Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
In reality, moral relativism does not exist because no human being can really live life as if morals do not exist, (except for sociopaths and psychopaths).-YOU
I see where I screwed up. My fault. The last statement from me seems to defend moral relativism. What I was trying to say is that you don't need religion to explain the impossibility of moral relativism. Moral relativism is abhorent to any true free man, religious or not.
IMHO, your question cannot be explored without the definition of the terms and the scope of the inquiry.
For instance, some creationists of the Judeo-Christian stripe hold to the young earth view, i.e. the literal interpretation of Genesis from man's point of view. That would put the age of the earth at about 6000 years. But among this group are those who see an old universe preceding a young earth and others who see both as young.
Other Judeo-Christians look at Genesis as a metaphor and thus do not have an issue with the age of the universe or earth. Some who are not Judeo-Christians believe that God initiated it all and then withdrew and thus do not have an issue with the age of the universe. Both of these may be loathe to be considered under the umbrella of intelligent design, their belief in a Designer notwithstanding.
I suspect there are creationists who are not Judeo-Christian and have some other theory (ravens, turtles or whatever.) They may or may not have an issue with the age of the universe.
The directed panspermia crowd would likely agree on the dating of the universe and earth but would place the origin of life much earlier in a galaxy far, far away.
And then there's my view, that due to the inflationary model and relativity - and because God is not "in" time, the only observer of creation and the author of Genesis - that both statements are true. The universe is approximately 6000 years old (the Adamic age plus creation week from God's point of view as observer) - and is also approximately 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates as observer.
So, shall we find agreement on the terms and scope and pursue the inquiry - or shall we agree to disagree and table it?
My posts are so full of mistakes, it's too discommoding to correct them.
The question of God is irrelevant to evolution, unless you can formulate some test for the presence of God, or propose an observation unique to the presence of God.
Evolution proposes that three simple concepts-- heredity, variation and reproductive success-- may have given rise to the wide variety of life on this planet. The details of each mechanism can be studied, quantified, described, and investigated. There are no anomalies that threaten these three basic precepts, and no evidence for any other mechanisms.
Nothing in there precludes the idea, as you insist, that God set these mechanisms in motion. But so far we have no evidence of god(s) one way or another. If you wish to assign a Divine interpretation, feel free. Recognize however that this is only and exactly your own interpretation, and absent concrete evidence, you may not use public funds to promote this interpretation.
This is not an adequate explanation. Our nation's founders recognized that the truths are self-evident because we have been endowed with them by our Creator. The wonderful objective right for personal FREEDOM cannot just hang in mid-air and be an end unto itself. This is still non-rational. Logically speaking, without an infinite reference point (God), there is no basis for believing absolute moral truths exist on their own - out of nothing and residing nowhere in particular.
What would stop someone like Stalin from rejecting your exaltation of freedom and throwing you in a gulag? Practiically speaking, if freedom does not originate from God, it carries no moral force and has no anchor.
That a plain and simple lie. All that anyone can expect fron new evidence is that it will be consistent with theory. Your continuing assertion that "proof" is expected is a lie. And if you believe in god, it is a sin against God (remember the ten commandments).
You can make rules for yourself in your own private universe inside your head, but you cannot tell other people what they are thinking and believing.
This thread went pretty smoothly in your absense -- ask anyone if you don't believe me. The reason it went smoothly is that the remaining participants didn't lie about each other's positions.
Reread post 3986. As I said, that came from Shadows of the Mind, page 12 (and subsequent).
Which evolutionist said that, exactly? We have always been very clear: The next bone/imprint/shell/exoskeleton/stony critter always has the potental disprove evolution, but it cannot ever prove the theory of evolution. The best it can do add another bit of support to the theory.
Of course there is something else going on. Selection can only operate on change, and change is contrained by what you refer to as natural law. We obviously don't know all the laws of nature, so saying something is impossible or improbable is a risky thing. Even more interesting, a lot of folks make assertions about things being improbable without the slightest evidence. they completely ignore the fact that a jump from one step to the next is easier than a jump from the bottom of a staircase to the top.
This is important. What you are saying then, is that if science says the earth is 4.2 billion years old (or so) it might be wrong, but at least it doesn't contradict the Bible.
I would say that the randomness lies in the specific outcome of the collapse, rather than in the observation that causes the collapse, but otherwise that's all correct.
Once measured, the nonlocality rules (part of the totality of physical law) specify what the state of its photon twin is, wherever that twin might be in the universe.
I can't argue with any of that
That "instruction set" -- physical laws -- is analogous to the Aristotelian First Cause.
I'm not as up on Aristotle as I should be, but my suspicion is that his understanding of time and causality is not fully modern. According to quantum mechanics, there are uncaused events, and according to relativity, time itself can behave counterintuitively when sharply curved.
Is there a school of "undirected" panspermia which believes life could have arisen long ago and far away and the elementary particles dispersed by supernova explosions?
And why isn't there a panova crowd?
I didn't miss your reference. Shadows of the Mind is on the way and I will be reading that as well. Based upon 416 pages of Emperor and counting, however, whatever Penrose may otherwise be, he is not a Materialist and, I repeat, he does not state or suggest that consciousness is material.
May I recommend The Wisdom of the Genes by Christopher Wills? His argument is that evolution is proceeding at a faster rate than ever before, because the ability to evolve has itself evolved over time. In the book, he details the existence of "genetic toolkits" that are capable of producing complex, coordinated modifications of entire sets of genes in one throw. (One specific instance he explores is a toolkit that manages the complicated set of genes that determine the pattern of a butterfly's wings.)
I'll stick with science, and read scripture as metaphor where it seems to be in conflict. That's Galileo's method, and it's also the method suggested by the Pope. It works for them and it works for me.
Is there a school of "undirected" panspermia which believes life could have arisen long ago and far away and the elementary particles dispersed by supernova explosions? And why isn't there a panova crowd?
Astrobiology addresses the undirected question. In addition to that mission statement, you might find interesting their reaction to the directed panspermia idea.
What would be the definition of panova?
It's plenty okay with me to let the issue go. Hugs!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.