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.
What, then, is so theologically disturbing about the theory [evolution]? What is there about evolution that places in question even the very existence of God? It can be summarized in three propositions:
1. The variations that lead to differentiation of species are purely random, thus suggesting that the workings of nature are "accidental" and irrational. Today the source of these variations has been identified as genetic mutations. Most biologists today follow Darwin in attributing them to "chance."2. The fact that individuals have to struggle for survival, and that most of them suffer and lose out in this contest, points to the basic cruelty of the universe, particularly toward the weak.
3. The mindless process of natural selection by which only the better adapted organisms survive suggests that the universe is essentially blind and indifferent to life and humanity.
These three ingredients--randomness, struggle, and blind natural selection--seem to confirm the strong impression of many scientific skeptics today that the universe is impersonal, utterly unrelated to any "interested" God. Darwin himself, reflecting on the "cruelty," randomness, and impersonality in evolution, could never again return to the benign theism of his ancestral Anglicanism. Though he did not casually forsake his religious faith, many of his scientific heirs have been much less hesitant to equate evolution with atheism.
Is the Darwinian--or now the "neo-Darwinian"--picture of evolution compatible with religion, and if it is, in what sense?
The article in its entirety is
RIGHT HERE.
This is the most massive mega-site I've found yet: CLICK HERE. Each link leads to tons of other links. This site could literally lead to thousands of links with information about all issues in evolution, creationism, young earth, etc. It looks like it's all here. But in case it's not, here are other sites that have been useful in past threads of this type:
The documents about the charges against Galileo and Galileo's confession (involving his "heresy" that the earth orbits the sun, contrary to scripture): CLICK RIGHT HERE. The site with the Pope's official 1996 position on evolution: CLICK HERE. A site (not the one cited above) with loads of information that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies: CLICK HERE.
To inform creationoids about the famous 2nd law of thermodynamics, of which they've heard but about which they know nothing, CLICK HERE.
For the anti-evolution $250K offer from Dr. Kent Hovind of Pensacola, Florida (the prize is yours if you can prove to his satisfaction that there are no miracles): CLICK HERE. For information from two people who "debated" against the learned Dr. Hovind (who is allegedly a government school teacher), CLICK HERE, and for the other Hovind encounter CLICK HERE.
Although creationoids claim that evolution inspired Hitler, It is becoming more and more clear that creationism leads to fornication, harlotry, sodomy and the breakup of the family. For information about Jimmy Swaggart, the creationoid fornicator, CLICK HERE. For another site with a fairly straight story about Swaggart's rise and fall: CLICK HERE. For information about creationoid TV evangelist Jim Bakker, and the tootsie (surely you remember Jessica Hahn?) who brought him down: CLICK HERE.
For the site of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, with tons of resources on evolution, education, the current controversy in Kansas, links to the text of Darwin's books (I couldn't get those links to work), the text of court opinions on teaching evolution, and a very good article titled: "Evolution and the Science and Religion Dialogue," CLICK HERE.
To read Does Evolution Rule Out God's Existence?, by JOHN F. HAUGHT, Ph.D., Georgetown University, CLICK HERE.
For a wonderful concept introduced to these threads by jennyp, click on eudaimonia. And Conway's Game of Life, a computer simulation, an addictive program which shows how complex self-sustaining arrangements can emerge from relatively simple rules acting on random starting configurations. It's another link from jennyp: CLICK HERE. And for information about Ayn Rand and Objectivism,CLICK HERE.
Will any of this material put an end the seemingly endless debates on this subject matter? Of course not. So let the flames continue!!
[
Reply |
Private Reply | Top | Last ]
I suppose this will show up on your "self search" screen.
Hi jenny!
Intelligent design doesn't have anything to do with it. (The fact that an intelligent person designed the program itself is irrelevant - this is a SIMULATION program, after all!)
Oh LOL! Maybe the Creator created the Universe as a SIMULATION program!
As for mutations in computer programs generally, you have to remember that computers are serial processors. They carry out complicated operations one after the other.
Complicated?? Like add, subtract, or goto?
In a chemical system, you have a massively parallel system of very simple interactions. And each interaction has some slop in it - there are almost always alternative amino acids that can successfully function in a given protein for example.
You, jennyp, are immensely more complicated than the most complicated program ever created by mankind! (Conversely, . . . I'm pretty simple!)
