Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Edit: postjump

Obviously you need to look up the definition of conspiracy. Besides, if it was it would be a pretty piss poor one, since he is pretty open action-wise. No one has yet offered any evidence that he is not Muslim.

You would be the guy who would see someone kill someone else and then believe him when he tells you it didn't happen.

 

[Mort Divine]

Not going into the whole evolution debate again, just stating that there is plenty of room for arguement, and to top it off the news piece throws out the same incorrect bullshit tying in Darwin as the originator of the theory.

There is ZERO room for argument against evolution. It happens. That is fact. It is the mechanisms behind it that have room for argument.

 

[Dak]

Maybe I should be more specific and reference origins as my main disagreement. Also, mutations =/= evolution.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Evolution has been studied way harder than creationism or alternative theories, maybe that's for a reason or maybe we just need more funding to support opposing theories.

No, creationism has been studied for way too long and has been disqualified as a valid theory by cognitive reason and logic.

It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a rational human being can believe in a president that believes in God, simply because that belief makes them happy.

...and we're not talking the Big Bang theory here, we are talking evolution, which is NOT an absolute system (like religion is) but is most definitely a Metaphysical absolute.

 

[Dak]

It is perfectly absurd for religious moderates to suggest that a rational human being can believe in a president that believes in God, simply because that belief makes them happy.

?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

What, too extreme? or are my thoughts much too scattered? lol

 

[Dak]

It didn't really make any sense.

 

[Matt]

 

[Pessimism]

I like how they ignored all the Muslim signs Obama is regularly throwing out because he went to a radical "christian" church. I don't know any Christians who celebrate Ramadan/speak glowingly of Islam and make fun of the Bible like Obama does.

Alright, links please. If this is true it should be all over CNN/NPR/FOX some other bullshit. And no, I will not look it up; you made the statements so the burden of proof is on you to deliver the evidence.

Also, they ignored the fact that witches, sorcers, etc. do exist. Not the green face painted pointy hat wearing kind, but they do exist.

It's one thing to say the physical occupation exists, and another to say that said occupation can actually do what they say they do. Yeah, "sorcerers" exist, but there is no physically possible way that they can perform an incantation or cast a spell that will work. Essentially what I am saying is that a job that details with metaphysical quackery can indeed exist, but that doesn't mean said metaphysical aspects of the job are "real".

I find itn hard to believe that 20% of Americans believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, but that is a far cry from not believing in evolution, which is not scientific fact.

I find it easy to believe counting the intellectual apathy that is prevalent in the American culture. Most people do not look into the origin or age of the universe, just like most do not question their moral boundaries or the roots of said beliefs until they are pushed into such territories.

Aside from the above, your statement is that evolution is not a scientific fact is wrong. Maybe you may be referencing the semantic stranglehold that encompasses the term "theory", but I assure you - as does the rest of the legitimate scientific community - that a set of propositions or concepts that is rooted in observable phenomena that is also backed up by testable empirical/evidential claims (that in turn either prove or disprove previously held conceptions) may indeed be considered “fact” for a number of reasons. In this instance however, when referring specifically to theories such as evolution or gravity, it is the lengthy acquisition of data that has weeded out all other alternative theories and conceptions (which by nature failed to make the cut due to either the inability to create a repeatable test to validate observations, or validate already mathematically accepted axioms via a given logical system). Evolution in this case has far more evidential claims to back up its factual status than all other propositions combined, and it also has no contradictions in its design (and no, the missing link for humans argument does not work in this instance because we have already proven that we share older lineages with creatures that are older than our missing ancestral link – hence why the lack of discovered physical data does not hinder the ancestral argument itself).


The term “theory” is also a misnomer, and I will leave two websites that explain why to put the final nails in this coffin:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Theory

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

If you're talking about shamans in primitive societies then yeah I guess I believe in witches too.

Obama probably isn't a Christian at the core of his beliefs, but joined a church because the voting public would never vote for a non-Christian. I don't think he's a Muslim either. And what's wrong with making fun of the Bible or saying good things about Islam? You don't have to sit there and go "everything about my religion is perfect" to count as a member, and by not Islam-bashing he is trying to win appeal from Muslims (the largest religious group on earth unless you lump Catholics and Protestants together) and people who hate "Islamophobia."

Obama, like most religious people, do not delve into their beliefs – this is a staple of the religious intellect as of now unfortunately. People may know stories, people may know why certain things are good or bad – but most do not know of the mountain of contradictions within their own set of beliefs, and most are completely unwilling to shatter their worldview to gain a deeper understanding of such things. I however would argue that if a religion has established a specific set of codices, that someone who has a generalized acceptance of said tenets towards a system does not make one a member of a specific system. Religion is a be all take all game, there is no gray area with most of them. That's why I don't call anyone, for example, a specific denomination of Christian, because when you get right down to the rulebook they aren't most of the time. I just lump them together as “theists”, and if I feel like being lazy then I group them by general tenets (example: Jews, Muslims, Christians) – that however isn't to say my labeling of them as such ACTUALLY means they are members of said groups (for the reason previously given).
Really though, I agree, it's probably just pandering – he is a politician after all.

Evolution has been studied way harder than creationism or alternative theories, maybe that's for a reason or maybe we just need more funding to support opposing theories.

We throw away enough money over here on bullshit as it is. Let's stick to what has already proven to be fact.

I want to know where they're getting these figures from and how that muckraking piece of shit actually proves that Americans are dumb vs. that they don't know specific facts.

Polls, gloriously “impossible to fake” polls!

The process of evolution is definitely scientific fact. The unproven theories address why and how it happens.

We've already found out the how's and why's in certain instances, but there are also a lot of theories as to what happened based on ascential reasoning (logically/accurately tying effect to cause via already established evolutionary paths and accepted models of the physical world): such as the natural formation of RNA structures, and basic single celled life forms arising from said protoplasmic crap.

http://www.evolutionofdna.com/Scientist-Summary.html
http://www.evolutionofdna.com/
^This is also a book that is being published soon, so you can read through many many chapters.

Here, everyone can also have some other links for the fun of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_DNA_evolution
Also something detailing the link between mutation and evolution (HINT: They are part of the same system, so in essence mutation = evolution)
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v11/n8/full/nrg2808.html

 

[Chimaera]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11061296

 

[Dak]

Alright, links please. If this is true it should be all over CNN/NPR/FOX some other bullshit. And no, I will not look it up; you made the statements so the burden of proof is on you to deliver the evidence.

I'll just start with the fact he was raised Muslim by a Muslim father and has a Muslim name. Those require no digging. I alreayd asked for proof that he isn't Muslim, you can't start "NO U"-ing me.

It's one thing to say the physical occupation exists, and another to say that said occupation can actually do what they say they do. Yeah, "sorcerers" exist, but there is no physically possible way that they can perform an incantation or cast a spell that will work. Essentially what I am saying is that a job that details with metaphysical quackery can indeed exist, but that doesn't mean said metaphysical aspects of the job are "real".

That wasn't what the article indicated though. It just threw out a blanket statement with no qualifiers. That was my point. People get irritated over word games, but defining terms is more important than anything else in a debate.

I find it easy to believe counting the intellectual apathy that is prevalent in the American culture. Most people do not look into the origin or age of the universe, just like most do not question their moral boundaries or the roots of said beliefs until they are pushed into such territories.

We are talking about something that anyone who was in school K-6th grade has seen a million posters/hanging models of.

Evolution tl;dr

Not getting into this.

Obama, like most religious people, do not delve into their beliefs – this is a staple of the religious intellect as of now unfortunately. People may know stories, people may know why certain things are good or bad – but most do not know of the mountain of contradictions within their own set of beliefs, and most are completely unwilling to shatter their worldview to gain a deeper understanding of such things. I however would argue that if a religion has established a specific set of codices, that someone who has a generalized acceptance of said tenets towards a system does not make one a member of a specific system.

The problem with pointing out contradictions in any belief system is that the believers always have a system of explanation to make them not be contradictions.

Edit: Also, I don't really see what this has to do with anything posted earlier.

Religion is a be all take all game, there is no gray area with most of them. That's why I don't call anyone, for example, a specific denomination of Christian, because when you get right down to the rulebook they aren't most of the time. I just lump them together as “theists”, and if I feel like being lazy then I group them by general tenets (example: Jews, Muslims, Christians) – that however isn't to say my labeling of them as such ACTUALLY means they are members of said groups (for the reason previously given).

This is true. Christianity is probably the most fragmented religion on the planet, so labeling someone as Christian is about as descriptive as describing a woman as "female".

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Actually he can start No-Uing you. Look up burden of proof.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's no fucking proof for any of this. Obama could say he's anything he wants. He could be an atheist. Why would he ever claim such a thing? He wouldn't, so we would never know.

The point is, it doesn't really fucking matter what his religion is because this is America and he can believe whatever he wants.

And burden of proof should be held by both sides of a debate.

 

[Dak]

And burden of proof should be held by both sides of a debate.

This.

Anyway: Court ruling government has the right to track you

Other than LOL at the articles suggestions of privacy being some sort of liberal ideal, scary stuff.

 

[Pessimism]

I'll just start with the fact he was raised Muslim by a Muslim father and has a Muslim name. Those require no digging. I alreayd asked for proof that he isn't Muslim, you can't start "NO U"-ing me.

I was raised Catholic and have a Hebrew name, yet here I am not currently a Catholic, nor am I descended from any Judaic lines. The point of your statement is literally meaningless. What I am asking for right now is legitimate proof of Obama's ties to Islam, not whether he was raised by a Muslim or is named after one.

We are talking about something that anyone who was in school K-6th grade has seen a million posters/hanging models of.

My point was people believe in stupid things, whether evidence exists to the contrary or not.

Not getting into this.

Good.

The problem with pointing out contradictions in any belief system is that the believers always have a system of explanation to make them not be contradictions.

Edit: Also, I don't really see what this has to do with anything posted earlier.

It was me just calling people on their shit - you know, it was like, a tangent bro.

I also disagree with you though; logical and evidential arguments aside, there are some contradictory assessments, specifically within the Christian metaphysical realm, that apologetics have a hard time addressing specifically because of the inherent incongruity that exists in the system.

And burden of proof should be held by both sides of a debate.

Which is why I provided articles for my claims.

This.

Anyway: Court ruling government has the right to track you

God I hate lawyers who create semantic loopholes; especially to sidestep amendments.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

China's massive traffic jam could last for weeks

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100824/ap_on_re_as/as_china_traffic_jam

If this happened where I lived the story would lean towards people being murdered

 

[Dak]

I was raised Catholic and have a Hebrew name, yet here I am not currently a Catholic, nor am I descended from any Judaic lines. The point of your statement is literally meaningless. What I am asking for right now is legitimate proof of Obama's ties to Islam, not whether he was raised by a Muslim or is named after one.

I might get back to you on this, but probably not, since any evidence I bring will be tossed out as either circumstancial or political pandering.

I also disagree with you though; logical and evidential arguments aside, there are some contradictory assessments, specifically within the Christian metaphysical realm, that apologetics have a hard time addressing specifically because of the inherent incongruity that exists in the system.

I agree. I feel sorry for most Christian apologetics because they inevitably fall on the flaws of translation or interpretation, but are too stubborn to realize it.

Which is why I provided articles for my claims.

You didn't regarding Obama, which is what he was talking about

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I might get back to you on this, but probably not, since any evidence I bring will be tossed out as either circumstancial or political pandering.

So in other words "I have no evidence to back up my ridiculous claims so therefore I am going to not provide said evidence or even attempt to say anything else on this matter because everyone will think I am teh dumb" (we already kinda do, dude, no offense. I mean sometimes I think you have okay points but saying obviously trolling/dumb things like "lol evolution isn't fact, it's theory and theories aren't factz i've theorized all day doesn't mean its fact!1!" basically puts your credibility around the level of people saying Jesus rode around on dinosaurs).

And burden of proof should be held by both sides of a debate.

FUCKIN' BURDEN OF PROOF, HOW DOES IT WORK? Well, I'll tell you, since you both clearly do not understand:

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.

Dakryn is the one who issued the claim, therefore burden of proof is (first and foremost) on him. No one had, theretofore, made the claim that Obama was in fact not a Muslim, and therefore they do not need to prove that he is not a Muslim. Dakryn, having issued the claim first, however, does need to prove his claim with relevant evidence/facts before anyone can logically debate his position. Since there is no goddamned fucking evidence Obama is a "durn Muslim terr'ist", though, we will never get to the point that the other people need to prove that he is not.

 

[damnromulans]

We don't know for sure if dinosaurs ever existed

 

[Dak]

So in other words "I have no evidence to back up my ridiculous claims so therefore I am going to not provide said evidence or even attempt to say anything else on this matter because everyone will think I am teh dumb" (we already kinda do, dude, no offense. I mean sometimes I think you have okay points but saying obviously trolling/dumb things like "lol evolution isn't fact, it's theory and theories aren't factz i've theorized all day doesn't mean its fact!1!" basically puts your credibility around the level of people saying Jesus rode around on dinosaurs).

I loled. But seriously, there is plenty of evidence (Hi, Google) that he is at least pandering to Muslims.

As I have said before about other things, science is finding out every 10 years it was wrong about something, so when I feel like something doesnt't add up, all I do/think is what I think is right and wait for the times to catch up. Like eggs and cholesterol for instance. It's worked well for me so far, maybe evolution will be the instance where I am wrong, but I don't really even see how that is going to hurt me much, other than upsetting some doodz on the interwebz.

Edit: How about Wayne Madsen finding out Obama and Rahm were both members of a gay club in Chicago. Neither Christian or Muslim evidence, but lol.