It just annoys me someone can be so dense. Not so much about his beliefs, but the conspiracy theories... But oh well :P

Julkhorn, you are being dense, all that happened here was really a debate between me and Arun for a bit, and everyone else spouting their opinions. Including that Illuminati/Freemason conspiracy theorist by the name of kleiner.
All I'm saying here is that Julkhorn, dont put this up for a healthy debate if your views are immobile.

julkorn, i disagree. i want you to post more of your incomprehensible rants, and on new topics. and a link to your blog if you have one. please continue to post your unfiltered thoughts, thank you.

Arun, I spoke figuratively.

You might translate my figurative words into the dry and scientific correct explanation one to one at any given time, that you gave there. Did you really not understand that? Maybe you did not. Okay. You see, it is just easier this way and I can snicker a bit to myself. So you could just let me have my fun.

And if you got the meaning of my figurative text, then the problem I am seeing is not abortion, the >technology<, which you are aiming at, but it is abortion, the >principle<, which is the willing ease of killing our offspring. And I did compare this to getting booted after so much preparation, if Evolution got anything to do with it. Because we do JUMP to the option of abortion, which is NOT a technological one, but rather a societal allowing of doing so.

The steam valve has been opened, is all.

The meaning of this is, that we >want< abortion, even if it would not be allowed or technologically possible. And this >want< is my point I am aiming at. We would simply not >want<, no matter any technology, because offspring is the only one currency Evolution knows, right?

And again, the explanation that we somehow got not enough resources for so many children cannot be correct. The current western world is the richest society ever. This must be wrong. If we would be a result of Evolution we would not stop now nor would we got this hard-wired >want< to kill our offspring in order to even further our already overly rich and wealthy situation. Therefore, there is no Selfish Gene. There is a Selfish Self, now unshackled by morals. That is the explanation I am seeing, which is actually rather obvious.

But it's okay. I can plainly see that I ran aground. The answers are just from the shelf. No thinking involved. I am immobile? Well, at least I was able to think out of the box. You could give me that. Nice, that I did amuse you finally, X. There is one achievement.

People do not want to kill offspring. They want to avoid the offspring existing. Abortion is one of many ways this is achieved. We don't want abortion because we can't afford it! The west is richest, but that doesn't mean we can afford to have 10 kids. The only people in Britain you see with many children live in squalor. The rest has been said before.

Your reasoning is off, your psychoanalysis needs fine tuning. Consult Dr. Ozymandias melancholia for advice.

These are indeed important questions, whether or not I can answer them. But first I must say that before my rectorate I was in no way politically active. During the winter semester of 1932-33 I was on leave and spent most of the time in my mountain hut.

In December, 1932, my neighbor, Professor (of Anatomy) von Möllendorf, was chosen Rector. The installation of the new Rector here takes place on April 15. During the winter semester of 1932-33, we discussed the current situation often, not only the political one, but especially that of the universities and the partially hopeless situation of the students. My judgment went like this: to the extent that I can judge things, the only possibility still available to us is to try to seize upon the approaching developments with those constructive forces that still remain alive.

To be sure, I did follow the political events of January-March, 1933, and also spoke about them from time to time with younger colleagues. My own work, however, was concerned with a more comprehensive interpretation of pre-Socratic thought. With the beginning of the summer semester I returned to Freiburg. Meanwhile, Professor von Möllendorf had assumed the office as Rector on April 16. Hardly two weeks later he was removed from office by the then Minister of Culture of Baden. What presumably gave the desired occasion for this decision of the Minister was the fact that the Rector had forbidden the so-called "Jewish poster" to be displayed in the University.

On the second day after I took office the "Student Leader" and two companions appeared at my door and demanded once more that the "Jewish poster" be displayed. I refused. The three students left with the remark that my prohibition would be made known to the Student Leadership Division of the government. Several days later a telephone call came from Dr. Baumann, S.A. Group Leader in the office of Higher Education of the Supreme S.A. Command. He demanded the hanging of the poster in question, as this already had been done in other universities. Should I refuse, I could expect my own dismissal, if not, indeed, the closure of the University. I tried to gain the support of the Minister of Culture of Baden for my prohibition. He explained that he could do nothing against the S.A. Nonetheless, I did not retract my prohibition.

