expelled

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Darwin himself said that whilst the scientific evidence was that Natural selection was something that happenned, he felt we should protect the weak and needy.

But why?

Darwin lays out the reasons why natural selection weeds out the weak of society thus making it stronger. His logic for this reasoning appears to be based upon his scientific knowledge. However, he then says that we should counter this natural selection in the human race by protecting the weak and needy. However, this logic appears to have been derived without the aid of science or any other academic discipline. Unfortunatly, Darwins morality does not appear to be based upon logic of any kind, or if it is, he does not appear to extrapolate as to what logic he is using.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If we stripped God out of his teachings we'd have secular morality.

Doesn't make him the son of God though.

I think Christ would agree in part because we all know he preached about love. He once said that if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not sinners do the same? However, he then tells us that we should love our enemies, or if you say you don't have enemies, then it would be those who mistreat you in any way. I think that this type of love is supernatural in origin. I don't see secular morality teaching us to love our "enemies" and I certainly have not experienced doing so as having come "naturally". I have only been able to do so in the past through my faith in Christ.

Originally posted by whodey
But why?

Darwin lays out the reasons why natural selection weeds out the weak of society thus making it stronger. His logic for this reasoning appears to be based upon his scientific knowledge. However, he then says that we should counter this natural selection in the human race by protecting the weak and needy. However, this logic appears to have bee ...[text shortened]... logic of any kind, or if it is, he does not appear to extrapolate as to what logic he is using.

We live in societies. We evolved to be empathetic animals because it was in the best (selfish) interests of our genes. Our instincts to protect the helpless come about through reciprocal altruism and also, quite probably, handicap theory (like the peacock's tail - if I can survive and reproduce with such a big tail, I must have good genes, or in this case, if I can afford to help others, I must be able to support myself and a family, and I'm likely to be a caring individual (remember, we breed in pairs, and the males help is rather required for successful rearing of offspring)).

Genetic selfishness has nothing whatsoever to do with behavioural selfishness.

Originally posted by whodey
I think Christ would agree in part because we all know he preached about love. He once said that if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not sinners do the same? However, he then tells us that we should love our enemies, or if you say you don't have enemies, then it would be those who mistreat you in any way. I think that this type of ...[text shortened]... come "naturally". I have only been able to do so in the past through my faith in Christ.

Love is the wrong word, I feel. Empathy is key. None of us love our enemies (or else they wouldn't be enemies), but we can often empathise with them.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, the truth is the truth, just saying something does not make it
true and law suits typically force out the truth when possible, not
always, but typically. When the matter of did you do this or that is the
subject and there are paper trails, I would think that should make it
a yes or no type of suit. What I see is that people here who disagree
with e ...[text shortened]... trike me as impossible the same is worse where it matters
more as in academia and alike.
Kelly

I call them liars not because they disagree with evolution, but simply because they attempted to obscure the truth.

Originally posted by whodey
Darwin lays out the reasons why natural selection weeds out the weak of society thus making it stronger.

No, it does not make us stronger. It makes our decedents stronger.

His logic for this reasoning appears to be based upon his scientific knowledge. However, he then says that we should counter this natural selection in the human race by protecting the weak and needy. However, this logic appears to have been derived without the aid of science or any other academic discipline. Unfortunatly, Darwins morality does not appear to be based upon logic of any kind, or if it is, he does not appear to extrapolate as to what logic he is using.
I think it is just a case of him not extrapolating.

It is a common mistake for people contemplating evolution to assume that the good of the species (or its survival) is equivalent to the good of the individual. It is not.
It is not necessarily in my best interests to do whatever is best for the human species, and in fact, it may not even be in my best interests to do what is best for my decedents.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it does not make us stronger. It makes our decedents stronger.

[b]His logic for this reasoning appears to be based upon his scientific knowledge. However, he then says that we should counter this natural selection in the human race by protecting the weak and needy. However, this logic appears to have been derived without the aid of science or any ...[text shortened]... ecies, and in fact, it may not even be in my best interests to do what is best for my decedents.

Well for sure, to be of ANY use to your decendents, you have to survive at least long enough to HAVE decendents. Unless it's best for you to not have decendents, like if you have down's syndrome for instance, it might be in the best interests of the decendents not to reproduce. Now we are into the ethics of Eugenics again, eh.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well for sure, to be of ANY use to your decendents, you have to survive at least long enough to HAVE decendents. Unless it's best for you to not have decendents, like if you have down's syndrome for instance, it might be in the best interests of the decendents not to reproduce. Now we are into the ethics of Eugenics again, eh.

The so-called ethics of Eugenics assumes that it is ethical to do whatever is best for the species. I am disputing that that is ethical by default.

What I am saying is that if I decide that I want a long and happy life, then having children may not in fact achieve that goal. Also there would be nothing inherently ethically wrong with all people on earth deciding that they do not want to have children, thus terminating the species.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I call them liars not because they disagree with evolution, but simply because they attempted to obscure the truth.

I think you do that too, but I do not call you a liar for it, because
you are not lying! You are speaking as you believe reality is through
the filter “your world view” that you use to look at things. Your views
look at things certain way, they block other ways out, it isn't a lie,
but does the same thing with respect to obscuring things. With you
however it isn't a matter of perspective and giving the other person a
level of respect but a character flaw to not see things the way you do.
You and others here do not give people with dissenting views an ounce
of respect, instead we get called liars or delusional, it is just plain
getting old. I do not set out to call you names or bring into question
your intelligence or your honesty, yet here I feel like I’m on trial for
both every time I have a discussion with someone.

Now if you don’t receive this, to bad, but it is getting old for me, and
I think very soon if things do not change I’ll either just stick to chess
here on this site, or just write this place off as a bad memory, because
that is certainly what it is now for me.
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
I do not have an agenda, but I do have a point. Given my intimate familiarity with your beliefs, would you not say that my last few posts have been dishonest? Perhaps even outright lies about Christianity?

Could I not also claim that they were not lies but rather just showing "two-sides" of the Christianity issue?

You do not have an intimate familiarity with my beliefs, you have
what you believe I believe! You don't have a clue, and you should
chew on that for awhile before you start speaking for what I think
and believe as if you know.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
We live in societies. We evolved to be empathetic animals because it was in the best (selfish) interests of our genes. Our instincts to protect the helpless come about through reciprocal altruism and also, quite probably, handicap theory (like the peacock's tail - if I can survive and reproduce with such a big tail, I must have good genes, or i offspring)).

Genetic selfishness has nothing whatsoever to do with behavioural selfishness.

Well that was your interpretation from what you know about science and perhaps it was Darwins as well, however, it is unfortunate that he does not reason this out using science as you did.

It is unfortunate because most will not really care what you or I think regarding such issues, however, with Darwin this is not the case. There is a huge following in regards to his writings and, as a result, people sware by what he thought and said.

Originally posted by timebombted
I never said "liars", please re-read the post, why do you continually misquote people...... because otherwise you really have nothing to say right.

Delusional - yes, but only when the evidence is over whelming and then ignored.

What does this tell me about myself?

I am logical
I am capable of assessing evidence
I am capable of making an inform ...[text shortened]... ding onto a belief when the evidence against this belief is over whelming, is not delusional?

You are correct and I am wrong, I must have just gone through several
posts and credited you for something someone else said. I'm sorry,
my apologies for saying "liars" you did not say that.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
I never said "liars", please re-read the post, why do you continually misquote people...... because otherwise you really have nothing to say right.

Delusional - yes, but only when the evidence is over whelming and then ignored.

What does this tell me about myself?

I am logical
I am capable of assessing evidence
I am capable of making an inform ...[text shortened]... ding onto a belief when the evidence against this belief is over whelming, is not delusional?

Listen, after I asked if people could look at a car and see design I
was told no one could. If that is the case, don't you think that even
with a designed car right in front of them and they can not, or will
not see design, that there maybe other things about life in the
universe they also cannot see due to whatever?

Even with all the evidence there in a car yet they are blind or
unwilling to see it, so your statement about over whelming
evidence in my opinion is just a belief on your part, not a real part
of reality. If it were reality than things like seeing design in a car
would be there too, yet it isn't for some.

You may claim to be able to see design in a car, without bringing
up the factory, talking to the engineers, or seeing the blue prints,
but could you enlighten someone else to that? It isn’t
overwhelming evidence you have going for you, it is
overwhelming popular opinion on what the evidence means, since
even if the ‘design’ car is there, the design is rejected out of hand.

If what you said about being delusional is rejecting what is right in
front of you, what does that make those that cannot see design?

I do not bring God into these discussions others do, so in my opinion
attacking beliefs that are not part of the discussion is a weakness to
it takes away from the points that are being expressed.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Listen, after I asked if people could look at a car and see design I
was told no one could. If that is the case, don't you think that even
with a designed car right in front of them and they can not, or will
not see design, that there maybe other things about life in the
universe they also cannot see due to whatever?

Even with all the evidence there ...[text shortened]... he discussion is a weakness to
it takes away from the points that are being expressed.
Kelly

What are your criteria for being able to tell if something is designed or not?

Is it merely that things are ordered?

You could probably tell a car is designed because it is completely inorganic and that there is that amount of order in the parts there. It has no possibility of exaptation or developing organically.

That's the primary difference when it comes to inorganice and organic things. We have definite evidence of exaptation and adaptation in organics - not in inorganics.

What would your criteria be for something to be guaranteed to be designed?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not have an intimate familiarity with my beliefs, you have
what you believe I believe! You don't have a clue, and you should
chew on that for awhile before you start speaking for what I think
and believe as if you know.
Kelly

You can deny it if you wish, but you're not fooling anybody KJ. I've been around here too long and read too many of your posts not to recognize your religious view, and you know that mine were once very similar.

My point still stands. You excuse blatant, deliberate misrepresentations so long as they validate your feelings.