China is a super power. Is criticizing China somehow "being an asshole"? Colbert wasn't stomping all over someone who was already down. He aimed it squarely at the one of the world's most powerful nations. He kicked up, now down.
The bottom line is that games are expected to work at any point in the future as well. Going to the movies is expected to be a one-off thing. That general expectations of a product do matter was established in some court case I can't remember at the moment.
Yes, RIAA's lawsuits are indeed frivolous, but people like the one you are responding to and Ray Beckerman are helping people who are victims of RIAA's nuisance lawsuits.
Evolution says nothing about what's right and wrong. Our extremely complex and advanced moral system today is a result of society and influence by different sources, not by biological evolution. Evolution only selected the traits that made certain behavioral patterns beneficial. From that, we have not evolved further, but we have instead created more and more complex systems.
I've heard plenty of people speculating how humans will be vastly different 10,000 years in the future.
But in what way does Evolution tell us where we're going?
Evolutionary biologists start from the assumption that morality is a product of evolutionary forces.
They do not start from any assumption what so ever. Furthermore, your assumption that Evolution tells us how to live our lives is still wrong.
You claim there is no absolute morality, yet I don't hear you (or any other evolutionists for that matter) calling for the abolishment of all the laws which legislate morality, such as the laws against murder, rape, torture, and robbery.
So what? There is no absolute morality, and we can still think those things are wrong.
Typically people just don't like the laws about homosexuality, abortion, and the ten commandments. That's hypocrisy.
That's got nothing to do with this discussion.
But if it's acceptable to them, it's ok, because there's no objective morality.
No, I don't think it's OK at all. But that doesn't mean that my morality is given by God and theirs isn't. And here's the problem: What God supposedly wants us to do has changed over time. Back in the day, God apparently wanted us to kill non-believers.
Furthermore, if they move here, in the interest of tolerance, we should let them follow their own morality instead of enforcing ours. Right?
No. Why would we do that? Just because there are no objective morals as such doesn't mean that we can't defend ours. It doesn't mean that we can't make a rational case for the superiority of our morals. We can do so by pointing to freedom and individual rights. However, some will make the case based on their personal value, that e.g. torture is justified. This happens today, in the western world. Some people actually support torture! They will also have arguments for why torture is justifiable, based on their personal values. "Protecting the group as a whole is more important than protecting individuals", for example.
But if there aren't any objective morals, it wasn't wrong of those societies to execute homosexuals.
I think it was wrong. And the fact that they did, and the fact that it was morally right for them, proves that there are no objective morals.
What makes you think your morals are superior?
Because they protect individual rights and freedoms. But that doesn't mean that these are objective morals. And history does indeed show us that morals have changed drastically over time. As such, again, no objective morals have ever existed.
Is God the only reason why you aren't murdering people?
Also: Are there any morals that are true, and have always been true, for all humans, for as long as humans have existed?
That very statement indicates that there's no basis to apply one's moral beliefs on another individual.
"[citation needed]"
Evolutionary biologists start from no assumption, so that Wikipedia quote is completely wrong.
That traits evolved that led to animals working successfully together in groups does not mean that Evolution in itself tells you how to live your life.
Like the diversity of life supposedly resulting from evolutionary forces, there's inevitably bound to be differences of morality as well. All legal systems on this planet would break down under this assumption.
Why? This is just an assertion on your part. You seem to be saying that laws and rules must be given by God, otherwise everything would break down. I guess God gave us traffic rules as well, then?:D
"Murder is wrong" makes about as much sense as "having feathers is wrong".
Correct. Evolution makes no value judgement what so ever. However, even among animals, murder (of one's own kind) is often forbidden. And even among humans, murder is widespread. "Murder is wrong" makes sense in a group because it makes individuals feel safer, and they will work better together.
Mob rule doesn't typically result in what one would call morality, though: it usually ends up with the people in power abusing that power.
Gee, you think? Look at history, and you will see that this is definitely correct.
Again you are using the Appeal to Consequences and Appeal to Emotion fallacies, as well as the Straw Man fallacy. "Look at this! This is Evolution, and it is bad! Therefore, Evolution is wrong!"
He didn't say that Evolution was "unfair". He said that he doesn't agree with eugenics and genocide. Evolution doesn't say "you shall commit genocide and eugenics".
If evolution provides the framework, you have no source of any concept of fairness.
