[2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderators: NeatNit, Kimra

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby Lethal Interjection » Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:21 pm

And wrote:Guys. You're splitting hairs.

Nobody rejects evolution because of non-religious or existentialist or agnosticism about biological processes. There is no mainstream (or even, substantial non-mainstream) dissent about this. You can argue all you want, but meanwhile, in the real world, the only ones making an effort to reject evolution are the creationists, and this is ALWAYS a religious argument (Catholic, Young Earth or whatever: still religious and still creationist). So the criticism from Zach's comic very much applies.


And you lose your argument for italicizing 'nobody' and then going ahead and suggesting that there might be some in the next sentence. The rest of your argument then swirls round the bowl until it slips from all relevance.


Oh, and the comic is broken guys!
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby nobody » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:11 pm

The comic is fixed for me. And my version hits nearly everything the real one does, I left out the place falsifying evidence, the Creation History Foundation, and some beat panels and "Some theory", but I got EVERYTHING else. I am a genius, deal with it fuckers

I rehosted the comic here.
User avatar
nobody
[Insert Here]
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby Guest » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:30 pm

ThatThereLazyGuy wrote:JOY. Another anti-religious comic. Honestly, evolution has been pretty well proven, but this stuff is just... annoying.


I kind of feel the same way. On one hand, it can be annoying when all the technophile/nerd/rational types (if you understand the vague, broad demographic I'm referring to here) harp on the stupidity of creationists, when clearly the issue was settled, like, a hundred years ago. I mean, no one really takes that creationist stuff seriously, right? Except, there is actually a funded, politically motivated organization that is doing a pretty good job of subverting mainstream opinion through sophism. I don't think they actually have a chance of winning (because, they're like actually wrong) but it does sometimes seem like a hurdle we have to clear before we can do awesome stuff.

It makes me wonder if people in the antebellum north were like "Guys, yeah slavery obviously sucks but can you just shut up about it already?"

Lethal Interjection wrote:
And wrote:Guys. You're splitting hairs.

Nobody rejects evolution because of non-religious or existentialist or agnosticism about biological processes. There is no mainstream (or even, substantial non-mainstream) dissent about this. You can argue all you want, but meanwhile, in the real world, the only ones making an effort to reject evolution are the creationists, and this is ALWAYS a religious argument (Catholic, Young Earth or whatever: still religious and still creationist). So the criticism from Zach's comic very much applies.


And you lose your argument for italicizing 'nobody' and then going ahead and suggesting that there might be some in the next sentence. The rest of your argument then swirls round the bowl until it slips from all relevance.



He's essentially correct, and you riposte with more hair-splitting.
Guest
 

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby Guest » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:31 pm

Guest wrote:
ThatThereLazyGuy wrote:JOY. Another anti-religious comic. Honestly, evolution has been pretty well proven, but this stuff is just... annoying.


I kind of feel the same way. On one hand, it can be annoying when all the technophile/nerd/rational types (if you understand the vague, broad demographic I'm referring to here) harp on the stupidity of creationists, when clearly the issue was settled, like, a hundred years ago. I mean, no one really takes that creationist stuff seriously, right? Except, there is actually a funded, motivated movement that is doing a pretty good job of subverting mainstream opinion through sophism. I don't think they actually have a chance of winning (because, they're like actually wrong) but it does sometimes seem like a hurdle we have to clear before we can do awesome stuff.

It makes me wonder if people in the antebellum north were like "Guys, yeah slavery obviously sucks but can you just shut up about it already?"

Lethal Interjection wrote:
And wrote:Guys. You're splitting hairs.

Nobody rejects evolution because of non-religious or existentialist or agnosticism about biological processes. There is no mainstream (or even, substantial non-mainstream) dissent about this. You can argue all you want, but meanwhile, in the real world, the only ones making an effort to reject evolution are the creationists, and this is ALWAYS a religious argument (Catholic, Young Earth or whatever: still religious and still creationist). So the criticism from Zach's comic very much applies.