That's why a "simple" point mutation in a single byte in program code will usually cause a catastrophic failure, yet most DNA mutations are neutral.
That's a good point, jenny; but doesn't really alter mine! Laura's calling me to dinner! (Lucky me!) Ta ta! --jazz
. . seemingly endless debates . .
Self-fulfilled prophecy.
Give it a rest; the power of Satin compels you!
(Mmmmmm---satin. . .)
NANKIPOO:
But how good of you (for I see that you are a nobleman of the highest rank) to condescend to tell all this to me, a mere strolling minstrel!
POOH-BAH:
Don't mention it. I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering. But I struggle hard to overcome this defect . . .
Complicated?? Like add, subtract, or goto?
Well it depends on the hardware...and it may or may not be serial calculations.
Back in thread 2, post #181, you said: The distinction is between ends and means - moral action is a means to an end not an end to itself. The ends ( happiness) are individual - the means (objective reality) aren't and that's my basic point.
Shortly afterwards, you said: To put it simply, the individual cannot decide the results of a given action - so no one "decides" morality - it is objective. An individual can however choose how to apply moral actions towards his own life - and this I think is where your confusion is - such choices are arbitrary, but the results are not.
There may be the possibility of some confusion here. First you seem to say the means are objective reality, then you say the individual makes arbitrary decisions about the application of morality.
I think I know what you're saying: We all want happiness, and we choose the means of obtaining it, as in choosing to be honest or crooked. In applying those means, we have to deal with reality, and the results (the ends) are determined by the effects our actions have, and this happens according to objective laws outside of our subjective control. If we have chosen badly, we suffer; and if we choose well, we can experience happiness. Morality lies in making the correct choices for a happy life, and this is a process that can be objectively decided.
I don't know if I've clarified anything. But I think I have.
I think you got the essence of what I was attempting to say. The individual makes choices, the results of those choices are not arbitrary. As you said, morality lies in making the right choices which lead to a happy life. I think the point I was trying to get across was this - say Alice wants to be a lawyer and Bob wants to be a doctor - Alice and Bob have different ends. However to acheive those ends they have to make choices based on objective reality - i.e. they have to study hard rather than partying all the time. Their proper conduct (moral choice) is dictated by objective reality. Their ends (becoming a layer or doctor respectively) are individual, but the reality they face isn't.
Hi Patrick,
Excellent lead in for this thread! Bump for later . . .
The only thing that confuses me is; If only the fit, the best survive how do you explain the June bug???
If only the fit, the best survive how do you explain the June bug???
I guess somebody has to bite. I knew june bugs were ugly, but had no idea they were poorly adapted. Where are you seeing the miracle?
rational individuals will come to the same conclusions
No that is your flaw, as humans we our all rational beings and rational individuals consistently come up with different conclusions, that is why it is called subjectivity.
An individual may come to a wrong conclusion about moral law, for which he will suffer.
Unproven and I might add too many people do moral wrong without suffering.
I'm still waiting for you to define Garbanzo's "moral law", you keep discussing it like it exists.
His understanding of reality may be flawed, but he cannot change reality.
Here is another of your irrelevant statements. People can't change the facts. Brilliant, never would have guessed.
The crucial difference is the difference between one's understanding of objective moral law and objective moral law itself.
and yet another useless statement.
Individuals must decide for themselves how to apply objective moral values towards their individual ends.
Finally you get to something of use and continue to contradict yourself. As each individual gets to decide how to apply moral values, and as each individual's decision is usually different based upon the individuals desired ends, each individual must travel down a separate moral path, probably contradictory to each other. Therefore, you are espousing a scenario, where, each individual will have separate moral paths based on their separate ends.
Similarly an individual can choose his own ends towards fufilling his pursuit of happiness (his project if you will), but he still must obey moral law in order to accomplish those ends.
Prove this. This is were your whole physical law argument breaks down completely. You state: The rational individual learns from his mistakes and takes heed of the wisdom of others. He comes to understand the value of certain actions and the losses of other actions and chooses his future acts accordingly.
Basically your moral law is not fixed, but flexible and based on lessons people learn, which is different for each individual. So just in case you didn't contradict yourself enough, you state the moral law is dependent on varing outcomes of our actions and how we and other people interpret those outcomes. Truly stunning, truly subjective.
Like I stated before, there is no correlation between obeying moral law (being morally good) and being happy. And again G, you are trying to have it both ways. The end is happiness, the path obeying moral law. If I obey moral law then I will be happy. Happiness is certainly different for each and every individual, therefore the Path (Moral law) to get to happiness will be different for all individuals.
This is were your engineer analogy falls apart. You have determined your conclusion,= happiness. Unlike a physical law, your dropping the ball off a building, the outcome is never in doubt and there is only one outcome. The end is the ball hitting the ground because the law of gravity can't be broken. In your moral argument, the outcome is constantly changing and different for everyone, therefore the outcome is in doubt with multiple possible conclusions. The path(moral law), then, to the various outcomes will be different for everyone, therefore the moral law is not constant but flexible by your own statements. The outcome, personal happiness, is not constant, therefore the path to that outcome must be different each time.
The distinction is between ends and means - moral action is a means to an end not an end to itself. The ends (happiness) are individual - the means (objective reality) aren't and that's my basic point.
And as I've shown completely flawed. Maybe a descriptive statement will help. Four people, each with different ends (happiness requirements, A,B,C,D) are traveling down a single lane road (moral actions). It is the only road (moral law) there is no way to exit(there is only one objective moral law). This is your path, it ends at point A. But three of the four people wanted to go to B, C, D respectively. Therefore you need multiple paths (moral laws) to ensure each individual makes it to his end (happiness). Some of these ends may be in the opposite direction (opposed to someone elses moral law).
Hope that helps.
Finally, to ask "who" decides is not meaningful question in that you conflate means and ends.
I think I've shown it does matter who decides, because if your moral law is not objective and Garbanzo yours' isn't, you need to decide which path to take to get to your happiness.
The individual cannot decide what the consequences of his actions will be
Now wait a minute, another contradiction I think. You just stated:Similarly an individual can choose his own ends towards fufilling his pursuit of happiness.
To put it simply, the individual cannot decide the results of a given action
How many times are you going to contradict yourself in one post? You stated: individual can choose his own ends.
so no one "decides" morality - it is objective.
Okay just for you, I'll rephrase the question:
Who decides whether the outcome of the moral action is morally right or morally wrong? Opps, as I already stated you have answered this question. The individual does. Because according to you, if the outcome is morally right, it makes him happy, and if morally wrong sad (I guess). This sir is subjective. You continually attempt to spread layer upon layer of nonsense in an attempt to confuse. No matter I'm not in the least confused.
An individual can however choose how to apply moral actions towards his own life - and this I think is where your confusion is - such choices are arbitrary, but the results are not.
As I said, I'm not the one confused. You once more, contradict yourself. The end you are talking about is happiness, therefore the results are arbitrary and it is your actions which are not. as you stated: he still must obey moral law in order to accomplish those ends.
Garbanzo, my last thought on the subject. Morality, if as you say is based on whether the outcome makes us happy, then you must have no objection to William Clintons' lying, cheating, adultery, stealing, and power grabs as this has undoubtedly made him happy.
I can’t say that I’ve studied the Objectivism sites hard enough or long enough to fully understand them. But . . . the philosophy seems too closed-minded and egocentric to appeal to me. The comment: "If you believe in God then you don’t believe in Life" is harsh, cold, and not "reason"able. I think it takes more "faith" to be an atheist, than it does to be an agnostic. Yet Ayn Rand puts down faith and puts down religion. Here is her own summary of Objectivism:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
I think I buy this. It begs the question: "so what?". It isn’t necessarily easy or even possible to perceive all that is real.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Does that render all of those "real" things imperceptible to the senses unimportant or meaningless? Reason is certainly important. But aren’t there other important characteristics of humanity? Love, compassion, communication, understanding, cooperation, friendship, strength, energy, vitality, virility, intelligence, . . . intuition?
3. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The pursuit of his own self-interest is the highest moral purpose of his life. Ugh! Doesn’t sound particularly moral to me. I certainly prefer "do unto others as you would have others do unto you".
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Man. This doesn’t sound like philosophy. It sounds like personal political preference. But then she also says:
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called ‘hippies of the right,’ who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism.
Basically, . . . she sounds like an egomaniac. Sorry, Ayn. I'm sure I would like you as a person! (I like everybody . . . just about.) --jazz
How has a CvE thread devolved into a discussion of objectivisim? This is sad. (Someone on another thread said that this a Perot phrase - I'd never heard it before, but really like it!) BTW, you shouldn't buy #1. There is always room for error and reinterpretation.
Jazz, why is it that you don't blast the creationists when they trot out their many-times-rebutted "facts" about evolution?
LOL! Ed! Hey, good to see you! *not to be taken literally. (Of course I can't really see you.)*
Yeah, it is sad. But if every E vs. C thread played out exactly the same . . . well, that would be sad, too, wouldn't it? I guess it's a matter of the lesser of two sads!
Jazz, why is it that you don't blast the creationists when they trot out their many-times-rebutted "facts" about evolution?
Haven't I blasted a Creationist recently? *hiding behind corner with shotgun at the ready* "Oh, Daaaaaaaaataman! . . . Stiiiiiiiingray . . ."
Quite frankly, I don't have the energy, Ed. Those Fundamentalist-Creationists-types are tenacious critters! They'll write several BOOKS worth of rebuttal in the time it takes me to write my name! Besides, it's much more fun shootin' at the Darwinists. They aren't quite sure how to handle an agnostic. . . . especially one with a sense of humor! But, damn Ed: you worry me. I think you've got me figured out! I'll have to pick on Jenny some more: *still hiding behind corner* "Oh, Jehhhhhhhnnny! . . ."
<fondling an AK-47>... Hmmm. I have a sudden urge to take a little after-dinner stroll 'round the block. >:-D
Scratch that. Fondling one of those cool pepper spray squirt guns the Seattle police were using today.
Dang! You're one helluva fondler! A man has to be careful wandering these threads! ; >
Stingray, you really came up with a whopper this time: Objectivism is self-contradictory because we believe there's an objective reality!
Therefore, the very term "Objective Reality" implies that there is something against which it stands in opposition, something called "Subjective Reality." In so doing, the Objectivist establishes that that which is subjective is as real as that which is objective, since both are necessarily part of a broader reality. Reality is either objective or it is not, but if it is, there can be no such thing as the "subjective," or a "subjective reality," for if there were, that which is subjective - necessarily being a part of the same reality as the objective - is that which could be understood in the same way as that which is objective. This is because for the Objectivist, both the subjective and the objective exist solely in the material, that is to say, in reality.This passage just makes no sense. (And the ones you wrote after it aren't much better.) By your logic, the very term "truth" implies that there is something against which it stands in opposition, something called "false". In so doing, you establish that that which is false is as real as that which is true, since both are necessarily part of a broader reality. A statement is either true or it is not, but if it is, there can be no such thing as the "false", for if there were, that which is false - necessarily being a part of the same reality of the true - is that which could be understood in the same way as that which is true... etc.Either there are things in life we know as subjective, or there are not. And if there are not, then the Objectivist is left to explain how the things they call "subjective" are not also part of an "Objective Reality," or they are left defining the subjective out of existence. The former means that they either have to include the subjective as part of an "Objective Reality," which means they must assent to the possibility of the supernatural - something which is anathema to their self-professed "rational/materialist" world-view - or they must try to define out of existence that which they themselves allege to exist - the "subjective" - which is not rational.
-- Stingray, thread #2, post #124
See? It's just philobabble.
So anyway, you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality. OK, that leaves subjectivism. for your edification, here's some understandable sentences regarding what you apparently believe:
In metaphysics, "subjectivism" is the view that reality (the "object") is dependent on human consciousness (the "subject"). In epistemology, as a result, subjectivists hold that a man need not concern himself with the facts of reality; instead, to arrive at knowledge or truth, he need merely turn his attention inward, consulting the appropriate contents of consciousness, the ones with the power to make reality conform to their dictates. According to the most widespread form of subjectivism, the elements which possess this power are feelings.aHA! So now who's the Marxist-Nazi dupe, Stingray?In essence, subjectivism is the doctrine that feelings are the creator of facts, and therefore men's primary tool of cognition. If men feel it, declares the subjectivist, that makes it so.
The alternative to subjectivism is the advocacy of objectivity - an attitude which rests on the view that reality exists independent of human consciousness; that the role of the subject is not to create the object, but to perceive it; and that knowledge of reality can be acquired only by directing one's attention outward to the facts.
