Author Topic: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!  (Read 4132 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mhaberling

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +9/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I could write some personal text here...
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #58 on: December 29, 2012, 03:23:34 AM »
Was shin banned?

yes.  he was unable to behave like an adult.
Im going to miss his extensive collection of smileys...
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1936
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #59 on: December 29, 2012, 12:57:12 PM »
Hope you're having a good holiday break, mhaberling.

I asked you on another thread in this subforum if you would list what you found to be "unanswered questions" (apologies for paraphrasing) about evolution. Are you interested in continuing this discussion?

And if you really miss SHIN, you can probably find him at the Atheist Think Tank http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php or Is God Imaginary? http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php forums. I find him a relatively upbeat troll, but a troll; not interested in discussion / debate.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 01:03:28 PM by wright »
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline mhaberling

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Darwins +9/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I could write some personal text here...
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #60 on: January 02, 2013, 09:13:12 PM »
Hope you're having a good holiday break, mhaberling.

I asked you on another thread in this subforum if you would list what you found to be "unanswered questions" (apologies for paraphrasing) about evolution. Are you interested in continuing this discussion?

And if you really miss SHIN, you can probably find him at the Atheist Think Tank http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php or Is God Imaginary? http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php forums. I find him a relatively upbeat troll, but a troll; not interested in discussion / debate.
I'm going to be honest, I really don't want to discuss evolution at this time... My problems with evolution are pretty minor, I actually believe in the theory for the most part, and last time I tried to bring it up I felt like I was shoved into a creationist vs. evolutionist argument that I never really wanted.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1936
  • Darwins +83/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #61 on: January 02, 2013, 09:16:46 PM »
I'm going to be honest, I really don't want to discuss evolution at this time... My problems with evolution are pretty minor, I actually believe in the theory for the most part, and last time I tried to bring it up I felt like I was shoved into a creationist vs. evolutionist argument that I never really wanted.

Understood. I was just wondering if you cared to continue; if you don't, you don't.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1658
  • Darwins +66/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #62 on: January 03, 2013, 05:45:37 AM »
Wow. Just, wow. After reading Parking's answers I felt all extra-educated and smart-like, but then SHIN 'replied' and quite simply sucked my newly acquired IQ right outta my brain. So I'm back to square one I guess.

Curse you!

*shakes fist at SHIN*
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12548
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #63 on: January 03, 2013, 07:51:58 AM »
... I felt like I was shoved into a creationist vs. evolutionist argument that I never really wanted.

I hate when that happens.  For future reference, you can ask a moderator to get the discussion back on track if you feel things have gone awry.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #64 on: January 03, 2013, 09:59:22 PM »
the rabbit hole just got larger for shin.

Yeah, he has faith that he pulled a rabbit out of a hole in a Cambrian hat.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline Skinz

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm young, uneducated & raising kids. Fear.
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #65 on: January 03, 2013, 10:49:29 PM »
I know SHIN is a figment of the past now, but since this thread deals with evolution, I'll ask this here anyway.

Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos series, says "Evolution is a fact, not a theory. it really happens", citing the fossil record and artificial selection as his evidence.

Is this generally agreed? It has irked me for a while now that the fundamentalists stand up and says "Well, evolution is only a theory", wearing belts made of cowhide, cows being an animal that did not exist as they are until we selectively bred them. They bang on about "transitional fossils", which suggests to me they don't actually understand the process of mutation and preferential selection at all.

So, in closing, my question is this: Is evolution, in the wider scientific community (Don't care about the creationist point of view here), regarded as theory or fact?
"Science changes it's views based on what's observed; Religion ignores the facts so that faith may be preserved."

- Tim Minchin, Comedian.

Offline Garja

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
  • Darwins +38/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #66 on: January 03, 2013, 11:16:26 PM »
Good question.

to my knowledge, no respected scientist says "evolution didn't happen".  There is no "controversy" to be taught when you here some of these guys say this.

From talkorigins.org
Quote
    The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
        Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
        Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
        Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
        Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
    Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

    The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

    Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

    If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

    Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

Hope that helps
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

-Benjamin Franklin

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12548
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #67 on: January 04, 2013, 07:56:26 AM »
Is this generally agreed?

Only by those of us who are not idiots or have not been brainwashed by idiots.

It has irked me for a while now that the fundamentalists stand up and says "Well, evolution is only a theory", wearing belts made of cowhide, cows being an animal that did not exist as they are until we selectively bred them.

To them, that is an example of Intelligent Design and microevolution.  It shows that the process was guided by an intelligence with a purpose.  And it shows small changes in a species, not a new species.   Probably not the best example you could come up with.


They bang on about "transitional fossils", which suggests to me they don't actually understand the process of mutation and preferential selection at all.

95% of all conversations with creationists about evolution is spent trying (usually unsuccessfully) to correct their misconceptions about evolution.

