Originally posted by KellyJayAnd in your world it's impossible to say what you did last night. This is stupid.
We have a small window to look at things, that window is right now!
We can see several things and make judgments about the past and
the future, we can try to predict the way things are going to play out
in the here and now, or suggest how we think they did play out in the
past. Right now you see life as is, you project into the past and the
future what ...[text shortened]... undertaking. I think you are avoiding the comparisons for
whatever reasons you may have.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by RetrovirusThanks for clearing that up. However, it still seems that there is a mixed message of sorts in what Darwin is saying. On the one hand he is saying that science shows that society would be better off without the "weak", but on the other hand, to do them harm would be immoral. At best we are morally capable to prevent them from reproducing but no more. The question then must be asked, why is it immoral to do away with them if science shows society would be better off without them altogether? What is this morality based upon? Is it based upon God? Is it based upon the laws of society at large or is it based upon the scientific facts? I think perhaps the Nazis simply chose to look at the cold hard scientific facts of the value of eugenically engineering society by laying aside any moral concerns such as kiling them off. Perhaps they thought that Darwin was on the right track by wanting to prevent the weak from reproducing but simply did not have the gonades to go a step further and do what needed to be done.
This is a misquotation of Darwin's work. As you say, [b] This quote was given in the backdrop of a killing chamber below a hospital the Nazis had constructed in order to do away with the "weak members of society". - a vile piece of propaganda indeed, combining the use of misquotation (leaving the part where Darwin says that neglecting the weak and he pless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.[/b][/b]
Originally posted by whodeyWould you like to be done away with if your only "crime" was being born a bit dumber than the guy next door?
Thanks for clearing that up. However, it still seems that there is a mixed message of sorts in what Darwin is saying. On the one hand he is saying that science shows that society would be better off without the "weak", but on the other hand, to do them harm would be immoral. At best we are morally capable to prevent them from reproducing but no more. The ...[text shortened]... ducing but simply did not have the gonades to go a step further and do what needed to be done.
The don't do it to others.
Darwin certainly realised the implications of his theory for the "advancement" of humanity, yet clearly advocated against them. Einstein wrote a letter advocating against the use of nuclear weapons, he, likewise, understood the implications of his theory, and the bad ways it could be used.
As for that morality being based upon God, well, we know from the whole Inquisition (for 700 years!!) thing that the church certainly had no issues with burning people alive for the sole crime of being different. In some ways, Darwin was lucky, the Inquisition was banned from europe only about 30 years before Origin was written. He would certainly have been dragged off to the pit were that not so.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou know what they say about the obfusicators and agitators of science: A good theory does not neccessarily win out because of evidence and logic, a lot of times it wins out because the obfusicators die.
And in your world it's impossible to say what you did last night. This is stupid.
Originally posted by sonhouseVery Hooke - Newton undertones there....
You know what they say about the obfusicators and agitators of science: A good theory does not neccessarily win out because of evidence and logic, a lot of times it wins out because the obfusicators die.
But I agree. Kelly's "you can only know what's happenning now" claptrap is getting very old. Detectives (like scientists) work out what happenned when they weren't there (in the past) all the time.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThey work out past events to a high degree of probability, but absolute knowledge is surely never claimed. I think KJ's stance boils down to saying that your viewpoint can't yield absolute knowledge (not even of what's happening now). And it can't, really. But does it need to?
Very Hooke - Newton undertones there....
But I agree. Kelly's "you can only know what's happenning now" claptrap is getting very old. Detectives (like scientists) work out what happenned when they weren't there (in the past) all the time.
Originally posted by whodeyVery few people actually base their morality on God. Almost every Christian I have questioned about morality picks and chooses from the Bible the bits that fit what they want to believe.
The question then must be asked, why is it immoral to do away with them if science shows society would be better off without them altogether? What is this morality based upon? Is it based upon God?
Morality is most often based on our internal instinct rather than any logical set of rules.
There are a few moral rules that most people do agree on. One is that the individual has rights even when it is to the detriment of society. Otherwise we would probably kill all criminals - even petty criminals.
That fact is a key argument against doing away with the apparently 'less useful' members of society.
