Originally posted by KellyJayKJ, this is why it is so frustrating to have any sort of discussion with you. You plainly don't read (and by that 'read' I mean 'read and comprehend'😉 what we write. I never said that you lied. I'm saying that you excuse the lies of others when you find it convenient or comforting, at least when it comes to Creationism.
I have not lied here at any point in time. I have disagreed, I may
have made mistakes, but never lied. I do not question science either,
but I do question people, and if you think my questioning people is
questioning science I'd say you have as much an issue as people who
think to question them is to question God. So I greatly dislike being
called a liar.
Kelly
Go back. Read again. You'll see.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay. . . except when it comes to Creationists (IDer's included). That's my whole point.
"Though he demands all others play by consistent rules of fact and proof."
Yes I do demand proof or an acknowledgment that what we are talking
about are matters of belief/faith. I do acknowledge what I have is
faith, if you are going to tell me you "KNOW" what occured billions of
years ago, that is a great deal stronger than you "believe this could
h s possible". If you cannot tell the
difference not much can be said to fix that.
Kelly
"Though he demands all others play by consistent rules of fact and proof."
Basically remove the word "others" from that quote, and I'd have no problems. Instead you maintain a double standard: a ridiculously high bar for scientists (absolute proof) and an incredibly low one for Creationists (if you can't absolutely disprove it, then it's reasonable).
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI would say it is a good thing to believe in and embrace Christ because he has a good and pure message. His message is just what the doctor ordered because his message was about love. Love is what gives our life purpose and the most important thing in our lives, therefore, important messages addressing such love should be heeded.
Do you believe that it is a good thing to convince people to start believing in Christ?
Love is beyond the realm of science because it is immaterial in nature and in and of itself does not exist. Sure science can address the phenomenon of love flimsily by saying it is merely a series of chemical reaction created to help sustain a society for our mutual benefit etc etc etc, but that is all it can do. Science has no capacity to address the subject of love in a practicle and meaningful way in our lives so I do feel the need for additional feedback such as the message of Christ because of the importance of love in our lives. Morality is another issue that science needs a little help with as I have shown in regards to Darwins morality and his views regarding science.
Knowledge, such as science, is wonderful so long as the one that holds such knowledge is benevolent. Otherwise such knowledge is merely a weapon. This is why the love message superceeds that of science in importance. In other words, we should prioritize getting our hearts right before anything else we may endevour in. As Christ would say, seek first the kindgom of God and his message of love above all else and then everything else in your life will fall into place.
Originally posted by KellyJayIf I look at a car (when you say look, I am taking this as being able to analyse all the internal components and spending time understanding how everything works, testing etc), YES I see design.
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
Why?
Because the components are inorganic and have no natural affinity to each other, therefore spontaneous bonds cannot be formed.
Because the car does not contain a code which can self replicate and mutate to produce variation.
Because the car cannot reproduce, thus no variation can be produced by recombination.
I see someone already addressed exaptations, so I wont repeat that point.
So YES I see design in a car, I do not see how this means anything with regards to anybody seeing design as a necessary pre-cursor for life.
Please elaborate.
Originally posted by timebombtedWhy?
If I look at a car (when you say look, I am taking this as being able to analyse all the internal components and spending time understanding how everything works, testing etc), YES I see design.
Why?
Because the components are inorganic and have no natural affinity to each other, therefore spontaneous bonds cannot be formed.
Because the car does ...[text shortened]... g with regards to anybody seeing design as a necessary pre-cursor for life.
Please elaborate.
Careful. The ID people don't ask this question. They prefer to stop at "yes".
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYou have shown nothing regards Darwin's personal morality.
I would say it is a good thing to believe in and embrace Christ because he has a good and pure message. His message is just what the doctor ordered because his message was about love. Love is what gives our life purpose and the most important thing in our lives, therefore, important messages addressing such love should be heeded.
Love is beyond the rea ...[text shortened]... d his message of love above all else and then everything else in your life will fall into place.
The quote you provided was cherry picked by the creationist crew. If you actually read his full quote you realise that Darwin was actually advocating AGAINST people behaving selfishly.
[edit: I watched Pan's Labyrinth the other night (an okay movie, but not the great shakes everyone claims it to be). In it, the Spanish Army chased down an undercover Spanish resistance mole. They were about to kill her when... I'll leave the rest as a surprise. However, it goes to show that knowledge of horses can be used to ill-effect. The fact that science can be abused makes it no more or less requiring moral attention than, say, horses.]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm willing to see where KJ wants to go with this point, even if I do believe it to be a pointless analogy........
[b]Why?
They prefer to stop at "yes".[/b]
I'm starting to believe you are right though, as I've posted the contents after "Yes" several times (in several threads) and I think its been ignored........
Wish me luck!
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou bet it was cherry picked. However, as I stated before, Darwin seems to be giving a mixed message. On the one hand he uses science to explain why helping the "weak" undermines the genetic foundation of society, but on the other hand saying that doing them harm is "bad". Why is it bad using scientific logic? Can you cherry pick quotes by Darwin in which he uses scientific logic explaining why this is bad? In in a way his moral judgement seems to be based upon social norms and/or religious ideas. Either way it seems to be baseless in regards to scientific data.
[b]You have shown nothing regards Darwin's personal morality.
The quote you provided was cherry picked by the creationist crew. If you actually read his full quote you realise that Darwin was actually advocating AGAINST people behaving selfishly.
Originally posted by whodeyI already explained this. But, for the record, "good" and "bad" don't come into evolution. Just mutations which act to increase or decrease the frequency of an allele.
You bet it was cherry picked. However, as I stated before, Darwin seems to be giving a mixed message. On the one hand he uses science to explain why helping the "weak" undermines the genetic foundation of society, but on the other hand saying that doing them harm is "bad". Why is it bad using scientific logic? Can you cherry pick quotes by Darwin in which ...[text shortened]... s and/or religious ideas. Either way it seems to be baseless in regards to scientific data.
Anyway, Darwin's moral judgement came from his brain, which was evolved to live in societies.
Darwin's exposition on the fact that the weak are more likely to be wiped out by natural selection are just that. Indeed, any conclusion sanctioning wiping people out is not a scientific one.
You are labouring a non-point.
And if I wished to be pragmatic, I might point out that evolution is Darwin's no longer.
Originally posted by whodeyAnd as I answered before, there is nothing 'mixed' about it. Helping the "weak" does undermine the genetic foundation of the human race (society is the wrong word). However your implication that the advancing the genetic foundation of the Human race is 'good' has no basis in science.
However, as I stated before, Darwin seems to be giving a mixed message.
Either way it seems to be baseless in regards to scientific data.
As far as I can tell Darwin did not explain what he based his morals on so I don't think you can really make any conclusions about them.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThen I suppose you would say that eugenics has no scientific basis?
[b]And as I answered before, there is nothing 'mixed' about it. Helping the "weak" does undermine the genetic foundation of the human race (society is the wrong word). However your implication that the advancing the genetic foundation of the Human race is 'good' has no basis in science.
Here is what Darwin said, "Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
Clearly he is using his scientific knowledge to come to such conclusions whether they be amiss or not.
Originally posted by whodeyEugenics has at its heart the assumption that the success of the species is 'good'. That is a moral judgment that has no basis in science that I know of. In various forms it makes the further moral judgment that the success of the species is more important than certain individual rights/freedoms (in some versions including the right to life).
Then I suppose you would say that eugenics has no scientific basis?
However, the method proposed for achieving the success of the species does have a very strong scientific basis.
Clearly he is using his scientific knowledge to come to such conclusions whether they be amiss or not.
He is using his scientific knowledge to comment on the effects of controlled or uncontrolled breeding on the success of the species. He is also acknowledging (without using science to back it up) that he believes the rights of the individual supersedes the goal of success of the species.
Originally posted by scottishinnzSpanish Literature was my other major (besides Econ) in college. I especially enjoyed literature from the period around the Spanish Civil War. Much of it, either written safely from abroad or masked in deep symbolism, is about the struggle of the human creative spirit under dictatorial repression. I think the movie did an excellent job of conveying that theme.
You have shown nothing regards Darwin's personal morality.
The quote you provided was cherry picked by the creationist crew. If you actually read his full quote you realise that Darwin was actually advocating AGAINST people behaving selfishly.
[edit: I watched Pan's Labyrinth the other night (an okay movie, but not the great shakes everyone claim ...[text shortened]... science can be abused makes it no more or less requiring moral attention than, say, horses.]
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzI agree that Darwins morality came from his own brain. I also agree that the scientific data does not make a comment on morality in general. The scientific data is simply what it is, however, as human beings we derive meaning from it as did Darwin. It is evident to me that Darwin derived meaning from scientific data which suggested that eugenics shoud be considered in order to hault the deliterious effects of the "weak" upon society. If nothing else, try to prevent them from breeding because harming them is "wrong", for whatever reason. Specifcally he used the scientific data of observing live stock which breeded amongst themselves. The strong that bred together produce stronger offspring on average and the weak produced the opposite.
I already explained this. But, for the record, "good" and "bad" don't come into evolution. Just mutations which act to increase or decrease the frequency of an allele.
Anyway, Darwin's moral judgement came from his brain, which was evolved to live in societies.
Darwin's exposition on the fact that the weak are more likely to be wiped out by na ...[text shortened]... And if I wished to be pragmatic, I might point out that evolution is Darwin's no longer.
Now I would like someone to show me how Darwin interpreted scientific data to say why we should not harm the weak.