The motive that above all determined me to take over the rectorate was mentioned already in my inaugural lecture at Freiburg in 1929, "What is Metaphysics?" The fields of sciences lie far apart. The manner of handling their objects is essentially different. This disintegrated multiplicity of disciplines is held together today only through the technical organization of universities and faculties, and through the practical direction of the disciplines according to a single orientation. At the same time, the rooting of the sciences in their essential ground has become dead." What I attempted to do during my administration, in view of this condition of the universities -- in our own day degenerated to the extreme -- is laid out in my rectoral address.

Right. I got one remaining question. You mentioned Behe. Which of his irreducible systems did they piece together gradually? This is interesting me, because I like such logic puzzling. And I did not follow the whole issue for some years now. I would enjoy seeing some sparkling of intellect there. And piecing together step by step an irreducible system with the necessary condition that each step does have a function of their own is nice work, indeed.

http://www.pdcnet.org/collection/show?id=faithphil_2002_0019_0001_0003_0021&file_type=pdf

glhf

Viable pathways have been generated for flagellums, blood clotting, and the immune systems - Behe's three chief examples. This immediately means they are not IC. Eight years ago, some scientists from Oregon replicated ancient DNA, and reconstructed the evolution of a supposedly IC molecular system. Computers armed with genetic algorithms often produce random seeming IC structures. Wikipedia likens it to the forming if a rock arch; where the unnecessary parts 'erode' away, leaving behind an IC structure.

Okay I will check the sources. This is interesting. But you quoted from Wikipedia. This is lax. Did you check the sources yourself or did you just believe?

Let me have an anewed try at spelling my point:

It does not matter if I call it "we do not want offspring" or you call it "we avoid offspring". That is still one and the same. Lets not fight over words. And please just suffer, if I use figurative words. Like I said that is just my style. I really do know the underlying dry stuff, okay? You do not have to recite it. Save your keys, so to say. Which is taken from >save your breath< and taking into account that you are not actually talking, but typing on your keyboard. Got it? Haha. I just like such newly coined terms and such, you know. And sorry, if this is too much information, but I feel like inserting commentaries now, because you guys beat me to it.

Now the commentary for my last posts, solving the riddle that are my words, seemingly:

You claim that Evolution does over-ride our partner-choice, made us self-aware and so on. These are really higher conditions for getting offspring than the condition of >not avoiding offspring<. Okay? Evolving to >not avoid offspring< is a more basic condition. Because offspring is the one currency Evolution does know, right? Evolution does not know our money. Right. I do agree. BUT evolution does know a currency which is offspring. And again all of this like >evolution knows< and >currency< is figurative, of course. You might just explain it in dry scientific language. In effect the result of my words and your scientifically correct explanation would be just the same [result]. I just dont like to go at these lengths.
So. >Not avoiding offspring< is the most basic condition so to say or rather in other words it is a condition which does dominate partner-choice - obviously, or should I explain? - and all that we mentioned like feeling beauty and so on which are actually secondary to the conditon of >not avoiding offspring< (your words here, I use them, you see). All of these preparations in furthering our offspring and even making sure of good genes in offspring is secondary to >not avoiding offspring<. If Evolution - meaning the scientifically correct explained process of selection, as always when referring to "Evolution" - did not insert into us that we do >not avoid offspring< just as your words were, then this basic condition is not met and Evolution got booted, so to say. Obviously. Right there. At hand.
Of course, saying "Evolution got booted", is figurative again and means that I am referring to a Warlight game where >not getting booted< is a basic condition that should be met prior to anything else. And if you dont meet this condition than all your other preparation are for naught. Likened to Evolution this means over-riding partner-choice is for naught, if we like to >avoid offspring<. Simple. And this is not about a technology. Really. Not.