There are other very important factors to consider. One big one is that we all have different view as to what is good or bad in a person. If we decide to breed humans, should we go for blond, black, brown or red hair? Who decides?
People with severe genetic diseases should probably not have children for the sake of the children, but if we impose that on them we are violating their individual right to have children. The real question is, if someone knowingly has a child which is severely genetically disadvantaged in some way, is that person guilty of a crime?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI disagree about kellys stance. Kelly frequently implies that you can know what is happening now and that what he sees with his own eyes is 'fact'. In fact he often implies that he is the sole determinant of 'fact'.
They work out past events to a high degree of probability, but absolute knowledge is surely never claimed. I think KJ's stance boils down to saying that your viewpoint can't yield absolute knowledge (not even of what's happening now). And it can't, really. But does it need to?
I on the other hand argue that all perception is equal and that age does not necessarily degrade it. I see the sun even thought the light takes 8 minutes to reach me. I may be more sure that the sun existed 8 minutes ago than I am about a playing card being held in a magicians hand that I see right now. We can never absolutely rely on our perceptions but we instead make a judgment based on how our perceptions match each other, our past experience and our reasoning. Sight and touch are not always the most trusted perceptions either. I have never seen or touched you but my reasoning tells me that you exist and I feel absolutely certain that you do. Remember also that I have never read a post from you in real-time.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI agree with all that. And that's what things like statistics and balances of evidence are all about. The more evidence, the more sure we can be.
They work out past events to a high degree of probability, but absolute knowledge is surely never claimed. I think KJ's stance boils down to saying that your viewpoint can't yield absolute knowledge (not even of what's happening now). And it can't, really. But does it need to?
Kelly is a devout member of the "all beliefs are equal (but mine are better)" squad.
Originally posted by RetrovirusBetween ID and evolution, it seems as I pointed out machines can
Define what difference ? between machines and organisms?
don't we have dictionaries for that?
pretty much do what we were talking about, change over time. Now
if all evolution is, is change over time, I don't see the difference. If
you want to claim that change over time without design is evolution
and change over time by design is not, you just drew a line that
matters in my opinion, one I'd like for you to tell me why that is so.
Kelly
Originally posted by MexicoTruth as is, is not always where we think it is, but I agree with you, it
But this is exactly why moore is a dumbass too. The point of a documentary is to document, i.e. present the information. The movie is pure propaganda, it manipulates situations and facts to present the "thruth" as he wants you to view it. Not as it is. He presents the facts in such a way as to create a situation that actually doesn't exist. There is NO elite, ...[text shortened]... esented as scientifically valid is actually scientifically valid and not politically driven.
was indeed one sided.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOnly one is biological evolution. Machines cannot undergo descent with modification.
Between ID and evolution, it seems as I pointed out machines can
pretty much do what we were talking about, change over time. Now
if all evolution is, is change over time, I don't see the difference. If
you want to claim that change over time without design is evolution
and change over time by design is not, you just drew a line that
matters in my opinion, one I'd like for you to tell me why that is so.
Kelly
Anyway, you never liked this analogy when I used it to discuss evolution. Why the change around now??
Originally posted by timebombtedSaying life and machines is a pointless inaccurate analogy is your
I've also given you many differences between machines and life to show why it's a pointless an inaccurate analogy in the context of this discussion.
Choosing to ignore these posts, speaks volumes.
point of view, one I do not share. Since the discussion is about
design, looking at what we know is designed and looking at point
of disagreement on what is designed and is not, does give some
insight into the discussion. Refusing to make the comparison in my
opinion is like sticking your head in the sand to avoid what could be
some weakness your point of view has, and speaks valumes too.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI guess someone should sue them than uh, if it was all that badly
No. The "mistakes" were systemic to the movie, not random. They were in there by design, not chance, even from what I saw in the trailer. This is deliberate deception.
Jesus would be soooooo proud.
done, that not only was home work not done on the truth but people
were accused of things they did not do, they should sue. Let it all
come out in court! If they don't sue, I wonder if that means anything
too? One way or another someone is lying some where that is for sure.
Kelly