If Evolution provides the framework for what? The source of "fairness" is that the group you belong to has decided that "fairness" is the way to go. In the case of humans, we often have "fairness" because it benefits everyone. We do have groups of humans without "fairness", though. For example, countries or cultures where women are considered to be an item to be owned, nothing else.
All you have is this vague notion of social acceptability, e.g. "the biggest mob gets to make the rules". That often has bad results, which leads one to question its validity.
So now you suddenly admit that you "question" Evolution because you don't like the consequences you attribute to it? In other words, you are making up your mind beforehand, and not based on the actual facts.
It's also why in this country one has inalienable rights, given by a divine power, that no mob can take away
Those rights can indeed be taken away. In fact, the FISA bill is merely one of many steps in that direction. If you think the rights are eternal and can never be taken away, then you are extremely naive, and it also shows how dangerous religion is: You believe those rights came from God (but why don't all countries have those rights, then? Doesn't God care about anyone else? Is the US the only country in the world that God values?). As such, you see no reason to bother fighting for them, right? Because God gave them to you, so no one can take them away. So when they do come to take them away, you will let them do so because you think God will keep them from doing it.
By the way, who came up with those rights in the Constition? Did God dictate them, or were they thought up by mortal men?
Evolution tells us where we came from and where we're going.
Evolution tells us how life on Earth evolved. In what way does Evolution tell us where we're going?
Gravity only tells us where we're going if we're about to step off a cliff. Since I'm not about to step off a cliff, gravity doesn't have much say in how I should live.
Gravity is the reason why Earth even exists. As such, gravity tells us where we came from. No gravity, no sun, no planets, no life, no humans.
Evolution, on the other hand, provides a framework through which the world changes. Why shouldn't it be expected to also tell us how to operate?
What kind of framework does Evolution provide? Evolution is an explanation. It doesn't tell us what we are supposed to do. It tells us how things work. It tells us how living organisms evolve. That's it.
Not at all.
Yes indeed. You are making claims about Evolution telling us how we should live, which is obviously nonsense. If you believe these things, then you are demonstrably ignorant about what Evolution actually is. If you had knowledge about it, you would not make these false statements about it.
Where'd they come from? Mob rule? Survival of the fittest? Natural selection?
Morality is a result of humans living in groups. Things that make people work better as a group are advantageous. With the basics in place, society has gradually changed over time. As society has become more complex, so have the rules. We learn those rules from society and our parents, and when we participate in society we help shape them.
"Mob rule" doesn't provide "morality" - "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior".
My point being, yet again you fall into the fallacy of Appeal to Consequence. You reject those ideas not on any valid reasoning but based on your dislike of them; you prove this when you say they're "unfair".
Exuse me? I never said that anything was "unfair". I pointed out that neither Evolution nor Gravity (nor any other scientific theory) gives you "right to fairness", and asked you what your point was. You were the one talking about fairness. I merely asked you what fairness has to do with anything.
Fairness is a non-entity; it's all in your head. Under evolution, or gravity as you suggested, you're given no such thing.
Yes, but so what? What is your point? Scientific theories aren't supposed to give you that. Faulting scientific theories for not giving you "fairness" is like faulting food for not giving you air. Food isn't supposed to give you air. Food feeds you. You breathe air.
According to evolution, if someone's morals allow them to fuck animals or children, or allow them to go out and kill someone, their morals are still as valid as anyone elses (because the entire concept of "morals" doesn't exist).
According to gravity, if someone's morals allow them to fuck animals or children, or allow them to go out and kill someone, their morals are still as valid as anyone elses (because the entire concept of "morals" doesn't exist). Again: Your point being?
However I suspect you, with your idea of "morals", would want that sort of person put in jail. Justify that without using "morals" or social standards, because according to evolution, both of them are made-up. You claim to believe evolution.
Correct, there are no objective morals, but I fail to see what this has to do with Evolution. If you do want to get into a discussion about morals, perhaps you should think it through carefully, and realize that morals have indeed changed a lot over time, and also between different parts of the world. For example, adult males having sex with young boys was considered divine in Greece a long time ago. Today, if an adult has sex with a child, there will be a major outcry. But to this day, girls as young as 9 years old can be married away in certain parts of the world.
Morals merely reflect the consensus of the society (or its leaders).
But again, this has got nothing to do with Evolution.
However I suspect you, with your idea of "morals", would want that sort of person put in jail. Justify that without using "morals" or social standards, because according to evolution, both of them are made-up. You claim to believe evolution.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. By the way, I'm not the one you were having this particular discussion with. I'm just following up on your discussion with someone else. Our original discussion can be found here.
