Are You a Dissipative Structure?

Comments

skeptoid's picture

Jew haters.

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

A few questions come to mind:

Why include the bible when "discussing" evolutionary biology?

Why talk to a jew about the new testament?

Why would anyone assume that evolutionary biologists don't take "sexual selection" into accout if it actually is important?

Why would anyone think it is a good idea to talk to a completely agenda driven religious cunt like shapiro about ANYTHING relating to science?

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Here's what the Bible has to say about evolution.  Genesis 30:31-43:

 

"31 He said, “What shall I give you?” Jacob said, “You shall not give me anything. If you will do this for me, I will again pasture your flock and keep it: 32 let me pass through all your flock today, removing from it every speckled and spotted sheep and every black lamb, and the spotted and speckled among the goats, and they shall be my wages. 33 So my honesty will answer for me later, when you come to look into my wages with you. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats and black among the lambs, if found with me, shall be counted stolen.”34 Laban said, “Good! Let it be as you have said.” 35 But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped and spotted, and all the female goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white on it, and every lamb that was black, and put them in the charge of his sons. 36 And he set a distance of three days' journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob pastured the rest of Laban's flock.

 

37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.40 And Jacob separated the lambs and set the faces of the flocks toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban. He put his own droves apart and did not put them with Laban's flock. 41 Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding, Jacob would lay the sticks in the troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed among the sticks,42 but for the feebler of the flock he would not lay them there. So the feebler would be Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's. 43 Thus the man increased greatly and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkeys."

 

Long story, short:  if you have animals look at patterns while they breed then you can influence genetic variation in future offspring.  BIBLE SCIENCE!

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Peterson doesn't do himself any favors by taking any of the Bible seriously. 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

That may be the most ignorant statement I've ever read from you. But of course you're not alone. Check out the comment section of this video on YouTube.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Explain why.  He's referring to the Bible as though it is fact or should be considered a respectable source of morality or ethics.  How many verses do I have to quote from that source espousing the submission to an unknowable God?

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Rather than telling people they are ignorant, let us know which parts of the bible one actually should take seriously and why one should disregard the rest.....

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Rather than dismiss an entire hypothesis because it extrapolates part of its meaning from the Bible - a framework of concepts that serves as the foundation for our current civlization in the west extending all the way to before the enlightenment, before the Biblical dark ages and into the era of the Orthodox church - why don't you actually watch the video and comment on Peterson's hypothesis? I have a YouTube comment section full of comments like yours and Grothesk's, but almost none actually address the idea that our inability to understand and define consciousness has led naturalists to omit it as a driving force of evolution, not just physical evolution but the evolution of how we see ourselves and each other - memes as conceptual building blocks instead of "viruses" that obscure the truth of a meaningless and empty existence. 

 

No comment from either of you on ANY of that - just Grothesk pulling a Dillahunty. That's pathetic guys.

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

So it's foolish to discount something as amorphous as "the consciousness" but it's entirely rational to accept that there's a God with literally 0 evidence?  Oh, and He inspired angry Jews to write it while cowering in caves, guys.  

 

Yeah, *WE'RE* the fools here.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I didn't use the word foolish but, yes, that as well. It is the very fact that consciousness is an emergent property of a natural process, the effects of which  can clearly be measured, that Peterson is referring to here - someone tells you to just pretend it doesn't exist because God drowned the little children and you're onboard because you have an agenda. Look, maybe it's best if, rather than spill your psychology all over the comment section whenever you feel triggered by Peterson, you just go into a quiet room and listen to some pagan thrash music instead. You know it would be more productive. Or, perhaps you could watch this analysis by a modernist theist who follows the same approach as Peterson to fully intake everything that Peterson is talking about here. That doesn't mean you have to agree - but at least you'd have something to actually disagree with, right?

 

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

I may consider answering your question if I for once get a straight answer from you..... Not holding my breath, though. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

With almost every breath you make you telegraph your unwillingness to engage in an honest discussion. But sure - here's the answer to encapsulates my views more or less (it's a starting point):

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEEFE7764C0CDD74B

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat

 

You can add the fiction and non-fiction books of C.S. Lewis, which are commentaries on the Bible, and some non-fiction essays written by Tolkien. Anyway it's a good start - let me know when you're done and we can discuss. 

 

Here's a simple question to get you started - Where does the modern Western concept of "hypocrisy" come from?

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Of course asking for a strightforward statement from you is resulting in shit. Can't you express yourself? Do you always need others to do it? Pathetic.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

You're terrified. I do sympathize though. You asked for the parts of the Bible that have value according to my viewpoint - it's reflected by the two playlists I sent you. I didn't derive my beliefs from their work - I saw them reflected in their work, and reading their work helped me to describe my beliefs with more refinement and efficiency. How much have you read on the phenomenological approach to the Gospels? I've read Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens - I know what they say about the Bible. Is that all you know?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Skeptoid, you can't sum up your views and beliefs upon the world in a paragraph or two?  Instead you link two Youtube play lists that measure over 24 hours worth of lectures?  Should I also expect you to watch 39 hours worth of disparate lectures before you and I can have a dialogue on a topic?  

 

Yeesh!

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

You can sum up your views and beliefs upon the world in a paragraph or two? Neither one of you has studied phenomenology, so neither one of you is in a position to dialogue with me about it. Happy learning.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Do you need hedge clippers to shave that pretentious neckbeard?  I know you know how to communicate, but now you're just sounding like a 20-year-old who just got out of his first class of philosophy 101.  "Oh, you don't know anything about phenomenology so I don't even have the time to bow down to you, m'sirs.  Good day."

 

Please.  Stop sniffing your own farts and learn to fucking communicate.  You're the one espousing the belief in a volcano god who chooses to only talk to one patriarch and specifically tells him to tell ovulating women to GTFO until they're done bleeding.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

"You're the one espousing the belief in a volcano god who chooses to only talk to one patriarch and specifically tells him to tell ovulating women to GTFO until they're done bleeding."

 

LOLOLOLOL - and you ask why? Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Doesn't really seem worth the effort of conversation.  If you want to revel in your ancient religion you are free to do so. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

You really do wonder why the word twat comes to mind almost every time one has a conversation with you, don't you.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Oh, and I forgot:
"Jordan Peterson Challenges Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, ...."

 

No he does not. Dawkins would have handed his arse to him on a plate in a real discussion about the topic.....

 

He preaches to one of his fanboys, and look at the pathetic shapiro drooling over the non-arguments he so much loves. 

Fucking ridiculous.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Do you understand how the word challenge is being used in this title?

+1
-2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

If you want to challenge someone you will have to give them opportunity to reply. His "challenge" on evolution would have been debunked rather quickly and all the hot air would have deflated. This is not challenging but preaching to the crowd of believers. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

You have no way of knowing how the discussion between Peterson and Dawkins would go. But you do have almost 6 hours of Peterson vs. Harris to analyze. You're complaining about your predicted outcome, not the fact that these statements from Peterson are a challenge to the views of Harris and Dawkins, especially regarding free will. I have no idea how the discussion with Dawkins would go.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down