In article <476760ce@news.povray.org>, nek### [at] gmailcom says...
> 
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.21ce122bcb8826ec98a0c8@news.povray.org...
> In article <476422c9$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> > Nekar Xenos wrote:
> > >> So, when God told Moses to commit genocide, killing everyone in an
 
> > >> entire
> > >> city except the virgin girls, which he should rape, that was by 
> > >> definition
> > >> good?
> >
> > > In that age every society/race/group had to fight to survive. A lot l
ike 
> > > the
> > > Darwinists'"Survival of the fittest". It was not just the jews that
> > > destroyed whole cities, lots of other groups did exactly the same thi
ng.
> >
> > So I take that to mean your answer is "Yes, God told Moses to commit
> > genocide, and it was good."
> > >
> >You missed, or just failed to point out, that there is a difference
> 
> My appologies to the Darwinist for my incorrect assumptions.
> 
Ok, then how about another one, since we made such progress in fixing 
your incorrect assumptions... Darwinist implies we look up to Darwin as 
some sort of unshakable leader. That is why some groups where called 
Stalinists, Moaists, etc. Because those people defined an ideology and 
dogma, which they insisted was 100% right, and denied all possible 
modifications to it. No scientist *any place* calls themselves a 
Darwinist. It would make about as much sense as calling oneself a 
Newtonist, a Galeleoist, or a Mendelist. Darwin was about 30% right. He 
was also 40% wrong, and completely failed to even imagine the other 25%
+- that we now know. There is probably about 5% that we are still not 
sure of, but its mostly arguments over how big a factor certain types of 
evolution are in the over all picture, and an incomplete understanding 
of all of the interactions between DNA and RNA, which is both a result 
of not knowing what some genes do, and not knowing 100% of all of the 
rules that make them do those things. He isn't revered as some sort of 
prophet, no one builds alters to him, and while his books and work is an 
interesting starting point, no real scientist would treat it as anything 
"but" a starting point.

By comparison, Lemark, who ID is ironically both constantly whining 
about, and claiming was Darwin's, while at the same time hailing as the 
central theme of their entire world view (the idea that species have a 
destiny and some force is "guiding" them there), was 95% **wrong**. The 
only thing he sort of got right is that there may be some limited cases 
where mechanisms can react to environmental changes, by selecting for 
*existing* traits. But, the key factor in that is "existing". Lemark 
thought that, among other things, species just magically develop a 
trait, because they need it. I.e., that if suddenly humans need to fly, 
we would just spontaneously grow wings. If a species **at one time** had 
wings, then those traits might reappear, if relatively undamaged, maybe, 
due to pressure that make them useful again. For anything else, they 
have to go through the *entire* process of primitive gliding, then sort 
of, but not quite, flying, then flying for real, etc. There is no magic, 
"Poof! Let there be wings!", like Lemark thought would happen.

Point is, there are no "Darwinists". Its a word made up by people that 
don't have the first bloody clue what they are talking about, to make it 
seem like evolutionary theory hasn't changed at all in 150 years, and 
which they *constantly* confuse with everything from eugenics (which 
existed *before* Darwin, and fundamentally misunderstands it), to 
Lemarkian theories, to several dozen other alternatives. There is a 
term, "Darwinian", which means, "Derived from Darwin". "Darwinist" 
implies, "Entirely based on, and identical to Darwin's views". Evolution 
hasn't been identical to Darwin's views since about a month after other 
people got a hold of it and started pointing out where he made mistakes. 
Today, claiming that anyone follows his views in any significant 
fashion, is about as dishonest, or clueless, as claiming that electric 
car manufacturers are basing their designs and theories on Greek 
hydrolic and steam systems. I am sure the air conditioning system in 
such a vehicle probably still uses "some" things that they did, but the 
rest of it bears no resemblance what so ever.

That you fail to grasp, understand, and/or acknowledge this, is 
precisely why you don't comprehend the theory at all, and why you keep 
making lame insults (which don't mean anything), misrepresenting facts 
(since you don't know any to present them right), and making statements 
about the subject that only make sense in the company of other people 
that have a total and complete lack of comprehensions of the subject.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message