Objectivity, according to the Nazis, is a crime. It is the antonym of "instinct," and therefore a crime against the Fatherland. What Germany requires of its citizens, Hitler says repeatedly, and what Nazism offers is not dispassionate thought or even-handed judgement of fact, but unbridled nationalist emotion.... "As for me," states Goering, "I am subjective, I commit myself to my people and acknowledge nothing else on earth. I thank my Maker for having created me without what they call a 'sense of objectivity.'" "We are not objective," says Hans Schemm, the Nazi educator, "we are German."
... The theory of subjectivism ... did not achieve a successful sweep of the philosophic world until the appearance of the Critique of Pure Reason. "Things-in-themselves," said Kant, exist, but are unknowable; the world men perceive and deal with, the "phenomenal world," is a human creation, a product of fundamental mechanisms inherent in the structure of human consciousness. On this view, it is the essence of the subject to create the object; and objectivity, as defined above, is impossible to man. ...
There are two different kinds of subjectivism, distinguished by their answers to the question: whose consciousness creates reality? Kant rejected the older of these two, which was the view that each man's feelings create a private universe for him. Instead, Kant ushered in the era of social subjectivism - the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. In Kant's system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncracies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men.
Later philosophers accepted Kant's fundamental approach, but carried it a step further. If, many claimed, the mind's structure is a brute given, which cannot be explained - as Kant had said - then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality.
The first world movement thus to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes. On this issue, as on many others, the Nazis follow the Marxists, but substitute race for class. (emphasis mine)
-- Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, p62
"This passage just makes no sense."
Wow. What a surprise, coming from you.
"So anyway, you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality."
I believe in that thing called "reality." I believe that reality necessarily encompasses that which is both subjective (thought, idea, that which can be known through faith, intuition, or revelation) and objective (that which can only be perceived by the senses and that which can be empirically ascertained.)
The very phrase "objective reality" limits the Objectivist concept of reality only to the latter. Yet, as I explained on the other thread, doing this means that the Objectivist cannot explain something as subjective as the mind without resorting to either a priori assumptions about its existence, or defining it out of existence because it cannot be quantified by any perceptory or empirical means. In the case of the former, you can only claim to know the mind exists because it exists, which is antithetical to the Objectivist view that reality can only be known through sensory perception and empiricism.
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible)." -- Ayn Rand Institute
Reason, according to your own propaganda sheet, is only "reasonable" to the degree in which it can "identify and integrate the material provided by man's senses." Anything that cannot be "identified and integrated by man's senses" is therefore "not reasonable," hence it's "not real." I don't make this stuff up! It came off the ARI's web site!
So tell me, having never touched, smelled, seen, tasted, or heard your own brain, how do you know it exists? Because you've seen pictures of a brain? So what? I could show you a picture of a unicorn. Does that mean unicorns exist?
How do you know you have a mind? Have you ever weighed it? Smelled it? Tasted, touched, seen, heard, or boiled it down in a beaker? Show me the lab analysis of that which you call your "mind," and I'll be only too happy to believe that you have met the Objectivist standard for proving that you have one.
How do you account for reality that you cannot personally perceive? How would you know that Antarctica exists if you've never been there? How do you know I exist? All I am are pixels on a phosphorescent screen to you. How do you know I'm not an AI program running on your server designed to make you think you're debating a "real" person?
And how do you know any number beyond the number twenty exists beyond your ability to count your own fingers and toes? And isn't a number - like a photo - just a representation of a reality you've never personally perceived? How do you know such a thing as a billion of anything exists? Have you ever seen a billion of anything? Counted a billion of anything? Measured, weighed, held, touched, tasted, smelled or heard a billion of anything? How do you know a billion of anything exists, and is therefore a part of your "objective reality?"
"So anyway, you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality. OK, that leaves subjectivism. for your edification, here's some understandable sentences regarding what you apparently believe..."
No, I don't believe in reality the way you define it. And given the Objectivist way of defining it, neither do you, because it is impossible to know all that we know without taking some things on faith, or at least basing our personal knowledge, to a very large degree, on the collective minds and experiences of people we have never met, who themselves had to base their knowledge, to a very large degree, on the collective minds and experiences of people they had never met, and so on.