You don't believe evolution. You believe what I'll just call "evolution-a-la-notrandomly", and yes, it's your theory because it's the theory you believe. Furthermore it's a broken theory because your theory is essentially evolution with certain parts thrown out.
Not at all. You are the one who tries to make Evolution responsible for things it's got nothing to do with. You really need to educate yourself and stop using the Appeal to Consequences and Appeal to Emotion fallacies.
First of all, I'm not sure how you measure market share. I know there's Net Applications which shows Opera at around 1%, which is interesting since stats for specific countries, especially in Europe, often shows Opera at 5-15%. In Russia, Opera has something like 20% market share on the most popular sites.
And of course, Opera is the one to beat when you want to enter the mobile browser market. Mozilla seems to be so afraid of Opera that they dare not even mention it, such as in this interview where the guy tries to talk around it by going on about hardware when asked directly about Opera:) If Mozilla does mention Opera, it's Opera Mini, and then they'll say "but Opera Mini is not a full, Ajax-capable browser" or something to that effect. Conveniently ignoring the fact that Opera Mobile has been doing Ajax for a long time.
And before both of those, Opera 9.5 made huge performance gains since the previous version. And Opera is the one to beat in the mobile browser market. It just so happens that Mozilla is very eager to enter the mobile browser market, which is currently dominated by Opera.
And both of them were released to stay competitive with Opera 9.5 which made huge performance gains since 9.2x, and which is currently the leading mobile browser, a market both Apple and Mozilla are eager to establish themselves in;)
Actually, before both Gecko and WebKit, Opera 9.5 had massive performance improvements months ago. The other ones caught up, but Opera did increase performance a lot before the other ones caught on. And performance is important on mobile phones, which it so happens is something both WebKit and Gecko want to be good at.
Right... I'm sure he loses sleep every night worrying about what Opera and their chronically sub-1% market share are up to next.
I'm not sure where you are getting that from. Opera has between 5-15% in many countries. In Russia, something like 20%. Also, Opera is very strong in the mobile market, which Mozilla is very eager to get into.
They've been around more than twice as long as Firefox and have consistently failed to captivate (they had SIX YEARS in which to show the web and IE users that they were an answer to reigniting innovation, creativity and usability on the web, ffs) all but a few oddballs
You aren't taking into account Opera being adware until 2005 or so. It didn't really compete until then.
Opera had more than enough time; they failed, still fail and will likely continue to fail until it results in their death.
Opera's market share has been growing for a long time. The 1% figure is misguided at best, considering that many country specific stats show it well above that. Furthermore, Opera Software has a lot of cash, is profitable, and the revenue growth is more than 50% each quarter. It's the dominating mobile browser. Failed?
As I think I said earlier on this thread, the point is that people don't apply evolution to the realm of morals and socal habits. It has obvious implications (namely, morals are fake and social habits are just conditioning) but people don't like that part of evolution.
What are "fake" morals? What makes "fake" morals different from "real" morals? Why does Evolution lead to "fake" morals? And what does that matter? They are still morals.
Social habits are just conditioning. Your point being?
FWIW, if you don't accept certain implications of a theory, you can't take other applications and ignore the ones you don't like. That's inconsistent and your theory is broken.
Evolution isn't "your" or anyone else's theory. Evolution is a scientific theory.
It might even be a correct theory, but it's still broken because you're only using half of it.
How can the theory itself be broken because of one person? Evolution isn't defined by whoever you are talking to. Evolution is defined through scientific consensus.
Really! And what were we discussing, exactly, clone53421?
My evidence consists of you using Google and searching for "evolution is false" and "refuting evolution".
All I could find was a bunch of religious sites (and science sites debunking these). Give me real scientific sources, please.
I'm claiming you break the theory by cutting off conclusions you don't like.
I have not. Your straw man makes it look that way, but your dishonestly has been thoroughly established by now.
Oh really? Quote that, please, or stop accusing me of statements I didn't make.
Me: "Are you really denying the fact that Evolution is supported by all known facts, makes true predictions, and has practical applications? I am not surprised. And again, what "evidence" do you expect? I merely pointed out the fact that your argument was fallacious. Are you denying the fact that the validity of a theory does not depend on the (moral) consequences of said theory?"
You, as a direct response to these questions: "Yes, I am. I deliberately illustrated a prediction that evolution makes, and you dismissed it as a straw man without proving why it was such or giving any evidence whatsoever to illustrate that it was. You love pointing things out, but you don't give any evidence. Next!"
You're the one defending evolution. Come up with something or go away.
You have yet to explain what kind of evidence you are looking for. Clearly, information about what Evolution actually is, is not sufficient. You apparently want God himself to come down to Earth and tell you so himself.
I've said it several times: my claims have been solidly reached by logical deduction from the initial premises of evolution.
I refuted those claims by showing how Evolution is a scientific theory (supported by all facts, makes true predictions, has practical applications) and not a religion (has no supernatural aspect, has no laws/rules/morals, has no holy books, has no organization acting on behalf of powerful supernatural agent, etc.).
The evidence for that statement is you going back and re-reading what I posted.
I did go back, and I can confirm that you are incorrect. For example, I refuted your claim that Evolution is a religion (see above), as well as your Hitler fantasies.
yet you still don't accept all the conclusions of the theory
What conclusions might that be? Again you seem to be clinging desperately to a straw man. I specifically pointed out that humanity will likely go extinct at some point.
"All the evidence supports it" doesn't count.
Now it's your turn to produce evidence that doesn't support Evolution.
The Laws of Thermodynamics state that entropy increases... billions of years = heat death.
Heat death? I thought the universe was getting colder? In any case, what do the laws of thermodynamics have to do with Evolution?
Evolution states that complex systems arise spontaneously... billions of years = complex living organisms (haha, wait, I thought we dismissed the notion of spontaneous generation ages ago).
I'm afraid Evolution does not, in fact, state that complex systems arise spontaneously. This is yet another straw man on your part. By the way, "billions of years = spontaneously"?:D
The theory of evolution directly contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Which ones? And in which way? If you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics, it only applies to closed systems. Earth/nature is
I deliberately illustrated a prediction that evolution makes, and you dismissed it as a straw man without proving why it was such or giving any evidence whatsoever to illustrate that it was.
Excuse me? The part we are discussing here is where you claimed that Evolution is religion. That is not "a prediction that Evolution makes", but rather a false statement on what Evolution is.
Yes, I am.
So:
1. You are denying the fact that that Evolution is supported by all data, and that it makes true predictions and has practical applications, all without producing a single shred of evidence: Show me the data which contradicts Evolution, then. Also, search for "Evolution predictions" and "Evolution practical applications" using Google, and you will see that it makes true predictions and has practical applications. Are you denying the existence of these predictions and practical applications?
2. You are also denying the fact that the validity of a theory does not depend on the (moral) consequences of said theory: This proves that my claim that you employed the Appeal to Consequences and Appeal to Emotions fallacies was correct. Since you simply answered "yes" to my question if validity depends on consequences, you clearly confirmed this.
I want evidence, not "you said xyz" when I didn't say that at all.
So what did you say? What is "evidence"? Please be specific.
You DID modify your position. Initially, you said that the claim "humans will inevitably go extinct" was based on wrong interpretations of evolution.
Not at all. What I said was that your comment on humans going extinct was just another case of the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. Why else would you mention it?
"Being part of a strong, tight-knit group has actually shown to be advantageous from an evolutionary perspective" does not support the statement "I never denied that humanity can go extinct".
It isn't supposed to. The former is supposed to explain that "domesticated humans" was an evolutionary advantage (not that humanity cannot go extinct). The latter is a statement of fact about my position, which you continue to misrepresent.
...which is a claim that you must prove or show evidence that supports it. You didn't.
I did show evidence by showing how your claims were factually wrong and fallacious. Now you must present evidence which shows that they weren't, which you have failed to do. You haven't produced a single shred of evidence, but rather made false statements, and then yelled for evidence for every single correction of your misconceptions. Before complaining about other people's alleged lack of evidence, produce your own evidence.
You have also failed to specify what kind of evidence you are looking for, even after repeated attempts by me to get you to clarify.
What we call evolution really doesn't matter.
It does, because we want to be factually accurate. And by calling Evolution a religion you are either trolling, or unaware of the facts of the matter. And remember, I showed you how Evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion. You never responded to that, but just kept yelling about how I produced no evidence, when the fact is that it is you who keeps making claims without supporting evidence.
And if you think I should have linked to a reference for every piece of factual information I gave you, then you should have done the same.
It is you who keep yelling about evidence without having produced a single shred of evidence of your own. Practice what you preach.
However, you have completely failed to provide even a single shred of evidence for any of your claims.
Other than that, you supported none of your claims. I summarily dismiss the entire first and third paragraph as baseless and unsupported.
In other words, you admit to trying to convince me that Evolution is false, not by looking at the facts, but by looking at whether the perceived consequences are desirable or not.
Paragraphs 1 (including its list), 3, and 4 are unsupported and I summarily dismiss them for complete lack of evidence.
Are you really denying the fact that Evolution is supported by all known facts, makes true predictions, and has practical applications? I am not surprised. And again, what "evidence" do you expect? I merely pointed out the fact that your argument was fallacious. Are you denying the fact that the validity of a theory does not depend on the (moral) consequences of said theory?
Nothing is supported. No evidence is given (well, other than the completely incorrect summary you gave of my argument).
Why do I have to give you evidence of something you wrote for yourself? Do you not remember writing it? What kind of evidence are you looking for?
No evidence. Nothing is supported by logic.
Again, what "evidence" are you looking for? I was explaining my position because you were misrepresenting it. Do you need evidence that this is my real position? If not, what kind of evidence are you talking about?
which doesn't apply to your modified position anyway
I never modified my position. Also, how does it not apply to my position?
No evidence. No logic to support your statements, just an Ad hominem attack.
And once again I must ask you what kind of evidence you are looking for. Is it that dinosaurs didn't have the brain power of humans? Is it that working together is an evolutionary advantage? Is it that I never claimed that humans can't go extinct?
But then again, every time you claimed my argument was fallacious I showed that to be false.
You did not. You clearly made use fallacious arguments in order to change the subject and convince me to ignore the actual facts.
You didn't refute a thing I said, you just contradicted with no stated justification.
Actually, my stated justification was that you were factually wrong, and that you were using fallacious arguments.
No evidence, no examples, no support for this statement whatsoever.
Are you denying the fact that you called Evolution a religion? Are you denying that I caugt you lying about my position?
I dismiss it along with everything else you've said. You've said absolutely nothing; your entire argument has been a spew of hot air.
It seems that you are looking in the mirror. You manage to, for example, without any facts to support your claims, claim that Hitler's belief were based on Atheism, when the fact is that he was religions. And when I educated you on why Evolution is a scientific theory rather than religion, you simply ignored what I wrote and tried to change the subject to hide your embarrassment.
You basically ignored most of this comment and decided to lie about my position instead of admitting that your cornered yourself with your own lack of knowledge on the subject. You could always have asked for sources if you wanted to learn more, but instead you chose to ignore everything, change the subject, and only now do you return to what I wrote and claim that I didn't provide any evidence, even though you didn't even ask for any references!
And if you think I should have linked to a reference for every piece of factual information I gave you, then you should have done the same. Howe
I did point out how you were wrong, and what your fallacies were. You even managed to falsely claim that Evolution is a religion. You tried to ignore the points I made and continued with even more straw men, but you were quickly cornered when I actually called you on it.
Slashdot Mirror
China is a super power. Is criticizing China somehow "being an asshole"? Colbert wasn't stomping all over someone who was already down. He aimed it squarely at the one of the world's most powerful nations. He kicked up, now down.
Free software... And Apple!
Yes, that's the right approach. Destroy your business model to get on Slashdot! Good idea.
The bottom line is that games are expected to work at any point in the future as well. Going to the movies is expected to be a one-off thing. That general expectations of a product do matter was established in some court case I can't remember at the moment.
So the problem was with the timing rather than the format?
Yes, RIAA's lawsuits are indeed frivolous, but people like the one you are responding to and Ray Beckerman are helping people who are victims of RIAA's nuisance lawsuits.
what the face of a hero looks like!
Is this because you know you are ignorant on the subject, and afraid to be exposed as an ignorant fool? :)
Evolution says nothing about what's right and wrong. Our extremely complex and advanced moral system today is a result of society and influence by different sources, not by biological evolution. Evolution only selected the traits that made certain behavioral patterns beneficial. From that, we have not evolved further, but we have instead created more and more complex systems.
But in what way does Evolution tell us where we're going?
They do not start from any assumption what so ever. Furthermore, your assumption that Evolution tells us how to live our lives is still wrong.
So what? There is no absolute morality, and we can still think those things are wrong.
That's got nothing to do with this discussion.
No, I don't think it's OK at all. But that doesn't mean that my morality is given by God and theirs isn't. And here's the problem: What God supposedly wants us to do has changed over time. Back in the day, God apparently wanted us to kill non-believers.
