Originally posted by KellyJayYour constant objection to paleonotology or studies of, well, pretty much anything which happenned in the past is that you weren't there. The logic you use dictates that no events which happen in the past can possibly be reported. I don't think you mean that, but it is an implicit part of the logic of your argument, whether you realise it or not.
What?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayCourt cases don't go well for creationists or IDers. They are frequently found to lie under oath.
I guess someone should sue them than uh, if it was all that badly
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
Originally posted by scottishinnzOkay, when you want to discuss the points I do make, let me know.
Your constant objection to paleonotology or studies of, well, pretty much anything which happenned in the past is that you weren't there. The logic you use dictates that no events which happen in the past can possibly be reported. I don't think you mean that, but it is an implicit part of the logic of your argument, whether you realise it or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayLying is not always illegal and suing is an expensive business. I doubt that anyone will sue in this case and all that will show is that whoever feels they might have been slandered does not think that the humiliation or monetary loss they have suffered is worth the trouble of going to court over etc.
I guess someone should sue them than uh, if it was all that badly
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
The lack of a court case cannot - as you seem to imply - indicate the truthfulness of the movie.
In the cases of claimed wrongful dismissal it is in fact the complainants who should sue and since they haven't it is likely their claims would not stand up in court. Most employers would probably ignore claims of wrongful dismissal unless they are brought to the company (not the media) or it goes to court.
What is your opinion of the movie? Do you think that it contains a significant number of fabrications or not?
Originally posted by KellyJayI cannot testify about the reasons of various people not to sue Ben.
I guess someone should sue them than uh, if it was all that badly
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
Also, twhitehead offered some very logical reasons.
Not sueding, however, does not mean that they agree with it, as you could see from many websites were the published their opinions.
Putting that aside, what do you think about the subject?
I would also direct you to what I wrote about the misquotation of "The Descent of Man" I posted. Do you think its an honest mistake or something that was deliberately done?
Originally posted by whodeyYou are welcome.
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.
Regarding the "mixed message" of Darwin that you refer to:
Darwin draw conclusions from his theory, conclusion that might lead to unethical (not to say inhuman) conduct.
I think he had 3 options before him:
1. To present only the theory , and not to draw those conclusions (making it very likely that someone else would draw those conclusions, as they do not require such a great leap of mind - someone who might not the use of such conclusions as unethical and might even encourage them)
2. To not publish the entire theory
3. To publish both theory and said conclusions, but warn against them.
What would you have him choose?
Indeed, as scottishinnz wrote, it is comparable to the dilemma that other scientists face.
Originally posted by KellyJayFor an analogy to be used in a discussion it has to be appropriate, clearly machines have not evolved because they lack a basic mechanism that requires no intervention. Biological evolution has a plethora (a lot) of evidence.
Saying life and machines is a pointless inaccurate analogy is your
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 yo ...[text shortened]... and to avoid what could be
some weakness your point of view has, and speaks valumes too.
Kelly
Evolution is much more than change over time.
Everyone but you can see how pointless your analogy is, nice try at a redirect but if you continue to ignore all previous points, clearly you are the one with your head in the sand....... that speaks VOLUMES.
1 edit
Originally posted by MexicoHey KJ did you go to the Site and do some research or will you continue to flog the same horse, if you still have some points after reading the articles then by all means bring it up for discussion. But since people posting the same material over and over hasn't seem to make the point to you. Maybe this will help you understand. However I do believe you don't actually want to understand just validate you point of view by arguing.
Hey KJ read this article and see how many of you ID arguments still hold any water will you?
Seriously anything this doesn't cover I'll gladly discuss.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620
Here's one part about your misunderstanding of the word Theory.
Evolution is just a theory
Yes it is, like Einstein's theory of special relativit etails to fill in but, as surely as dropped objects fall, life has and continues to evolve.
Also you always bring up evolutionists lying, which is fair enough and should be condemned. yet you refrain from commenting on Steins emotional manipulation or his outright lies.
Could you perhaps be biased on the subject?
would you go and see a similar styled film about evolution without having decided its nonsense before entering.
The more you argue here, the more apparent i becomes that you actually aren't particularly rational. You are in act just like another bible thumping science denier. Who can't seem to admit what he is.
5 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzNuclear weapons is another good example of an ethical delimma in terms of science verses mankind. For example, was it ethical for the US to use them on Japan? I guess my point in all of this is, is that morality plays a bigger role in the welfare of mankind than does scientific morality. As a matter of fact, if mankind cannot act ethically then all of his scientifc knowledge will only end up harming mankind more than it would helping him.
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.
Having said all that, it then begs the question as to what we base or morality on? In terms of Darwin, he used science to say that it would be "good" for mankind to prevent stupid/weak people from breeding. In fact, we would be better off without them based on his scientiic knowledge. However, we should not kill them off. Here we see science being used to morally justify preventing stupid/weak people from breeding, however, it is not being used to explain why we should not kill them off. The morality that is not defined by Darwin in terms that we should do no harm to the stupid/weak members of society actually sucperceeds that of a morality based soley upon science. However, the only problem is, is that Darwin does not expound on what his morality is based upon to do no harm to the stupid/weak whatsoever. It then appears from a distance that the morality to control the damage done by stupid/weak people is based upon logic whereas the morality to not harm them is based soley upon silly social norms and/or religious dogma that is not based upon any type of scientic discipline whatsoever.
To cloud the issue between science and morality even further, we see Darwin as being somewhat of a racist.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of men will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropmorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we man hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Austarilan and the gorilla. (The Decscent of Man p.201)
It appears that Darwin is communicating that certain races are superior to others using science. So tell me, when do we begin to question the moral compus of this man named Charles Darwin in regards to his interpretation of science and the morality therof?
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzI can fully undertstand the religious phobia that has engulfed the scientific community because of this sort of history. Science and religion have been at war now since the inquisitions and perhaps even earlier. However, it is important to note what we have learned about human nature from the time during the inquisitions as well as from what is happening today and that is, it appears that it is human nature to attack that which is "politically incorrect". Back during the inquisitions, the consensus was that it was not politically correct to question the authority of the church. However, today it is not politically correct to suggest creationism or ID during the advent of secular humanism. Of course, the main quesiton is what price people are paying for doing so today? Are they loosing their jobs/professions or merely being mocked behind the scenes.
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.[/b]
As for Charles Darwin, it would appear that from his perspective to be religious was politically incorrect. He writes, "I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produces little permanent effect; real good seems only to follwe the slow and silent side attacks. (Letter to George Darwin October 1873)
From this moral perspective, it appears that attacking Christianity is "good". That, of course is assuming Christianity is "bad". However, I will have to side with Christ when he stated that we should reach out to the weak and needy and orphans etc. rather than seeking only to sterilize them. Others can choose Darwins moral perspective if they like.