|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 1, 2021 19:08:42 GMT
As for my first assertion, can anyone here PROVE that genetics is anything more than pseudo-science?
In specific all the racial classification going on,
which to me simply looks like the sophistry of racism.
Is there an experiment I can actually do that has some meaningful use here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 12, 2021 8:09:57 GMT
jonbainNo, actually I don't. It isn't just that. Others were mentioning color/race so I just decided to stick to talking about that only. Yes and no. Not many people get the chance to access education so that will change things. It needs to be tested better with everyone receiving the sme form and amount of education. For exmple, during the time of slavery in the US, slaves were denied access to proper education so it wasn't because of their genes that they didn't know things but because of others standing in their way. The moment a former slave, Frederick Douglass, was taught to read and write he became famous. People were shocked he was such a smart and influental person in his writing. But that was because of his education not genes because without his education his genes would have kept him illiterate as he was locked away by slave owners. Also, science says with genetics that intelligence comes from the mother. So think of all the females who are denied education by family or spouse. Especially like those in Afganistan who marry at 12 and just do nothing but give birth. Those people who allow this harm themselves by doing that because their genes wont help them unless it's the mother's educated genes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 12, 2021 8:16:22 GMT
Nope I cant prove that nor is there proof to begin with. As per racial classification it isn't racism. It like looking at a box of crayons and identifying what you see like yellow, brown, black, etc. That isn't being racist against colors simply by doing that or trying to see if a blue/green color can be classified as more blue or green. Racism is more of being against a person because of their color than identifying their color. By against I don't mean just having a preference for liking just a mere person over another because you can dislike a person of your own race or color despite them being family or not. This dislike isn't really based on color and isn't racism but their personality that makes it hard to be around them. Now if one just dislikes them based on color alone then it is purely racism because there are bad and good people in all races so the bias in a person just wont let the other person prove themselves to be a good person. Now that is ok too because people have that right to be racisf and that to me shows right off the bat who has a big ego and someone I wouldn't be friends with irl. Don't care for their color. If I see someone with that ego in need of help who has my skin color and another one with a skin color the egomaniac is putting down who needs help too...then I will help the one who isn't driving me nuts with their big ego and secretly hope I will be too late to help the egomaniac to avoid future headaches from them. This charge by that criminal rabble-rouser, Martin Luther King, that his savage people are discriminated against only because of the color of their skin is purposely simple-minded and viciously dishonest. It's as retarded as saying that those who opposed Hitler were motivated only by dislike of his mustache. Your blue avatar gives you an A though so I think it is a good judgement to get! I am not a fan of Martin Luther. Not because of his skin color but of his character that he hid from people. To me he was a two faced liar and his family deserved better. An F grade for him. I oppose Hitler because he was a murderer with a big ego. Hed probably be bullied in school if he was alive today to fix up that ego of his. He gets an F too. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 12, 2021 14:42:47 GMT
jonbain No, actually I don't. It isn't just that. Others were mentioning color/race so I just decided to stick to talking about that only. Yes and no. Not many people get the chance to access education so that will change things. It needs to be tested better with everyone receiving the sme form and amount of education. For exmple, during the time of slavery in the US, slaves were denied access to proper education so it wasn't because of their genes that they didn't know things but because of others standing in their way. The moment a former slave, Frederick Douglass, was taught to read and write he became famous. People were shocked he was such a smart and influental person in his writing. But that was because of his education not genes because without his education his genes would have kept him illiterate as he was locked away by slave owners. Also, science says with genetics that intelligence comes from the mother. So think of all the females who are denied education by family or spouse. Especially like those in Afganistan who marry at 12 and just do nothing but give birth. Those people who allow this harm themselves by doing that because their genes wont help them unless it's the mother's educated genes. Be careful not to conflate your personal position with that of the institutions. I agree with some of what you say.
Intelligence may in many instances "come from the mother" but that is obviously because mothers play the dominant role in teaching children in those crucial first 6 years of life.