Is evolution, in the wider scientific community (Don't care about the creationist point of view here), regarded as theory or fact?

Both.  It is as fact evolution happened.  The Theory of Evolution puts together the facts in a big, overarching explanation.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Skinz

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm young, uneducated & raising kids. Fear.
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #68 on: January 04, 2013, 09:12:15 AM »
So, fundamentally, it could be cleared up with a dictionary? Jesu.

Incedently, I never had any doubts of the fact of evolution.

Thanks for that guys :)

It seems to me that you could look at microevolution over the course of one hundred years and stretch your minds eye to encompass the myriad impetuses over a thousand, or a million, and see that evolution is, you know, sort of kind of plausible. I know that would be a foul debating point, begging the question and all, but far out.

"Science changes it's views based on what's observed; Religion ignores the facts so that faith may be preserved."

- Tim Minchin, Comedian.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #69 on: January 04, 2013, 10:26:32 AM »
The problem those fundamentalists have is that they've already 'overstretched' their minds with their imaginings about God.

Offline Seppuku

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3855
  • Darwins +125/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I am gay for Fred Phelps
    • Seppuku Arts
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #70 on: January 04, 2013, 11:15:18 AM »
With selective breeding, we demonstrate that genetic mutations can happen and can be controlled to keep certain features and leave out others - like the speed of a greyhound or the annoyance of a Chihuahua. Unfortunately, as Screwtape has said, it doesn't demonstrate the scope of evolution, but should at least make it easier to imagine.

However, I love using the lungfish example, because although it's a fish, it's almost amphibious in nature, creationists are always screaming about transitional species...though technically ALL living things and fossils are transitional (unless they're suddenly extinct and become the last species in their branch of the family tree). The lungfish at least demonstrates the advantage of evolution in process and how evolution helps species adapt to their environment. Basically it's a fish that can survive in and out of water as during dry seasons, they'll have to move on land to find new water sources.

But, the problem with any examples you may find to demonstrate evolution in action or anything to support it, people will then fall back on design. Instead of adapting to the environment, the lungfish didn't survive natural selection and evolve to their current state, they were designed that way, they were designed to survive the harshness of the dry seasons...even if geological records show it was not always that way, but then remember the world is only 6,000 years old and all our dating methods are a lie. Generally the issue is, people don't understand evolution, presume they do because they've heard a few things about it and maybe even read an article from a creationist source somewhere, but I don't think I've ever spoken to a creationist that actually understands it...leaving me to assume that people just think it's a load of codswallop because they're pumped full of misconceptions.
“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto Musashi
Warning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #71 on: January 04, 2013, 03:55:59 PM »
I think the best recent example of evolution at work is the rise in the tuskless elephant population. A study from 1930 showed the rate of elephants without tusks at only 1 or 2% of the population. Recent studies have it as high as 38%. As a result of rampant poaching, elephants with tusks are having fewer opportunities to mate while those that carry the rare (relatively speaking) tuskless mutation are thriving. The saddest part is that tusks had previously been a very useful mutation, aiding in self-defense, foraging, and sexual display, but now they are more harmful than beneficial.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Online kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1314
  • Darwins +425/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Where SHIN KAIRI explains why the theory of evolution sucks!
« Reply #72 on: January 05, 2013, 08:06:04 PM »
Well, this "SHIN" fellow has been properly banned, and the deceased equine of his "questions" has been more than sufficiently flagellated by by the others here.[1]  Nevertheless, in the event that any other theist might happen upon this thread having been taught that the approach SHIN uses is clever, I would like to bypass the questions and point out how the approach itself is utterly, contemptibly, fractally wrong.

First iteration:

3º Why women?

Wow, talk about rampant sexism on parade!  Translation: Men are clearly natural and make sense and can be taken as a given.  But...gurls?!  Obviously they're so freakish and inexplicable that only magic can explain their existence.  I mean...like, they have cooties and stuff, and I totally don't wanna let 'em in my treehouse.  My older brother actually has a girlfriend and he, like, hangs out with her and kisses her and stuff, and says...it...feels good...to have sex with her!  There ain't no way that shit can be natural, amirite dOOdz?!  An' he says that in a few years I'll probably like 'em too,[2] and since it'd be a miracle if I ever wanted to do anything with gurls but make 'em cry, therefore, God.  Awww yeah, victory dance!

As the Na'vi would put it: Christians, we see you.

OK, on to the next iteration.  The underlying premise of "questions" like this is that any unexplained mystery is proof of divine miracle, and therefore of the existence of [the particular theist's favorite] "God."  "Tides?  you can't explain that!  Evolution doesn't explain why the planets don't fall down!  Why do fools fall in love?  Gotcha!  Therefore, God exists!"  Well, by that logic, this:



...is proof that David Copperfield is God. 

