/his/ related wallpaper thread
>>293263
I don't get why Daniel Dennet is evil here if that's the quote that's being used to represent him.
>>293263
>>294012
I'l dump a couple
>>294018
>>294023
>>294033
>>294045
>>294049
>>293263
>Big Boys of English Speaking academia
>Singer
The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK"
A buffoon.
>Chomsky
A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe.
Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic.
>Dawkins
A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe.
Never was a great thinker, never will be.
>Rorty
A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil.
>Chalmers
About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.
>Dennett
Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling
Not a serious academic.
.
This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"
>>294058
>>294069
>>294072
>>294066
Why would you post this copypasta here?
>>294079
>>294084
>>294079
Woops accidentally clicked your post
>>294088
Fuck your gay spartans
>>294088
>>294095
>>294093
Persians go home
>>294104
>>294104
>Literally a cowboy
>Persians
>>294018
That tank is about 50% larger than it should be.
>>294107
>>294108
You can't fool me smelly Persian
This is all for now I might dump more later if this thread is still up
/r/ing Napoleonic/Victorian era stuff, especially with artillery and cavalry
>>294140
I can just see the creationist who posted this.
>>294140
Ben stiller gave it away. Needs to be more subtle
>>294193
>>294173
>murrican protestant problems
>>294197
see >>294201
>>294012
shit wallpaper desu. there's still something i like about it though
>>294197
That quote is completely fake.
>>294219
http://www.talkorigins.org/
>>294219
Most evolutionary criticism comes from not understanding the theory itself. We did not come from monkey directly but a distant common origin species. That's why there are so many apes today, diverging branches of the tree. There are no primeval species of the tree still alive since the others originated exactly because they were more adapted to the environment and could outlive the original one
>>294229
Are you the same dude from the creationism thread the other day, I recognise the 2nd link, also why not start a thread if you wish to have a proper discussion?
>>294231
I've come across people earnestly making the 'if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys' argument. but i think a lot of the arguments are going off a misunderstanding of DNA, information, genetics and mutations these days
>>294219
>>294229
Fuck off you deluded lunatic.
>>294245
The problem is that the same people that don't know the major details of the theory are the ones blocking it from being more widespread taught. A shame how people still think trying to block education and research is better than letting people develop it even more and maybe find proofs of its failure
>>294252
The Golden rule of ignorance.
If you give a bullfrog enough billion trillions of years, it will turn into a kangaroo.
t. evolutionist
>>294258
>>294264
Yeah, keep fighting the good fight.
As usual the only thing you can do is spreading misinformation hoping that people as ignorant as you are would group up and make louder noise in order to cover any othe voice they dislike.
Your fanatical proselitism is sickening, you're the source of our society's tremendous ignorance, prejudice and childish entitlement.
>>294264
mentioning interpretations over a century old and thinking it's relevant
>>294264
Even google thinks your wrong mate, 41st anniversary of the discovery of Lucy and the experts certainly do not think such morphological dissimilarities belong to a member of Pan troglodytes
not >>294268
I actually did go to a creationist school in Australia, they actually taught plain factual undisputed errors related to rock formation, such as metamorphic is a mix between sedimentary and igneous. it's applying the leniency granted by governments to religious organisations. but this is all besides the point, because since when did anecdotes count for anything
>>294281
see>>294294
>>294294
*appalling
>>294281
>They make more sense and are backed up by scientific facts
Sure, where are your sources?
Because the entire fossil record so far already disproves anything you can offer.
Cherrypicking lines of text out of context is the most disgusting, despicable kind of tactic scum like you use to lie to others by omitting key information to others and fabricate lies, slander and misconceptions.
You have no proof whatsoever so you distort other's theories in order to make yourself look less miserable and more coherent, you're nothing more than deluded, criminal scum.
>>294281
>That quote
>Purposely bringing out of context to twist it's meaning for your cause
>Accusing others of spreading misinformation
This is your last response from me. You're clearly trolling and I remember the last time you made a thread posting the same garbage with the same pictures and the same "evidence."
You were BTFO then and you're getting BTFO now.
>>294313
>There should be millions, instead we have zero.
k.e.k
definitely a troll
maybe a good one in the sense of <pic related
>>294313
>Scroll up. I already gave several links.
Your sources are fabrications that deliberately illustrate faux, distorted theories made up to male you look good.