The role of education is another issue. But again, you conflate the institution you may have been part of with other institutions which carry the same titles, but which do more to hinder intelligence than promote it, like those I suffered under.
The word 'education' in my book, means 'atheist brainwashing'.
So how did I attain the intelligence that I have?
And how is it possible to teach someone anything?
You can 'teach' all you like but people are often so introverted, so brainwashed into their beliefs, that they refuse to even pay attention to what you say.
Eventually one has to see that the 'will to be' is what is required for the person to 'come out of their shell' and voluntarily WANT to be taught.
How did the first scientists come about?
Who taught them? No, again, that is the WANT to know, that requires volitional thought, not by-rote parroting.
Still you show no place at all for how the soul is connected to genetics; and the institutions and prominent geneticists consider you insane for reckoning that you have a soul.
(Even though they are not psychologists).
So, if you accept the soul, you have to reject the majority of their foundational philosophy of genetics.
Its a threshold argument.
There really is no middle-ground.
Its plausible that a solution can be found, of course, and you may even be the person to reconcile these paradigms. But genetics as it stands in society to day:
is against Christ.
and
it has no foundation in logic nor empirical observation.
I implore you to carefully consider the arguments in
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 12, 2021 16:52:04 GMT
jonbain No, actually I don't. It isn't just that. Others were mentioning color/race so I just decided to stick to talking about that only. Yes and no. Not many people get the chance to access education so that will change things. It needs to be tested better with everyone receiving the sme form and amount of education. For exmple, during the time of slavery in the US, slaves were denied access to proper education so it wasn't because of their genes that they didn't know things but because of others standing in their way. The moment a former slave, Frederick Douglass, was taught to read and write he became famous. People were shocked he was such a smart and influental person in his writing. But that was because of his education not genes because without his education his genes would have kept him illiterate as he was locked away by slave owners. Also, science says with genetics that intelligence comes from the mother. So think of all the females who are denied education by family or spouse. Especially like those in Afganistan who marry at 12 and just do nothing but give birth. Those people who allow this harm themselves by doing that because their genes wont help them unless it's the mother's educated genes. Be careful not to conflate your personal position with that of the institutions. I agree with some of what you say. Intelligence may in many instances "come from the mother" but that is obviously because mothers play the dominant role in teaching children in those crucial first 6 years of life.
The role of education is another issue. But again, you conflate the institution you may have been part of with other institutions which carry the same titles, but which do more to hinder intelligence than promote it, like those I suffered under.
The word 'education' in my book, means 'atheist brainwashing'.
So how did I attain the intelligence that I have?
And how is it possible to teach someone anything?
You can 'teach' all you like but people are often so introverted, so brainwashed into their beliefs, that they refuse to even pay attention to what you say.
Eventually one has to see that the 'will to be' is what is required for the person to 'come out of their shell' and voluntarily WANT to be taught.
How did the first scientists come about?
Who taught them? No, again, that is the WANT to know, that requires volitional thought, not by-rote parroting.
Still you show no place at all for how the soul is connected to genetics; and the institutions and prominent geneticists consider you insane for reckoning that you have a soul.
(Even though they are not psychologists).
So, if you accept the soul, you have to reject the majority of their foundational philosophy of genetics.
Its a threshold argument.
There really is no middle-ground. Its plausible that a solution can be found, of course, and you may even be the person to reconcile these paradigms. But genetics as it stands in society to day:
is against Christ. and it has no foundation in logic nor empirical observation. I implore you to carefully consider the arguments in
I wouldn't necessarily say that genetics is against Christ. Christ made everything anf nothing was ever formed without Him the bible says. Let's put genetics into biology and expand the category. Christ created it all. The only problem is that it isn't being taught as it should. They also teach some points wrong. But it isn't against Christ. They are just trying to make it be that way. First scientists in a way would have to be Adam and Eve. They had to observe the natural world and they asked questions. That's what scientists do. Luckily, for them, they had answers from God and correct answers. And I don't know how you obtained intelligence personally. Were you born this was knowing to read and write through genetics? No. So then who taught you to read, write, and math? Then we can figure out how you obtained it. For me it was my mom and school when I was little. Soul isn't really connected to the body but dwells in it. When God made the body He just inserted it. It dosn't naturally come with the body. Soul also then doesn't tie to genetics either or has human qualities because of where God made it come from. That is why the soul returns back home where it came from when the human dies. It doesn't belong in a grave. A human body will rot but a soul can't so it has no purpose being there. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Aug 12, 2021 17:50:54 GMT
I Have a Dream That I Will One Day Be Judged by the Content of My Posts and Not By the Color of My Avatar!This charge by that criminal rabble-rouser, Martin Luther King, that his savage people are discriminated against only because of the color of their skin is purposely simple-minded and viciously dishonest. It's as retarded as saying that those who opposed Hitler were motivated only by dislike of his mustache. Your blue avatar gives you an A though so I think it is a good judgement to get! I am not a fan of Martin Luther. Not because of his skin color but of his character that he hid from people. To me he was a two faced liar and his family deserved better. An F grade for him. I oppose Hitler because he was a murderer with a big ego. Hed probably be bullied in school if he was alive today to fix up that ego of his. He gets an F too. We avatars of color will take over Hollywood, the news media, and the universities. We will shame the principals at the lower-level schools by calling them avatarists if they refuse to teach Critical Sage Theory. After all, anyone who judges a post by the color of its avatar rather than by its content is uneducated. |
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Aug 12, 2021 19:11:56 GMT
There are people on here who believe in the science and validity of genetics but do not to feel the need to waste their time arguing with people who are not using their brains and God given logic and rationality to try and find the truth of things by thinking critically and are rather reacting emotionally to preconceived notions coming from bad life experiences such as fighting South African apartheid, or arrogant philosophical sophistic pseudo intellectual pretentiousness, or just a genuine ignorance about the subject possibly colored by mistaken religious interpretations. It is best not to waste your time arguing with people who's mind you can't change and who are not on the same page with you morally or epistemologically and are too stubborn and too ignorant and too proudly stubborn in their ignorance to change their mind. It's why I often am wary to weigh in on these debates. What is the point of arguing with rocks? It's why I try not to deal with you much actually. We are not on the same page morally and its a waste of time trying to explain why wanting most people dead is wrong. I wasn't arguing, I was expressing frustration. And trying to find intelligent life, as I said. One doesn't have to share morals to cooperate on common goals. But one does have to share a basic understanding of reality. Anyone who denies genetics is hopeless. But reasonable people with different morals can cooperate where their goals happen to overlap. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 12, 2021 20:16:53 GMT
ElizabethI accept that God made the body and all that is in it. That is not what genetics text-books say. Their entire paradigm is against such thinking. So you can realize a form of biology that might take those ideas, and meld them together, but THAT would be Elizabethetics, not genetics. You ask where I learnt to read and count and such. I got taught the basic ideas, but then I took that and developed it mostly on my own. I often arrived at answers at school and university that were correct, but that were simpler in method than what was taught me by school-teachers, and so I was frequently failed because it was not the official clumsy way of getting those answers. I also ask where the first scientists got THEIR answers? How did Newton arrive at his answers? Did his mom teach him? Was it in his mom's genes? Genetics would say that it was all just a random lucky mutation. But how so if he had SO MANY answers. If correct NEW science came from random mutations then it would be spread out amongst many people, it would not come from just one person like it did with Isaac Newton; who was as devout as a man can be, btw. But moreover, there is still no basic benchmark proof for genetics. Like there is with Newton and gravity or simple motion: velocity and time. Where is this starting point of proof for genetics?
What is the first fundamental axiomatic proof?(For genetics, not Elizabethetics)
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP 
Elder
Posts: 2,698 
Likes: 1,758
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Aug 13, 2021 1:25:18 GMT
There are people on here who believe in the science and validity of genetics but do not to feel the need to waste their time arguing with people who are not using their brains and God given logic and rationality to try and find the truth of things by thinking critically and are rather reacting emotionally to preconceived notions coming from bad life experiences such as fighting South African apartheid, or arrogant philosophical sophistic pseudo intellectual pretentiousness, or just a genuine ignorance about the subject possibly colored by mistaken religious interpretations. It is best not to waste your time arguing with people who's mind you can't change and who are not on the same page with you morally or epistemologically and are too stubborn and too ignorant and too proudly stubborn in their ignorance to change their mind. It's why I often am wary to weigh in on these debates. What is the point of arguing with rocks? It's why I try not to deal with you much actually. We are not on the same page morally and its a waste of time trying to explain why wanting most people dead is wrong. I wasn't arguing, I was expressing frustration. And trying to find intelligent life, as I said. One doesn't have to share morals to cooperate on common goals. But one does have to share a basic understanding of reality. Anyone who denies genetics is hopeless. But reasonable people with different morals can cooperate where their goals happen to overlap. I'm not saying you're arguing; I'm explaining why I am not arguing. You were dismayed that no one on here defends the science of genetics. I'm saying, why in the flying feck would I do that? I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than trying to explain to grown adults why basic biology is true.  |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 13, 2021 20:03:48 GMT
Your blue avatar gives you an A though so I think it is a good judgement to get! I am not a fan of Martin Luther. Not because of his skin color but of his character that he hid from people. To me he was a two faced liar and his family deserved better. An F grade for him. I oppose Hitler because he was a murderer with a big ego. Hed probably be bullied in school if he was alive today to fix up that ego of his. He gets an F too. We avatars of color will take over Hollywood, the news media, and the universities. We will shame the principals at the lower-level schools by calling them avatarists if they refuse to teach Critical Sage Theory. After all, anyone who judges a post by the color of its avatar rather than by its content is uneducated. Yes, so why was there a drift to avatars from science being against Christ? |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 13, 2021 20:18:39 GMT
ElizabethI accept that God made the body and all that is in it. Plus the universe and everything else basically. Indeed, it will disagree but a fallen world would. Without God they will just make up theor own answers despite whether they are correct or not. Yes, you were taught and you had the will to learn. Some people were denied that and didn't have any material to learn themselves unless they get some access to it to take the opportinunity. Some might be wrong answers too but it is at least towards the path of finding knowledge if that path is provided. You mean what the world refers to as scientists? And no genetics had nothing to do with it still. They had the urge to learn things. Well...maybe not always. Einstein was barely a good student...maybe C average. So he wasn't impressive at first until he actually got a desire to learn. Some moms or other people could be their start in teaching but if they have no will nothing they are taught will matter until they make it matter. Yeah, he just had a will for a hobby or intrest for it. People have talents in areas and when they use those talents good things happen otherwise they just waste their talents. So I am using genetics in a broader term of biology. Biology is simply studying life and how it came to be. A process of birth is already biology/genetics. A child is made in the genetics or likeness of parents. World might say big bang or something idk. Despite almost majoring in biology there was some garbage I couldn't keep in my head that they made up. It is with creation of Adam and Eve though if we're referring to worldly genetics. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Aug 15, 2021 17:15:48 GMT
Ladies and Gentlemen,
whether fortunate or not, the word "Genetics" was coined in the late 19rh century to mean "the study of [biological] heredity". Hence the result or Theory/Doctrine of such a study. More generally, it is the Theory of biological heredity regardless of the way in which it is arrived at. Indeed, from time immemorial, people have observed that children have various resemblances to their parents -- their gender, some physiogmatic and color traits, some mental/intelligence aptitudes, perhaps temperament, etc. So, we can speak of naturalists and then of investigative observers commonly called scientists, who study people or corpses in laboratories and concentrate on the study of cellular genes, DNA, etc., necessarily in relation to naturalistic concepts such as physiognomy, aptitudes, etc. One perennial issue: Is what I do due to my biological/genetic constitution or what I have been learning socially? There is no issue between Genetics and Christ, or Christian theology; However, we can envision one between Genetics and Orphicism [in or out of theology], since the latter posits a soul as a cluster of mental faculties; hence the perennial issue of body and soul....