This was a commentary to my former posts. Now a new thought:

I can turn your whole line of argument against you there. You say that genetics are too slow and could not foresee technology? Right. I turn it around and tell you, genes could not foresee our current situation of wealth and richness and technology which means we should be still having 10 children like we did a hundred years ago, IF that was caused by genes in the first place.

My conclusion from both these lines of thought is: Evolution got nothing to do with it. My first point: Evolution - if there was an evolutionary process coining our behaviour and over-riding our cognitive choices - would have met the basic condition that we do >not avoid offspring<. The second point is: You cannot take in account our current situation at all for any evolutionary reasoning in us >avoiding offspring<. Because simply, it would not show in our genes. Just as you said.

And this simply means, that us being able to >avoid offspring< disproves us being a result of evolution. Because simply: Us >avoiding off spring< now, means that we always wanted to >avoid offspring< if possible. And this is a funny fact, isn't it? Do you see its repercussions?

Actually this means that us >avoiding offspring< simply cannot be explained by us being the result of an evolutionary process of selection via survival=offspring. BUT it can be explained by Biblical teaching. As can the fact that we are jumping to Evolution Theory as a means to kill god, by the way. And all other human behaviour, mind you.

OR of course, you could take the route of Sze and all the others in their first and only posts telling me that all of this like "partner-choice being defined by an evolutionary process" and our "sense of beauty as a result of an evolutionary process" is just nonsense and just does not come near to the utter complexity of the process, that evolution really is.

Well, you see, I wanted to have this discussion to have my thoughts tested, if there was a flaw. So please refrain from insulting me and try to understand where I am aiming at and where the flaw in my reasoning is. I could liken Warlight to a good discussion. At this point I am seeing you playing Blockade Cards all over. Everywhere. There is a point in you having just one blockade card, mind you.

Edited 4/21/2014 13:38:20

Okay I read this source as "pars pro toto" about the bacterial flagellum:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

It is just like I said before. They claimed irreducibility refuted by showing that a part of the whole machinery does exist somewhere else.

This is like claiming that the Otto-Motor is not irreducible complex by showing that the screws or the valves or the cylinders are used in other machinery.

This is basically stating: "Evolution is a fact. It did happen somehow. Therefore, there is no irreducibility."

Because their reasoning explaining the process of evolving an irreducible complex flagellum goes as this:

1. We got a part of the flagellum somewhere. [proven]
2. Then parts are shuffled. [Black Box]
3. Then parts fit somehow together in one huge leap - overleaping the irreducibility - for a certain function like the flagellum. [Black Box]
4. Then the so leaped together flagellum has redundant function for propulsion (because propulsion is vital so there must have been another mechanism for propulsion) [Black Box]
5. Then the better funtioning apparatus, the flagellum, remains, [Black Box]
6. likened to the rock arch. [actually seen and therefore proven]

Behe called his book "Darwin's Black Box". Isn't that a proper name? The Black Box remains, the Irreducibility remains.

They just say, "The irreducibility must have been leaped over, because we know that it must have happened somehow ." And this is it. I am not impressed. But Behe is refuted, right? This is SO cheap, I cannot say. No sparkling of intellect. Just dogma. And on goes the chanting "Evidence, Evidence, we got it". Okay. I am tired.

Edited 4/21/2014 14:34:38

Why are you still discussing this? Everyone knows the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything, including the concepts of evolution and the big bang. They are each bites of tasty spaghetti he feeds to the masses. Duh.

Julkorn by using figurative language, you oversimplify to the point of misunderstanding. You cannot be argued with because every time your arguement is beaten down, you repeat it using twice as many words. "Save your keys?" Jesus you generate more waffle than an American café at 10AM.

I admit that I am difficult to understand. And I agree that using figurative language got the flaw that there might be something incorrect under the surface. Well, okay. Lets leave it here, okay? Vote to end, so to say. ;)

Edited 4/21/2014 17:17:12

Hey, fascist moron, I've got a new one for ya. Gays can't reproduce. Therefore homosexuality disproves evolution! You can go share that with your friends at the westboro baptist church.

Guess Ricky Martin will be disappointed to find out the kids aren't actually his and that his wife is a cheating w***e. Well, that's life for ya.