And you lose your argument for italicizing 'nobody' and then going ahead and suggesting that there might be some in the next sentence. The rest of your argument then swirls round the bowl until it slips from all relevance.



He's essentially correct, and you riposte with more hair-splitting.
Guest
 

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby nobody » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:48 pm

Guest wrote:
ThatThereLazyGuy wrote:JOY. Another anti-religious comic. Honestly, evolution has been pretty well proven, but this stuff is just... annoying.


I kind of feel the same way. On one hand, it can be annoying when all the technophile/nerd/rational types (if you understand the vague, broad demographic I'm referring to here) harp on the stupidity of creationists, when clearly the issue was settled, like, a hundred years ago. I mean, no one really takes that creationist stuff seriously, right? Except, there is actually a funded, politically motivated organization that is doing a pretty good job of subverting mainstream opinion through sophism. I don't think they actually have a chance of winning (because, they're like actually wrong) but it does sometimes seem like a hurdle we have to clear before we can do awesome stuff.

It makes me wonder if people in the antebellum north were like "Guys, yeah slavery obviously sucks but can you just shut up about it already?"

Lethal Interjection wrote:
And wrote:Guys. You're splitting hairs.

Nobody rejects evolution because of non-religious or existentialist or agnosticism about biological processes. There is no mainstream (or even, substantial non-mainstream) dissent about this. You can argue all you want, but meanwhile, in the real world, the only ones making an effort to reject evolution are the creationists, and this is ALWAYS a religious argument (Catholic, Young Earth or whatever: still religious and still creationist). So the criticism from Zach's comic very much applies.


And you lose your argument for italicizing 'nobody' and then going ahead and suggesting that there might be some in the next sentence. The rest of your argument then swirls round the bowl until it slips from all relevance.



He's essentially correct, and you riposte with more hair-splitting.
User avatar
nobody
[Insert Here]
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby Passerby » Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:29 am

Yeah, I like it better as the broken-comic-guillotine-joke. Less controversy.
Passerby
 

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby leaford » Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:47 am

KKoro wrote:
And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.

Well, you could have someone who is some form of existentialist and simply doesn't believe that the material world is real, you could have an extreme skeptic with a similar viewpoint (which could count as extremely paranoid science), or you could have someone who believes in Intelligent Design. Like the Catholic Church, for example.

ALTERNATE REPLY
You could have an extreme skeptic, or a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design.

Bull. Intelligent design is creationism. Period. The term was invented as a dodge to be able to claim creation science, as it was called then, was not religious, so they could get around the seperation of church and state and teach it in schools. To the point that creationist textbooks simply copied and pasted to replace creationism with intelligent design or design proponants. They goofed on one instance though, and wound up with the mixed phrase, "Cdesign proponantsists." You are buying into a deliberate lie. IDists may or may not be young earth creationists, they may be theistic evolutionists, but that's only a difference in when and how long creation took. They are still creationists either way, and when you push them past their practiced rhetoric, they reveal that they believe the designer was god, not aliens or whatever.

BTW, this forum has the worst ever validation question. Someone shouldn't have to wiki the cartoonist's life story to post a reply.
leaford
 

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby leaford » Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:54 am

Guest wrote:
And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.

Well, for starters, religious stances aren't necessarily creationism, creationism isn't necessarily religious, unscientific stances aren't necessarily religious, and religious stances aren't necessarily in conflict with science (which is not to say they are scientific, but if the Pope says that life can exist on other planets that doesn't make scientific reasons to believe life might exist on other planets unscientific). Any and all of these can be applied to anti-evolution =/= creationism, but my favourite is simply that the theory of evolution is not in any way incompatible with a young earth, it describes a process of speciation which is more or less common sense and it doesn't really matter to the validity of the theory how long it's had to operate.