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 16, 2021 13:17:22 GMT
ElizabethDo you still accept Einstein was a real scientist? Answer this: If two photons depart a lightbulb in opposite directions, then after 1 second they are 600 000 km apart. What is their velocity in comparison to one another? What would Einstein answer?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 16, 2021 21:52:37 GMT
Genetics is classification. No, genetics is not classification. As Wikipedia say: Genetics is a branch of biology concerned with the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in organisms. Genetics really started with Mendel who was a Augustinian friar. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that no one here understands genetics or has stood up for it. We live in an idiocracy where increasing numbers of people believe that the Earth is flat. I post to forums like this one (one of the few where I haven't been banned) in the hope of finding intelligent life, but it mostly seems futile. Classification is the observation of a specific set of phenomenon relating thus is universal amidst all the sciences. Genetics is a branch of biology. Biology is a classification of organisms and their parts. As a branch of biology it is a branch of classification. The classification of "x" phenomenon as genes and the traits classified through the association of said genes is classification. In observing gene variation one is observing the variation of traits with these traits being classifications of characteristics when "x" relationships of genes occurs. Heredity is the promulgation of characteristics along a time line of organisms. These characteristics exist through classification. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 16, 2021 21:53:52 GMT
Genetics is classification. Classification is science. Genetics is science. As to the quote it is in reference to a stopping of any form of rationalism which takes one away from faith. To speculate is to rationalize and to over emphasize reason at the expense of faith is harmful. I don't really know about the genetics, but the classification isn't science. You can index all your files on your computer and order them in a certain sequence. Does it make you a scientist? By observing a set of phenomenon and dividing them into which parts relate one is practicing the act of science. Science and classification are the same in many respect. Dividing my files into an index of relations under a certain sequence is order the files under a specific science. This science is the observation of "x" files under "y" relationship. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 16, 2021 22:00:50 GMT
Genetics is classification. Classification is science. Genetics is science. As to the quote it is in reference to a stopping of any form of rationalism which takes one away from faith. To speculate is to rationalize and to over emphasize reason at the expense of faith is harmful. Science requires logic, not just arbitrary classification without any merit or effect in its implementation. Astrologers classify people according to star-signs. That does not make it science. They then claim preposterous causality without any baring on reality, and people follow it mindlessly just like they do with genetics. There is no functional difference at all.
The word "rationalism" is ambiguous. In psychology we use it to describe the illusion of rationality, much like we might separate the two words "Ras Tafari" and "Rastafarianism".
The latter having the appearance, but the former being the true believers.
But to rationalize, is the proper use of the term. True rationality can only aid faith, and itself be aided by faith.
So rationalism always hinders faith. There may be a true science within the biology of the body. And basic ideas of medicine certainly work; like body PH, for example. But genetics theory is an arbitrary fabrication, and is no more than an elaborate ponzi scheme, based on 'smoke and mirrors.'
1. Classification requires logic as well given a phenomenon which is classified is "x" phenomenon related to "y" phenomenon. To classify anything is to observe a strict set of relationships. Under these terms anything can be classified as any phenomenon picked amidst the many shows a relationship of component parts which form it. This act of classification is an act of science or pseudoscience (but even as pseudoscience is subject to be a subset of science). 2. Rationalization is the breakdown of relationships and differs from taking something as the "whole" on faith. However in order to understand the whole one must understand its parts. Thus faith and reason must stand side by side. The verse is about the over emphasis of reason at the expense of faith. 3. Genetics is about the passing on of traits and as such is classification. |
|