Next iteration.  We're now moving beyond the ridiculous to the contemptible and disgusting, so hang on to your barf bags.  Notice that the purpose of these questions is not to identify mysteries and unknowns in order to prompt a process of inquiry.  People who use questions this way aren't interested in answers, exploration, or even in a sense of wonder in the presence of the unknown.  The "questions" are asked in the hope that the atheist won't be able to answer them, giving the theist the opportunity to say "Ha!  Therefore, Goddidit!"  That is not any kind of explanation; rather it is a rejection of the very concepts of explanation, inquiry, and understanding.  These questions aren't examples of curiosity, but anti-curiosity.  Their whole purpose is to try to justify not learning anything or trying to figure anything out.  This is ignorance as a willful, deliberately-chosen approach to life, with emphasis on the "ignore."

Next iteration:

5º Why is there right from wrong/good from evil?

6º Why emotions & consciousness/why didn't we remain like the animals(unable to choose right from wrong)?

7º Why ability to reproduce?
>snip<
21º How do you explain the Fibonacci sequence/the number "e" & the number Pi?

The implicit claim here is that these sorts of things could only exist if a magical king in the sky made them up.  First of all, this is an extreme example of looking at Universe through human-colored glasses.  We can see that humans can make things up (like stories, songs, designs) and make things.  So, if there's something out there that's the least bit interesting or mysterious, something very like a human must have done it.  SHIN's Grand Unified Theory is: Big Sky Man.  Going back to the first iteration, we can now see how deep his sexism goes.  Little Earth Men are just smaller versions of Big Sky Man; their existence follows naturally and logically from the starting premise.  Only the existence of females is a question requiring an explanation.  Sexism for SHIN and believers like him is not merely a barbaric attitude inherited from the past, or even a Hallowed Tradition--it's a fundamental cosmological principle.

Big Sky Man is treated as an irreducibly simple, metaphysically necessary axiomatic starting point.  Never mind that even an ordinary Little Earth Man is far more complicated (and thus, in greater need of explanation) than something like the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle (pi) or the Fibonacci sequence.  SHIN looks at Universe through man-colored glasses and just assumes that his own man-ness is the metaphysical Ground of Being and solution to all mysteries.  As Peter Carroll puts it so well, monotheism is megalomania by proxy.

Next iteration:

Ask a theist like SHIN how they know what they claim to know, and you'll get some variant of "'Cause the Bible [that is, Big Sky Man] says so."  In other words, metaphysics is defined as Big Sky Man, and epistemology (and ethics) are defined as emanations of Big Sky Man's authority.  Pi, the Fibonacci sequence, "e," the "laws" of physics etc. are what they are because Big Sky Man commanded that they be so, and the way to know anything is to believe without question whatever Big Sky Man tells you.  And so, the politics of Authoritarianism joins sexism as a fundamental cosmic axiom.

But of course Big Sky Man doesn't actually say any of this himself.  Instead, what we have are writings scribed by ordinary men, copied, re-copied, and re-re-copied--by men--redacted, interpolated, re-redacted and re-interpolated--by men--translated, re-translated, and re-re-translated--by men--and finally, interpreted for you--by men--like your local priest, pastor, or somebody like SHIN.  Each of these men claims (without being quite so honest as to admit it openly) the divine right to canonize, de-canonize, and define the meaning of "the Word of God," and speak infallibly ex cathedra concerning its application to your life.[3]  It is not the Bible that is infallible, but their interpretation thereof.  Don't believe me?  Just look at how these guys blatantly veto everything Jesus ever had to say about money.  Or the way they dismiss hundreds of the laws of Moses while assuring their followers that the two or three laws about homosexuality are eternal and adamantine in their applicability forever and ever, amen.  Clearly, it is not Jesus or Moses who is the Supreme Authority and Grand Unified Theory Incarnate, but the believer himself.  It's his political views that ought to be the law of the land, his tribal markers that ought to overshadow the social order, his level of ignorance that ought to define scientific truth (see: Creationism; Climate Denialism).

Nutshell: People like SHIN go beyond the ordinary level of SPAG, where the believer peers into a well in search of God and sees something that looks remarkably like themselves.  They go on to arrogate to themselves the Divine prerogatives of omniscience,[4] infallibility, and supreme cosmic authority.  Megalomania by proxy.
 1. Their answers providing a demonstration that on the internet, alchemy works.
 2. Unless it turns out I'm gay, and that's even worse than gurls, and since anything being worse than gurls takes a miracle, if there are gays God has to exist!  Checkmate, atheists!
 3. How can the Bible be infallible if any given interpretation of it is fallible?  The notion of Biblical "infallibility" is only useful or meaningful if the belief system ostensibly derived from it is also infallible.
 4. In a peculiarly twisted sense: "If I don't know somethin' it ain't worth knowin'.  But all the stuff I do [think I] know, that's all there is to know."
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 08:10:32 PM by kcrady »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina