Posted on 08/22/2005 3:29:51 AM PDT by Pharmboy
Sure it was. At the same time the Founding Fathers were extolling the virtues of liberty, an entire segment of the population was being held in involuntary servitude.
Moral absolutes are all well-and-good in theory, but come up lacking when they collide with reality.
But who created Yo-Yo Ma?
Suppose, instead of Mt. Rushmore, we ask how the pyramids were built. No one really knows, and there have been serious proposals that space aliens provided some of the technology.
This makes the question of the construction of the pyramids analogous to the problem posed by ID. If you don't know the history of an object, how do you go about deciding the most likely origin?
The first question that presents itself is: Is it possible for people having no modern technology to quarry 30 ton blocks, transport them, and lift them 400 feet to the top of a pyramid.
The answer to these questions is not nearly as interesting as how you go about searching for an answer. You could do some computations about the strength of humans and animals, and you might conclude that it is impossible. It's also pretty unlikely that the blocks simply self-assembled themselves into a pyramid.
Again, the real question is, how do you research the problem.
One solution is to try to invent methods and procedures that might work and which use only materials available at the time the pyramids were built. These can be tested.
The downside is, of course, that even if you find a procedure that works, you might never know if it was the actual procedure used by the Egyptians.
...
Now, on one side of the evolution/ID debate, we have mainstream science trying to analyze what would be necessary for life to evolve, breaking the problem down into manageable pieces and testing each piece. These pieces include variation and selection, plus hundreds of related concepts. The question is, can these be sufficient to account for the varieties of living things evolving from simpler forms.
On the other side of the debate, we have people calculating the odds of 30 ton blocks lifting themselves 400 feet to the top of the pyramid.
Which approach is more likely to make progress? Which approach will generate more useful research?
But who created Yo-Yo Ma?
My first guess was Tommy Smothers. But that was Yo-Yo Man.
Then I did a little research and found that "On October 7, 1955, Yo-Yo Ma was born to Chinese parents in Paris."
So the answer must be Ma-Ma Yo-Yo Ma and Da-Da Yo-Yo Ma.
Very good! Your caffeine level must be right up there.
Right - organized religion. I can't comprehend the "ignorance is bliss" mentality. The tower of Babel story used to anger me as a kid.
Gulp! go the grant-grubbers...
16/64 = 1/4 by the Rule of Six Canellation.
Exp[Pi*Sqrt[163]] is an integer for the most part.
I = Integeral dx/x; integrate by parts:
I = Integral 1*(1/x)dx
I = x*(1/x) - Integral x(-1/x**2)dx
I = 1 + Integral dx/x
I = 1 + I
thus 0 = 1
At first all was water. A water-fowl though that there must be earth below. So all the water-fowls dived for it. Finally Turtle said he would try. he made himself a waterproof suit to travel in under water. Then he got much rope. He said, "If I jerk on the rope pull me out. If there is no earth I shall come to the surface all alone." Finally they pulled him up. He was helpless when he came to the surface. His mouth and ears were all plugged up with mud. They saw mud under his nails. They got a little mud this way. They dried it and made an island. It grew and became the world.Wintu Indian creation story, north-central California
I agree. If we are not designed, then we, by definition, have no purpose. A thing that has no purpose has no intrinsic value. One could slaughter the entire human race, causing as much pain and prolonged suffering as possible and the words "moral" and "immoral" would have no contextual basis in the event, any more than it is immoral to "destroy" a ridge of mud in a puddle on a dirt road that was "accidentally" produced by cars.
Without a creator, mankind has no purpose and no value whatsoever. It is really just that simple.
America was not built on moral relativism.
---
Sure it was. At the same time the Founding Fathers were extolling the virtues of liberty, an entire segment of the population was being held in involuntary servitude.
Moral absolutes are all well-and-good in theory, but come up lacking when they collide with reality.
---
America has suffered from moral relativism.
The Civil War is an example.
Got any creationist 'theories' based on Gatorade? That stuff's fantastic. :-)
"And how would you feel about astrology being taught alongside astronomy?"
Most of what is taught in astronomy can be called science. Most of what is taught on evolution is not.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Evolution "theory" is unique in it's religious nature compared to the other sciences. That is because the others do not make wild unprovable claims and then call you a moron if you don't accept them.
The theory of evolution is an exquisite paradigm that leads the student inevitably to the marvelous interrelatedness of life. It is impossible to study biology without it, and it make any sense at all, but this is as far as absolute claims to its reliability can go. Scientists are more reliable when they don't sound like smug little priests handing down doctrine.
I'm neither ID nor evo. ID seems to be an attempt to explain away conflicts that cannot be explained away. And I cannot take seriously many of the high-handed assertions of the evo, who often come across as shamans in their own right with the same sort of bullying mannerisms.
I do delight in the rage of the arrogant when they are clearly shown to be arrogant. Everybody loves to heckle a know-it-all. Case in point--remember the legend of the Apollo Hoax? It only gained steam after it was shown to be an effective heckling device against astronauts who have given too many self-important speeches. Beware the jumping of the shark.
Where the evo theory starts running into bumps is the skepticism that arises on all these fortuitous accicents happening in fortuitous order. It defies common sense, and when the average person points this out, what does he get? An insult from the Holy Grubber of Grants.
If you would be taken seriously, behave respectfully. Whether you feel respectful, or not. If you call your opponent an ignorant handler of snakes, keep in mind that someone else might be listening.
"I reject your premise. In fact, I think that ascribing our rights to a creator weakens them, as not everyone will agree on the nature and preferences of the creator. Moreover, people are more fickle with their beliefs than with their contracts."
Your post is based on the false assumption that our beliefs about God actually control who he is. If in fact God is accurately described in the Bible, it matters not one whit what people actually believe about him.
If lots of people refuse to believe the theory of gravity, it doesn't mean gravity will cease to exist.
Your right about it weakening our rights however, for it takes away our right to be god ourselves. But then, the bible warns of the outcome of that thinking repeatedly.
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.