Originally posted by whodeyHow quickly you forget your own posts. Let me remind you:
You have me all wrong, I never said evolution was or was not a deception, rather, I was merely pointing out some of Darwins views that concerned me.
Originally posted by whodey
The reason is simple. Darwin came up with a theory that was extremely controversial in that it "seemed" by many to defy the church. This then triggored a battle between church and science that continues to this day. This battle between church and science caused many in science to leave the church as well as embolden those who were atheists to begin with. Therefore, Darwin became somewhat of a hero among nonbelievers and to bring Darwin down in the minds of many would be to dicredit him enough to have others question everything else he stood for.
Much of that it wrong and says nothing about Darwins comments relating to eugenics. You clearly said it was his theory you were talking about and not his ideas on eugenics.
To sum up, my only attempt here was to show that whether one delves into science or religion, one is always prone to interprative errors and bias. Also, morality plays a big part in both arenas and perhaps is the most important aspect to both.
And you have not shown it at all. You have merely shown that you are incapable of understanding the difference between science, (a method of finding out about the universe) and the application of the knowledge thus gained. I repeatedly tried to explain it to you but you remain blind to it.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAnd how one applies knowledge is not science and thus you cannot use it to claim that morality is a component of science.
I would argue that how one applies knowledge is infinitly more important that discovering such knowledge.
Morality is important when deciding how to apply the knowledge obtained from science, when deciding which knowledge to pursue (both in terms of prioritizing and avoiding dangerous knowledge), and when carrying out experiments. But the knowledge gained cannot be moral or immoral in itself and the morality of a scientist does not affect the results of the experiment. If light travels at C then it does so whether Einstein was an adulterer or not. If certain medical facts are true they are true whether or not they were discovered by some Nazi experimenting on Jews.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYep, I believe using the knowlege of science is called 'Engineering'.
And how one applies knowledge is [b]not science and thus you cannot use it to claim that morality is a component of science.
Morality is important when deciding how to apply the knowledge obtained from science, when deciding which knowledge to pursue (both in terms of prioritizing and avoiding dangerous knowledge), and when carrying out experiments. ...[text shortened]... s are true they are true whether or not they were discovered by some Nazi experimenting on Jews.[/b]
So there is a morality of engineering for sure. Like the tobacco companies 'engineering' more nicotine in cigarettes to hook more people. Like the 'political engineers' who forced out the very efficient electric street cars in Los Angeles and forced in the smog producing desiel powered busses which pleased three separate industries but gave Angelino's a new problem: massive smog and a huge increase in the amount of oil consumed. Like the 'engineers' who now sell nuclear concentration centrifuges to countries like Iran, who we know full well only wants to make fuel for peaceful reactors....
Originally posted by timebombtedComponents are inorganic
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.
You are telling me with this statement that organic cannot mean
design as well? To say this another way, there is nothing designed in
the organic world period?
I'm glad you can see design some here don’t’ seem to think it is
possible I guess, but the material if it is inorganic or not does not
seem to matter in my opinion if you can get both design and random
structures in both sets of material. If design can be recognized the
material or matter with with which it is made shouldn’t come into the
discussion unless you can tell me you only get design or randomness
exclusively in that material.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayMy use of the word "inorganic" was probably unwise word usage and has obviously misleaded the point I was trying to make.
Components are inorganic
You are telling me with this statement that organic cannot mean
design as well? To say this another way, there is nothing designed in
the organic world period?
I'm glad you can see design some here don’t’ seem to think it is
possible I guess, but the material if it is inorganic or not does not
seem to matter in my opinion ...[text shortened]... unless you can tell me you only get design or randomness
exclusively in that material.
Kelly
I would be interested to continue this discussion, if you are willing to re-read my last post and exclude the word "inorganic".
I still see design in a car for all of my previously stated reasons - and in no way do I see how seeing design in a car is relevant to evolution and / or abiogenesis?
Good to have you back.
Originally posted by timebombtedThanks, I had some limitations to the internet for a couple of weeks,
My use of the word "inorganic" was probably unwise word usage and has obviously misleaded the point I was trying to make.
I would be interested to continue this discussion, if you are willing to re-read my last post and exclude the word "inorganic".
I still see design in a car for all of my previously stated reasons - and in no way do I see how seeing design in a car is relevant to evolution and / or abiogenesis?
Good to have you back.
but I'm back now. I'll read your post again and reply to it.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzMore importantly, abiogenesis has different requirements.
Abiogenesis makes testable predictions. You well know this. Stop being disingenuous.
Progress is being made;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm
If we take as the Theory of Abiogenesis the statement:
It is possible that life arose from non-living matter within the standard laws of physics and chemistry, then it is not important to show exactly what happened but only to show what could have happened.
ID on the other hand tends to be a claim of "This is the only explanation", and thus they must rule out all other possible explanations.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSounds like faith to me, you believe it happened, you do not know
More importantly, abiogenesis has different requirements.
If we take as the Theory of Abiogenesis the statement:
It is possible that life arose from non-living matter within the standard laws of physics and chemistry, then it is not important to show exactly what happened but only to show what could have happened.
ID on the other hand tends to be a cla ...[text shortened]... f "This is the only explanation", and thus they must rule out all other possible explanations.
how or why, you just accept it is possible.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI would say, it is a nice story, but they are making things up, they do
Abiogenesis makes testable predictions. You well know this. Stop being disingenuous.
Progress is being made;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm
not know how, why, or what happened, they just think it could have
happened. May as well say God did it.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat do you mean "making things up"? What evidence do you have for that claim??
I would say, it is a nice story, but they are making things up, they do
not know how, why, or what happened, they just think it could have
happened. May as well say God did it.
Kelly
To me, it sounds like they are taking their best estimates (based on evidence) of what happenned, and then testing predictions made from that information. That hardly sounds like "making stuff up".
Why do you bring God into it?