Well sure, if you ignore all evidence and examples in the real world and speculate on pure hypotheticals, then anti-evolutionism may or may not equal creatiionism. If you're talking about the real world however, you are just simply wrong.

Same for the time scale of evolution. If you ignore all of geology, paleontology, planetary formation and cosmology, atomic theory, chemistry, genetics, molecular biology, and basically every other field of science, then sure, evolution could have occured in 6,000 years instead of around 3-4 billion. But meanwhile, in the real world, there is a huge mountain of evidence drawn from nearly all of science that says you are wrong.
leaford
 

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby leaford » Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:58 am

Montero wrote:
KKoro wrote:
And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.

Well, you could have someone who is some form of existentialist and simply doesn't believe that the material world is real, you could have an extreme skeptic with a similar viewpoint (which could count as extremely paranoid science), or you could have someone who believes in Intelligent Design. Like the Catholic Church, for example.

ALTERNATE REPLY
You could have an extreme skeptic, or a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design.

It is often simpler than this. Many people don't believe in evolution in the same way they don't believe in electrolysis, in neurochemistry o in quantum physics. They don't know much about these things, or don't find them relevant to their life, so they simply keep themself agnostic about them. Without malice or ideology, just because they lack of a true reliance on science.
leaford
 

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby leaford » Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:07 am

Montero wrote:
KKoro wrote:
And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.

Well, you could have someone who is some form of existentialist and simply doesn't believe that the material world is real, you could have an extreme skeptic with a similar viewpoint (which could count as extremely paranoid science), or you could have someone who believes in Intelligent Design. Like the Catholic Church, for example.

ALTERNATE REPLY
You could have an extreme skeptic, or a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design.

It is often simpler than this. Many people don't believe in evolution in the same way they don't believe in electrolysis, in neurochemistry o in quantum physics. They don't know much about these things, or don't find them relevant to their life, so they simply keep themself agnostic about them. Without malice or ideology, just because they lack of a true reliance on science.


Oops, lost my portion of the reply. Reply is as follows:

That would be ignorance or uncertainty, not anti-evolutionism. ANti means against. An anti-evolutionist would be someone who rejects the theory of evolution, and therefore either actively or by default supports an alternate. And there aren't any alternate theories besides those that boil down to some form of creationism. You can be a creationist of another religion, like a hindu or muslim creationist. You can be a Raelian and believe we were created by aliens. You can be a theistic evolutionist. Or whatever. But in the end the only alternate theories to evolution that really exist are variations on creationism.
leaford
 

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby Surely you Guest » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:22 am

Intelligent design isn't creationism (although they typically coexist), unless you're committing the same fallacy of conflation as in panel 7 of the awful comic in question.

I personally subscribe to spontaneous generation.
Surely you Guest
 

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby Oldrac the Chitinous » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:30 am

Surely you Guest wrote:Intelligent design isn't creationism (although they typically coexist), unless you're committing the same fallacy of conflation as in panel 7 of the awful comic in question.

I personally subscribe to spontaneous generation.

That username is the high point of this thread.
Police said they spent some time working out if they could charge the man with being armed with a weapon, as technically he was armed with part of a fish.
User avatar
Oldrac the Chitinous
Chicken O' the Sea
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:41 pm
Location: The Perfect Stillness of the Deep

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby Kimra » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:38 am

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:
Surely you Guest wrote:....

That username is the high point of this thread.

Agreed.
King Prawn
User avatar
Kimra
He-Man in a Miniskirt
 
Posts: 6872
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:18 am
Location: meanwhile elsewhere

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

Postby Edminster » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:09 am

Kimra wrote:
Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:
Surely you Guest wrote:....

That username is the high point of this thread.

Agreed.

Yeah, this is the best the thread will have to offer, so it's time for it to die.
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always

gödel stop spreading fud
User avatar
Edminster
Tested positive for Space-AIDS
 
Posts: 8849
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Internet

Previous

Return to Latest Comic Discussion 3: Revenge of the Son of Latest Comic Discussion 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests