Posted: Mar 28, 2015 7:48 am
tolman wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s technically your fantasy that an “actual atheist” would present a highly ecology-heavy view of human evolution”. You need to point to such a critter doing that.
I simply point out that just as you search around looking for things you can pretend are evidence for your imaginary ideology, a dishonest creationist could just as easily select the writings of atheist ecologists and claim that their 'excessive concentration' on special interactions was a deliberate atheist reaction diametrically opposing the biblical account of man being a different and superior created being.
Sure, it would be pathetic, and hopelessly intellectually dishonest, but no more so than what you are doing.
Basically, pretty much any scientific account of nature is going to displease intellectual children who want to cling to religious or similar fairy stories.
I'm sure one could choose all manner of world religions or pseudo-scientific views of nature and find within them people who think 'science' is out to get them as a result of 'science' not saying what they want it to say, whether or not 'science' had even heard of their stories, let alone considered them as meriting the slightest attention.
You are still speaking without practical example about an imaginary atheist ecologist and an imaginary response from an imaginary creationist. And yet you “are sure one could choose all manner” of something else. What I am doing is practical criticism: drawing particular conclusions from particular text. And please note, I’m doing that without calling anyone an intellectual child or dishonest; none of that bad-mouthing you find necessary or useful.
tolman wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:By your own argument above the process of evolution has been more than novelty generation. Mutation has been followed by testing in a world ruled by logic- and that has led to inscrutable progressive creation Now you try to reduce evolution to “novelty generation”.
Seriously, don't be so hopelessly dishonest.
It should not be necessary in adult discourse to explicitly mention every aspect of something every single time that thing is mentioned in order to avoid being shittily misrepresented as having 'changed one's position' from an earlier paragraph.
I think I've wasted enough time on your cuntish mendacity.
Maybe you aren’t appreciating fully, that I justifiably read your posts as dedicatedly polemical. Not just your calling me a lying cunt, but also when you call creativity “novelty generation”. That is active misdirection. Novelty is easily created: a simple algorithm could produce a novel text string like GTOTHVGWAQ. But the biological creation has produced people who can implement that algorithm on a machine they created. That's not so obviously simple.