No. Why would we do that? Just because there are no objective morals as such doesn't mean that we can't defend ours. It doesn't mean that we can't make a rational case for the superiority of our morals. We can do so by pointing to freedom and individual rights. However, some will make the case based on their personal value, that e.g. torture is justified. This happens today, in the western world. Some people actually support torture! They will also have arguments for why torture is justifiable, based on their personal values. "Protecting the group as a whole is more important than protecting individuals", for example.
I think it was wrong. And the fact that they did, and the fact that it was morally right for them, proves that there are no objective morals.
Because they protect individual rights and freedoms. But that doesn't mean that these are objective morals. And history does indeed show us that morals have changed drastically over time. As such, again, no objective morals have ever existed.
Is God the only reason why you aren't murdering people?
Also: Are there any morals that are true, and have always been true, for all humans, for as long as humans have existed?
"[citation needed]"
Evolutionary biologists start from no assumption, so that Wikipedia quote is completely wrong.
That traits evolved that led to animals working successfully together in groups does not mean that Evolution in itself tells you how to live your life.
Why? This is just an assertion on your part. You seem to be saying that laws and rules must be given by God, otherwise everything would break down. I guess God gave us traffic rules as well, then? :D
Correct. Evolution makes no value judgement what so ever. However, even among animals, murder (of one's own kind) is often forbidden. And even among humans, murder is widespread. "Murder is wrong" makes sense in a group because it makes individuals feel safer, and they will work better together.
Gee, you think? Look at history, and you will see that this is definitely correct.
Again you are using the Appeal to Consequences and Appeal to Emotion fallacies, as well as the Straw Man fallacy. "Look at this! This is Evolution, and it is bad! Therefore, Evolution is wrong!"
;)
He didn't say that Evolution was "unfair". He said that he doesn't agree with eugenics and genocide. Evolution doesn't say "you shall commit genocide and eugenics".
If Evolution provides the framework for what? The source of "fairness" is that the group you belong to has decided that "fairness" is the way to go. In the case of humans, we often have "fairness" because it benefits everyone. We do have groups of humans without "fairness", though. For example, countries or cultures where women are considered to be an item to be owned, nothing else.
So now you suddenly admit that you "question" Evolution because you don't like the consequences you attribute to it? In other words, you are making up your mind beforehand, and not based on the actual facts.
Those rights can indeed be taken away. In fact, the FISA bill is merely one of many steps in that direction. If you think the rights are eternal and can never be taken away, then you are extremely naive, and it also shows how dangerous religion is: You believe those rights came from God (but why don't all countries have those rights, then? Doesn't God care about anyone else? Is the US the only country in the world that God values?). As such, you see no reason to bother fighting for them, right? Because God gave them to you, so no one can take them away. So when they do come to take them away, you will let them do so because you think God will keep them from doing it.
By the way, who came up with those rights in the Constition? Did God dictate them, or were they thought up by mortal men?
Evolution tells us how life on Earth evolved. In what way does Evolution tell us where we're going?
Gravity is the reason why Earth even exists. As such, gravity tells us where we came from. No gravity, no sun, no planets, no life, no humans.
What kind of framework does Evolution provide? Evolution is an explanation. It doesn't tell us what we are supposed to do. It tells us how things work. It tells us how living organisms evolve. That's it.
Yes indeed. You are making claims about Evolution telling us how we should live, which is obviously nonsense. If you believe these things, then you are demonstrably ignorant about what Evolution actually is. If you had knowledge about it, you would not make these false statements about it.
Morality is a result of humans living in groups. Things that make people work better as a group are advantageous. With the basics in place, society has gradually changed over time. As society has become more complex, so have the rules. We learn those rules from society and our parents, and when we participate in society we help shape them.
It does. Try to educate yourself. As I said, morals are just a code of conduct.
Exuse me? I never said that anything was "unfair". I pointed out that neither Evolution nor Gravity (nor any other scientific theory) gives you "right to fairness", and asked you what your point was. You were the one talking about fairness. I merely asked you what fairness has to do with anything.
Yes, but so what? What is your point? Scientific theories aren't supposed to give you that. Faulting scientific theories for not giving you "fairness" is like faulting food for not giving you air. Food isn't supposed to give you air. Food feeds you. You breathe air.
According to gravity, if someone's morals allow them to fuck animals or children, or allow them to go out and kill someone, their morals are still as valid as anyone elses (because the entire concept of "morals" doesn't exist). Again: Your point being?
Correct, there are no objective morals, but I fail to see what this has to do with Evolution. If you do want to get into a discussion about morals, perhaps you should think it through carefully, and realize that morals have indeed changed a lot over time, and also between different parts of the world. For example, adult males having sex with young boys was considered divine in Greece a long time ago. Today, if an adult has sex with a child, there will be a major outcry. But to this day, girls as young as 9 years old can be married away in certain parts of the world.
Morals merely reflect the consensus of the society (or its leaders).
But again, this has got nothing to do with Evolution.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. By the way, I'm not the one you were having this particular discussion with. I'm just following up on your discussion with someone else. Our original discussion can be found here.
Not at all. You are the one who tries to make Evolution responsible for things it's got nothing to do with. You really need to educate yourself and stop using the Appeal to Consequences and Appeal to Emotion fallacies.
One bug? IIANM, Firefox has plenty of standards bugs that are several years old.
And of course, Opera is the one to beat when you want to enter the mobile browser market. Mozilla seems to be so afraid of Opera that they dare not even mention it, such as in this interview where the guy tries to talk around it by going on about hardware when asked directly about Opera :) If Mozilla does mention Opera, it's Opera Mini, and then they'll say "but Opera Mini is not a full, Ajax-capable browser" or something to that effect. Conveniently ignoring the fact that Opera Mobile has been doing Ajax for a long time.
And before both of those, Opera 9.5 made huge performance gains since the previous version. And Opera is the one to beat in the mobile browser market. It just so happens that Mozilla is very eager to enter the mobile browser market, which is currently dominated by Opera.
And both of them were released to stay competitive with Opera 9.5 which made huge performance gains since 9.2x, and which is currently the leading mobile browser, a market both Apple and Mozilla are eager to establish themselves in ;)
Actually, before both Gecko and WebKit, Opera 9.5 had massive performance improvements months ago. The other ones caught up, but Opera did increase performance a lot before the other ones caught on. And performance is important on mobile phones, which it so happens is something both WebKit and Gecko want to be good at.
I'm not sure where you are getting that from. Opera has between 5-15% in many countries. In Russia, something like 20%. Also, Opera is very strong in the mobile market, which Mozilla is very eager to get into.
You aren't taking into account Opera being adware until 2005 or so. It didn't really compete until then.
Opera's market share has been growing for a long time. The 1% figure is misguided at best, considering that many country specific stats show it well above that. Furthermore, Opera Software has a lot of cash, is profitable, and the revenue growth is more than 50% each quarter. It's the dominating mobile browser. Failed?
But keep trolling :)
Nor does gravity. Your point being?
What are "fake" morals? What makes "fake" morals different from "real" morals? Why does Evolution lead to "fake" morals? And what does that matter? They are still morals.
Social habits are just conditioning. Your point being?
Evolution isn't "your" or anyone else's theory. Evolution is a scientific theory.
How can the theory itself be broken because of one person? Evolution isn't defined by whoever you are talking to. Evolution is defined through scientific consensus.
Really! And what were we discussing, exactly, clone53421?
All I could find was a bunch of religious sites (and science sites debunking these). Give me real scientific sources, please.
I have not. Your straw man makes it look that way, but your dishonestly has been thoroughly established by now.
Me: "Are you really denying the fact that Evolution is supported by all known facts, makes true predictions, and has practical applications? I am not surprised. And again, what "evidence" do you expect? I merely pointed out the fact that your argument was fallacious. Are you denying the fact that the validity of a theory does not depend on the (moral) consequences of said theory?"
You, as a direct response to these questions: "Yes, I am. I deliberately illustrated a prediction that evolution makes, and you dismissed it as a straw man without proving why it was such or giving any evidence whatsoever to illustrate that it was. You love pointing things out, but you don't give any evidence. Next!"
You have yet to explain what kind of evidence you are looking for. Clearly, information about what Evolution actually is, is not sufficient. You apparently want God himself to come down to Earth and tell you so himself.
I refuted those claims by showing how Evolution is a scientific theory (supported by all facts, makes true predictions, has practical applications) and not a religion (has no supernatural aspect, has no laws/rules/morals, has no holy books, has no organization acting on behalf of powerful supernatural agent, etc.).
I did go back, and I can confirm that you are incorrect. For example, I refuted your claim that Evolution is a religion (see above), as well as your Hitler fantasies.
What conclusions might that be? Again you seem to be clinging desperately to a straw man. I specifically pointed out that humanity will likely go extinct at some point.