>What fossil record? The fossils DISPROVE evolutionism.
The fossils don't prove anything about evolutionism, the whole thing is a theory, and go read a fucking dictionary because you have no idea what a theory is, which only works because so far nothing has been found to disprove it, the fossils already prove that earth is way older than 6000 years like you lunatics say invalidating everything else you can say.
It has been said time and again that if proof is found than the theory will be instantly rejected, fact is to this day nothing has been found to disprove such theory.
You're fucking insane, and the fact that you waste your time trolling with blatantly false sources on a history board tells much more about you than any theory or god ever will.
>>294237
He doesn't wish to have a proper discussion.
It's literally copy paste misinformation while writing "I AM RIGHT" over and over again.
>>294084
Fierce action shot, he's bound to die. Just look at the swing of that goedendag and the horde storming at him. Godspeed, noble templar.
>>294264
>missing links
lel this idea of evolution was refuted ages ago/. back to flipping burgers amerifat
>>294359
>You're going by an "Ad populum" logical fallacy, appeal to authority is not an argument.
>Western academia has been dominated by the liberals and Darwinists
What about the monopoly of education by Christianity in western regions up until darwin's theory's provided a realistic academic alternative for future study of our origins without reference to a hypothetical god as an explanation for unknown phenomena
>>294359
You were already given counter arguments.
What's even worse is you don't have an argument. All you've done is post links that are largely incorrect or built on faulty premises and targeting parts of the theory that are literally irrelevant today.
Any attempt to address this to you and you shut your ears and scream to avoid hearing any form of rebuttal.
The fact is everything you posted is false. If you'd actually like to learn why, I'd suggest you check out the link here >>294226
But you and I both know you're not going to. You going to pull the muh liberal and evolutionist brain washing instead of actually refuting anything or even giving a proper argument.
>>294346
>Soviets taught communism in their schools. Was it true?
Communism is an ideal and a political movement, it has nothing to do with practical science you fucking retard, od you think communism and mathematics are the same thing?
>You're going by an "Ad populum" logical fallacy, appeal to authority is not an argument.
Proofs are the only authority you can appeal to, you're literally wearing a tinfoil hat if you think that scientists follow political agendas, that goes against the entire foundation of science and even if that case would be remotely true that would still not prove anything the creationist "scientists" brought to the table, because there are physical, unequivocable proofs that they're spewing bullshit and fabricating lies based on liberal misinterpretation of theories and slander.
They're the fucking laughingstock of the scientific world.
>>294346
>Ever considered the fact that establishments are known for pushing an agenda?
tbqh i'd rather trust the establishment than wackos like you rofl
>>294264
This kind of shit is why STEM people are assholes to people of lesser careers.
>>294264
I sincerely hope you're joking, how could someone believe this fucking pic
>>293347
I dont get why you think the others are evil based on their quotes.
>>294440
Tell me its just justified. Tell me posts like that dont justify it.
>>294516
>>294173
>>294526
I didn't watch the link, but if it is talking about young earth, then how do you explain angular unconformity >pic related
I have heard creationists arguing for fast deposition of geological strata during muh world wide flood, with regular deposition rates afterwards, if a layer of rock is deposited horizontal, then enough time elapses for it to experience enough pressure to bend as in the picture, followed by erosion leading to the flat top, followed by another deposition event resulting in the horizontal deposition. Do you think these event's can happen in however many years there has been since 'the flood'
>>294526
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html
>>294516
>Kent Hovind debunked Evolutionism.
>A raving madman who's shun by the very same creationist movement for his claim
>Dubious credentials
>Convicted for tax evasion
>Literal tinfoil hat of the highest degree
>Debunking anything
>Trusting a literal thief and convicted criminal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/17/kent-hovind-is-still-in-jail-a/
http://ncse.com/rncse/19/5/unmasking-false-prophet-creationism
These are the people who want to have a say about your educational system America.
>>294556
any comments on >>294542
>>294559
>expecting a serious answer to a counter-argument creationists didn't hand-pick themselves
>>294559
He's a fucking madman, do you really expect him to respond to you seriously?
He doesn't even know enough basic science to not see the atrocious lies and contradictions of the stuff he posted.
>>294516
>Kent Hovind debunked Evolutionism.
yet he didn't debunk the tax system
>The most eloquent creationist speaker gets DESTROYED by Bill "the science guy who is actually just an engie who had a tv show"Nye to a point were he starts MUH BIBLING during the last half of the debate
You cannot make this shit up
>>294577
>He didn't break any laws.
>Deliberately didn't payed tax money and even feigned ignorance on said procedures in court
SHIT THE DAMAGE CONTROL IS REAL
GET A LOAD OF THIS CHRISTKEK
>>294569
>Everyone agrees that the big surprise is the sudden appearance of fossils above the bedrock in the Cambrian Explosion
For one random example, this completely fails to mention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractofusus_misrai
>>294581
Do you mean the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate?
>On February 27, 2014, Ham announced that the publicity the debate generated for AiG had spurred fundraising for its stalled Ark Encounter project, allowing the first phase of construction – a 510-foot (160 m) reconstruction of Noah's Ark estimated to cost $73 million – to begin.
So long term he won. Also, see image. Debates rarely have clear winners, mostly each side will insist they won.
>>294595
The Devil left those in there to tempt men into sin.
>>294604
Hovind would be in jail again, but one of his brainwashed minions, Paul John Hansen, went in there instead.
You know your cult is doing well when your underlings agree to serve jail time for your good.
>Lies and no sources
>Again
>Believes in incoherent ramblings and "science" that doesn't present any kind of proof and makes even less sense than the opposing side
>Can't even bother to articulate his own opinion but would rather parrot blatant lies
>Strawmen all day
This is so fucking pathetic I'm amost believing it's false flagging.
>>294611
If evolution is a fraud, why am I lactose tolerant?
The only reason for me to be able to drink milk after infancy, and other species milk no less, is that I developed this ability after many years of keeping mammals as domesticated beasts.
>>294619
>This is so fucking pathetic I'm amost believing it's false flagging.
Nah, he has been doing this for five days straight.
Often dropping the same links, and always posting stuff like >>294626 going EVOLUTION BTFO SCIENTISTS BTFO and celebrating as if he won a debate or something.
>>294601
1 - no one disagrees
2 - geology was studied before evolution, and not by one person
3 - plenty more examples (not he the two you mentioned are invalidated), laryngeal nerve of the giraffe
4 - what about radiometric dating, potassium–argon etc
5 - kek
6 - kek
7 - kek
8 - how is that meant to be relevant?
>>294626
Why am I lactose tolerant, Mr. Hovind?
>>294630
So he's just a plain old retarded moron then?
Good to know.
>Everything is connected and compatible.
All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
>First there was simplicity, then gradually we got complexity.
The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
>Genetic commonalities.
Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
>Common traits in embryos.
Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
>Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
>>294599
>Debates rarely have clear winners
"Scientists, both Christian and non-Christian, generally agreed that Nye won the debate, at least in terms of the science presented, although they debated how convincing the victory was."
Come on man Ham stopped debating and started preaching during the last half.
Also, read this article
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Pay close attention to the Misunderstandings chapter of it.
>>294644
>YEC author Don Boys believed Ham won the debate
>Evangelical blogger Ezra Byer credited Ham with raising awareness of the Christian message
>Byer noted, "As I watched Mr. Ham's mannerisms, you could sense a tremendous Spirit about him. He was gracious and the power of God showed through his life. There were multiple times I believed he could have hammered Nye on some of his inconsistencies but in my opinion chose not to."
Come on lad, its the very next sentence in the wiki. People didnt agree on who won.
The way you do this is you ask everyone in the crowd what they think before and after the debate, and measure how many changed their opinion.
Whoever converted the most people won the debate.
There was a debate between two british manlets about if Napoleon is great. Before the debate most people said yes, and after the debate still most said yes, but less than before. So even though most people thought Napoleon was great, the person arguing against it "won" the debate.
>>294066
>thinks Chomsky is relevant at all in linguistics
>calls others stupid
>>294658
He is an American Philosopher.
This automatically means all Americans love him and will defend his credibility.
>>294656
>You could sense a tremendous spirit from him
One person's inane ramblings are hardly enough to claim there's some sort of contention as to who one.
>I believe he could have hammered Nye on some of his inconsistencies but in my opinion chose not to
Literally making shit up. And even if it were true that's absolute failure as a debator.
>>294670
And I agree. See, we both agree. But not everyone does.
Which is why debates have no winner. People cant agree who won and there was no way to mathematically measure it present for that debate.
You need to prepare to be able to judge who wins.
>>294670
*Won
Christ I need coffee.
>>294658
>Thinking Chomsky isn't relevant
Chomsky is immensely relevant, the fact that so many disagree or agree with him and quote him is the simple proof of that.
His studies are mandative and integral parts of linguistic studies in universities around the world, he's just as relevant as the other fathers of linguistics, the fact that you don't agree with either his theories or political views doesn't change the fact that he is extremely influential and left a huge mark in Linguistics as a field.
Unless you want to be a hipster and support stuff like Structural Grammar which is just as clunky and faulty as Generative grammar.
Not to mention his contribution in programming languages, saying that he's not relevant in linguistics is madness.
>>294676
I hope you're not an actual linguistics student. You're embarrassing.
Great counterpoint there.
>>294639
>>294641
>>294645
Creationist-kun, where art thou?
>>294690
Probably bant for thread derailing and trolling.
Minor technical difficulties. They'll be back shortly.
>>294676
>Chomsky is immensely relevant, the fact that so many disagree or agree with him and quote him is the simple proof of that.
no, it proves that most people are even dumber than him
>>294012
haha your wallpaper dump will go ignored
>>293263
>>295162
>>294368
>infantry using a morning star flail
>killing anything with a shield that sees it coming
good joke lad. He may die to his flankers though. That weapon is reserved for cavalry.
>>294368
Nah. If he just brings the shield up into the dude's hands, the blow is nullified and the fool as his chest wide open.
Flails are only useful when you're on a horse.
>>294066
My favorite copy pasta desu
>>294658
chomsky is still the biggest name in linguistics. you have probably never read a paper in linguistics, or else you would be aware of his influence even among his detractors.
>>294012
Is there a german variant of this?
>>294012
The lower commies looked like horses in the thumbnail. Kek.
>>298658
>>293263
>starting off a wallpaper thread with bait
y tho OP?
>>293263
Thanks OP for an awsome thread
>>293263
Harris is a scientist too, you failed.
what the fuck is with all the deleted posts?
>>295146
fuck off with your ironic nationalism
>>294066
Great analysis.
>>294381
Jews that aren't jewy are always cringey as fuck to me
>>296841
Different people have objected to philosophy at different times.
The Persian theologist Al Ghazali in the 11th~12th century wrote at treatise called "The incoherence of the philosophers". In it he showed that philosopher's attempts to prove God's existence with logic failed. Since he wasn't willing to give up religion, he attacked philosophy instead. His main objection was therefore religious.
In the early 20th century (as mentioned in the comments), the logical positivists objected to philosophy coming from the opposite direction. Their position was that the only meaningful statements that could be made were logical propositions and empirical facts about that world. Any statement that either couldn't be verified experimentally or did not correspond to a logical/mathematical statement was for them meaningless. From this they concluded that statements about ethics, morals, religion, arts, etc... were all meaningless. They didn't reject philosophy completely, but instead relegated to being nothing more that a tool for the clarification and analysis of scientific statements. Their objection wasn't to philosophy as a whole, but to metaphysics, which up until then was considered a major sub-discipline of philosophy.
>>305521
More recently several notable physicists, including Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, and Lawrence Krauss, have made statements as to philosophy being useless or obsolete. Their main statement is that natural sciences have matured to the point were all of the big questions (the origin of life, the creation of the universe, etc...) can be answered by science. Philosophy used to be helpful in guiding the natural sciences by giving direction and pointing to what questions we should be asking, but now the natural sciences no longer need it. They support their argument by pointing towards the fact that philosophy no longer influences physics the way it used to in the 17th and 18th centuries, and that most scientists can have successful careers without ever opening a single philosophy book or journal. Lawrence Krauss has a more detailed version of this position (which is really just a dumbed down version of the logical positivists stance), that science is the only source of objective truth and the scientific method is the only valid epistemic method.
Those who object to these viewpoints do so for the following reasons:
The do not agree that ethics, morality and aesthetics are meaningless. Questions of value and judgment can never be resolved by science, and the only other option is philosophy.
Philosophy of mind and the study of consciousness can still contribute greatly to science.
Here's an interesting debate on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8
>>294072
>sergeant on the right one handing a twohanded axe
>guy in the back wielding a scimitar
>archers that will fuck their shit up if they ever shoot an arrow like that
shit picture
>>294033
Miyamoto would've been great at parties.
