph remained silent, but kept his ears attentive. Speaking to Yahweh in any capacity was unforgivable; no form of address was sufficient for a being of His caliber. And besides, Joseph's attention was known by Yahweh, who was omniscient. His mind was known by Yahweh, who processed thought at infinite speed, and who understood all things, at all times. The words Yahweh spoke were pefect, as they were the result of literally infinite wisdom contemplating wisdom for infinite time.

"I have wisdom to pass down to humanity," Yahweh said.

Joseph's attention grew ever greater. He would never quite get used to being honored with wisdom directly from the Lord of All Things himself.

"The wisdom is this," Yahweh said, as His voice darkened severely, and the atmosphere of the cosmos became heavy.

"Gay people are icky," Yahweh said.

The wisdom ushered forth from his visage like a tidal wave; Joseph's eyes widened, and his heart began palpitating. He felt a heavy pressure in his chest, where Yahweh's perfect wisdom weighed outward directly from his heart.

"I mean seriously," Yahweh went on. "Just think about it. It's a dude, and another dude, and they're both kissing. What the fuck, right?"

Tears ushered forth from Joseph's eyes, and his body convulsed, his insufficient human body incapable of taking in such breathtakingly perfect wisdom.

"And like... when they touch their thingies? What is even the appeal? That shit is whack, yo," Yahweh said.

Joseph fell to the floor in blissful agony, his body no longer responding to his will. His entire being submitted to Yahweh's wisdom.

"And don't even get me started on the butt stuff!" Yahweh continued. "I mean, let's just ignore the fact that you can't make babies that way? That poopy shit is just gross."

Tears of blood ushered forth from Joseph's eyes, the sheer volume of this cosmic intelligence overwhelming his feeble human mind. It was too big for his soul, and it wanted out.

"Anyway, uh, that was it," Yahweh said. "You can wake up now."

And then Joseph woke up in a cold sweat, his heart beating faster than it ever had before.

Joseph needed to tell people. With the wisdom he had just acquired, he could lead humanity to greater perfection. Literally everyone would become Beethoven. All of them would become Beethoven. All of the Beethovens. All of them.

[Blinge]

There are creationists here? Where?

And i don't know whether throwing "muh science" at me constitutes a "stomping". This is like me arguing that atonal music is not really music and someone going over the specifics of Schoenberg's methodology as if any of that was at all pertinent to the question.

Dear Opus: https://youtu.be/N3ed_k5XFv8

[Opus131]

There are creationists here? Where?

And i don't know whether throwing "muh science" at me constitutes a "stomping". This is like me arguing that atonal music is not really music and someone going over the specifics of Schoenberg's methodology as if any of that was at all pertinent to the question.

Dear Opus: https://youtu.be/N3ed_k5XFv8

Never!

Here's most stuff for our resident biologist to stomp:

http://www.frithjof-schuon.com/evolution-engl.htm

[Mischief Maker]

I love the fact that you're using an electronic microprocessor-controlled device to engage in near-instantaneous communication with people on the opposite side of the planet to say:

muh science

I mean, that you have not really understood what the main argument is can be fully seen by your inability to grasp what is meant by "greater" or "lesser".

Well look, you presented that six-point paper, I answered all six criticisms with the same kind of reasoning that it presented. Dude attempted to use the laws of thermodynamics to prove his point, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to explain the flaws in his argument in the context of thermodynamics.

Yes I understand that you feel God is the encapsulation of all things and your use of "greater" paradoxically means "closer to the infinite." What I meant by the question is how do you determine the closeness of something to God? What quality makes Mozart closer to the infinite than Salieri? And if the answer lies "in your heart" then I must again say you've fallen into the philosophical pitfall of relativism cited in point 6 of your paper.

Throughout history philosophers have come up with many beautiful conceptions of the nature of the universe that stirred the soul, but upon serious examination have been disproven by rigorous analysis, even to the emotional dismay of the philosophers themselves. Shades of your realism, they say Pythagoras murdered a man because he believed in a universe of rational numbers, that numbers were a universal absolute rather than a relative symbol. This could be borne out with 90 degree triangles so long as they were not square triangles. If you had a 1 by 1 square triangle, a squared plus b squared equals 2, so the length of c is the square root of two. Being an irrational number, the square root of two can not be broken down into its component "things" and flew in the face of his beautiful philosophy of the nature of the universe. So he killed the guy for not keeping this contradiction quiet.

Are you afraid to define the measure of "greater" and "lesser" because you fear having your own model of the universe come tumbling down, as it did for Pythagoras?

[Opus131]

What I meant by the question is how do you determine the closeness of something to God? What quality makes Mozart closer to the infinite than Salieri?

Well, if you have to ask, i'd have to question your intelligence. Mozart is quite clearly greater than Salieri, and to me the paltry talent of Salieri is a degradation or a falsification of the genius of Mozart, which in its turn is a falsification of an even higher divine reality. The idea of the other way around being true, that from the ability to play Pac-Man a low intelligence could slowly produce genius out of thin air is nonsensical.

Fair enough that i shouldn't have brought science into this, since my objection to evolution is not based on any particular scientific question, least of all stuff like the law of thermodynamics, which appear to be an hot topic in this debate between scientists and creationists (and i repeat that i'm not a creationist):

https://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.php

Since i'm allergic to TL;DR i'm not going to get into this crap. I'll just address a few points in your original reply and focus to what i feel is more pertinent to my own perspective:

The "greater" in terms of the biosphere is the sun (and in some places the Earth's radioactive core) whose rays are harnessed by life forms of lesser energy such as photosynthetic oak trees.

I'm not seeing how this shows that the "greater" can come from the lesser. Would you mind explain how this works? So the sun (which is "greater" under some unspecified metric) produces rays which are harnessed by life forms of "lesser energy" (whatever that means), and this proves the logical principle in question is invalid how?

(The theory of evolution does not propose creation of entirely different species (let alone phyla) in a single generation, as the author's biological example seems to imply.)

Except the example in question implies nothing of the like. To the contrary, the author is trying to reject a common argument used to refute the idea that the greater can come from the lesser, by pointing to the fact the acorn and the oak-tree are different stages of the same organism (or the same form) and not two distinct species, one being greater than the other. If that wasn't the case we would call the acorn growing into an oak-tree and the oak-tree in its turn producing acorns to be an example of evolution, which is clearly absurd.

Also they're spelled "organism" and "amoeba."

Those are errors in the digital transcription.

The theory of evolution posits species change from the gradual accumulation of novel traits in different environments over a process of millions of generations, not a single generation.

Chesterton provided a very humorous refutation of this explanation:

But this notion of something smooth and slow like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion. It is an illogically as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny. The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation. Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided or even mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things. There will be something to be said upon particular examples elsewhere; the question here is the false atmosphere of facility and ease given by the mere suggestion of going slow; the sort of comfort that might be given to a nervous old woman traveling for the first time in a motor-car.

I don't see how the "slowness" of the process makes the impossibility of the process possible. It seems that on some level you have to explain that the process isn't in fact impossible (to wit: by denying there even is such a thing as a species, just a sort of biological continuum where every line of demarcation is purely arbitrary).

The original chemical event of life is outside the scope of the theory of evolution and not necessary to its function. If you like, you could take the Deist view of God the Clockmaker who set the chemical and energetic process in motion then let it perpetuate on its own without any harm to the theory of evolution. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God, merely the necessity of God's intervention.

As an emanationist, i do not subscribe to any deist or "clockmaker" theory of creation.

Okay, the entire method of science is about removing relativism from observation. The simplest example would be measuring the length of something using a ruler instead of eyeballing it and making a guess on your own. Same thing with double-blind studies and a variety of other methodologies used by scientists throughout history.

You are not answering the actual point here. How do you, a creature of flux, get to determine, in an absolute faction, that you are a mere stage in an ongoing development, or determine anything whatsoever for that matter?

[trap15]

Literally dog breeding alone proves evolution, dude.

[Opus131]

Throughout history philosophers have come up with many beautiful conceptions of the nature of the universe that stirred the soul, but upon serious examination have been disproven by rigorous analysis

Have they? I was raised on your world view and nothing ever made any fucking sense but the second i turned to the ancients for guidance everything fell into place in an instant. I spent my entire teen age years trying to figure out how it was possible for the universe to pop out of nothing, or how it was possible for an unconscious chemical soup to produce consciousness. Than i read Plato and suddenly i realize that a universe cannot in fact pop out of nothing, and that consciousness does not come out of unconsciousness.

Science seems to be good for one thing only, and that is to produce technology, the usefulness of which is rather questionable to me. In every other respect, science doesn't explain a damn thing, it just seems perpetually stuck in trying to prove the impossible using every means imaginable.

[Opus131]

Literally dog breeding alone proves evolution, dude.

Can you "breed" a rabbit out of a dog?

[Giest118]

Can you "breed" a rabbit out of a dog?

See, this is why I said you should read about what evolution actually is, because you keep arguing against some other, much more retarded concept.

[Opus131]

Can you "breed" a rabbit out of a dog?

See, this is why I said you should read about what evolution actually is, because you keep arguing against some other, much more retarded concept.

I'm arguing against what evolution actually is, and animal breeding is not it.

Moar anti-evolution material:

http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewp ... O_Bakr.pdf

[Giest118]

Your understanding of evolution is that it indicates that some ants can fuck and produce a whale. The empirical data suggests that you don't know what evolution is.

I mean, you're the one who asked:

Can you "breed" a rabbit out of a dog?