Now it's your turn to produce evidence that doesn't support Evolution.
Heat death? I thought the universe was getting colder? In any case, what do the laws of thermodynamics have to do with Evolution?
I'm afraid Evolution does not, in fact, state that complex systems arise spontaneously. This is yet another straw man on your part. By the way, "billions of years = spontaneously"? :D
Which ones? And in which way? If you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics, it only applies to closed systems. Earth/nature is
Excuse me? The part we are discussing here is where you claimed that Evolution is religion. That is not "a prediction that Evolution makes", but rather a false statement on what Evolution is.
So:
1. You are denying the fact that that Evolution is supported by all data, and that it makes true predictions and has practical applications, all without producing a single shred of evidence: Show me the data which contradicts Evolution, then. Also, search for "Evolution predictions" and "Evolution practical applications" using Google, and you will see that it makes true predictions and has practical applications. Are you denying the existence of these predictions and practical applications?
2. You are also denying the fact that the validity of a theory does not depend on the (moral) consequences of said theory: This proves that my claim that you employed the Appeal to Consequences and Appeal to Emotions fallacies was correct. Since you simply answered "yes" to my question if validity depends on consequences, you clearly confirmed this.
So what did you say? What is "evidence"? Please be specific.
Not at all. What I said was that your comment on humans going extinct was just another case of the Appeal to Consequences fallacy. Why else would you mention it?
It isn't supposed to. The former is supposed to explain that "domesticated humans" was an evolutionary advantage (not that humanity cannot go extinct). The latter is a statement of fact about my position, which you continue to misrepresent.
I did show evidence by showing how your claims were factually wrong and fallacious. Now you must present evidence which shows that they weren't, which you have failed to do. You haven't produced a single shred of evidence, but rather made false statements, and then yelled for evidence for every single correction of your misconceptions. Before complaining about other people's alleged lack of evidence, produce your own evidence.
You have also failed to specify what kind of evidence you are looking for, even after repeated attempts by me to get you to clarify.
It does, because we want to be factually accurate. And by calling Evolution a religion you are either trolling, or unaware of the facts of the matter. And remember, I showed you how Evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion. You never responded to that, but just kept yelling about how I produced no evidence, when the fact is that it is you who keeps making claims without supporting evidence.
It is you who keep yelling about evidence without having produced a single shred of evidence of your own. Practice what you preach.
You haven't even explain
In other words, you admit to trying to convince me that Evolution is false, not by looking at the facts, but by looking at whether the perceived consequences are desirable or not.
Are you really denying the fact that Evolution is supported by all known facts, makes true predictions, and has practical applications? I am not surprised. And again, what "evidence" do you expect? I merely pointed out the fact that your argument was fallacious. Are you denying the fact that the validity of a theory does not depend on the (moral) consequences of said theory?
Why do I have to give you evidence of something you wrote for yourself? Do you not remember writing it? What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Again, what "evidence" are you looking for? I was explaining my position because you were misrepresenting it. Do you need evidence that this is my real position? If not, what kind of evidence are you talking about?
I never modified my position. Also, how does it not apply to my position?
And once again I must ask you what kind of evidence you are looking for. Is it that dinosaurs didn't have the brain power of humans? Is it that working together is an evolutionary advantage? Is it that I never claimed that humans can't go extinct?
You did not. You clearly made use fallacious arguments in order to change the subject and convince me to ignore the actual facts.
Actually, my stated justification was that you were factually wrong, and that you were using fallacious arguments.
Are you denying the fact that you called Evolution a religion? Are you denying that I caugt you lying about my position?
It seems that you are looking in the mirror. You manage to, for example, without any facts to support your claims, claim that Hitler's belief were based on Atheism, when the fact is that he was religions. And when I educated you on why Evolution is a scientific theory rather than religion, you simply ignored what I wrote and tried to change the subject to hide your embarrassment.
You basically ignored most of this comment and decided to lie about my position instead of admitting that your cornered yourself with your own lack of knowledge on the subject. You could always have asked for sources if you wanted to learn more, but instead you chose to ignore everything, change the subject, and only now do you return to what I wrote and claim that I didn't provide any evidence, even though you didn't even ask for any references!
And if you think I should have linked to a reference for every piece of factual information I gave you, then you should have done the same. Howe
I did point out how you were wrong, and what your fallacies were. You even managed to falsely claim that Evolution is a religion. You tried to ignore the points I made and continued with even more straw men, but you were quickly cornered when I actually called you on it.