Objectivism, therefore, cannot possibly explain the existence of everything that's real without making faith-based assumptions about those parts of reality the Objectivist cannot personally measure or perceive. The only other option left open to the Objectivist is to dismiss those parts of reality that cannot be explained by the Objectivist. And once you start down that path, then the very process of deciding what's real becomes an entirely subjective process, wherein the Objectivist is left creating his or her own reality. In either case, by the Objectivist's own definition, the Objectivist doesn't exist. Objectivism is relegated to the same status as any other "idea," (like a unicorn) existing not in reality but solely in your head. And since it is a subjective idea, why should it necessarily be the only one everyone believes? Because it's "rational?" Hehehe...
"aHA! So now who's the Marxist-Nazi dupe, Stingray?"
I could see why you would conclude that given the fact that you had to misrepresent what I wrote and believed to arrive at such a conclusion. How "objective" of you. But thanks for proving that even an "objectivist" is not beyond "subjecting" reality to suit his or her own purpose. I guess it all depends on what "is" is for you, doesn't it?
Later...(much.)
A philosophical bump for you...
Regarding Rand's summary of her philosophy (and it's only a summary), you say: The comment: "If you believe in God then you don’t believe in Life" is harsh, cold, and not "reason"able.
But then to Rand's statement: 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. you say this:
I think I buy this. It begs the question: "so what?". It isn’t necessarily easy or even possible to perceive all that is real.
I could respond by saying that if reality is all there is, as you seem to agree, then ... where's heaven, where's hell, where are the angels, where is god? And you can respond: "Oh but they exist. I believe they exist. I hope they exist. I want them to exist." And then I just ask you to read Rand's statment again. And once again, if necessary. This seems easy on the surface, but it's really not. Philosophy, done properly, is difficult stuff. And it's very important too.
I'm not going to be able to teach you all of philosophy in a couple of posts. And I can't teach all of Rand's philosophy here either. Her books do that. You really need to dig into the stuff to know why she says what she ends up saying, and only then can you say whether it's reasonable or not. It may, upon first contact, strike you as cold and doctrinaire, but so does 2 + 2 = 4. Very cold. No feelings. No compassion. But it's quite correct, and there are no compromises. That's the way she is. And if you really study her stuff, you might come away convinced.
"Reality exists as an objective absolute."
Define "reality." Define "exists." Define "objective." Define "absolute." Or are you afraid to define your terms?
Rand says: "Reality exists as an objective absolute."
Stingray responds with this: Define "reality." Define "exists." Define "objective." Define "absolute." Or are you afraid to define your terms?
I'm not afraid, Stingray, just weary from reading your posts. I suppose that all those words really are new to you, and after reading through your posts, I'm quite certain that you don't know what any of those words mean. Indeed, I'm certain that you feel they mean whatever you wish them to mean. I regard your response as a serious cry for help; and I think I can help you.
Visit the Rand website. The link is at the beginning of this thread. Buy some of the books, or the tape courses. Join a study group if you can find one near you. And after a while -- it will take time and sincere effort -- you will learn what these things mean. And you will be better prepared to discuss all these issues. You have potential, and it is a great waste if you don't use it. I wish you well.
"I'm not going to be able to teach you all of philosophy in a couple of posts."
Presumes that you are able to teach "all of philosophy" in any number of posts. To believe that, you must either be a genius the likes of which the world has never seen, or your ego is writing checks that your as...er..."brain" can't cover.
"You really need to dig into the stuff to know why she says what she ends up saying, and only then can you say whether it's reasonable or not."
Why does anyone need to dig up a grave to know that a rotting corpse stinks?
"It may, upon first contact, strike you as cold and doctrinaire, but so does 2 + 2 = 4. Very cold. No feelings. No compassion. But it's quite correct, and there are no compromises. That's the way she is."
Presumes that whatever Ayn Rand wrote is as universally true as 2 + 2 = 4. While this is absurd on its face, I suspect that what we are dealing with in you is not a rational man but a "Randian cultist." The following proves it:
"And if you really study her stuff, you might come away convinced."
Proselytizing. Not much differnce here between you and a JW. JW's worship Jehovah. PatrickHenry worships Rand, and wants everyone to come away from her works convinced of one, immutable truth: 2 + 2 = Rand.
Thanks for telling us all where you, jennyp, garbanzo, and all the other "Randian Cultists" are coming from on these threads. :)
"I suppose that all those words really are new to you, and after reading through your posts, I'm quite certain that you don't know what any of those words mean. Indeed, I'm certain that you feel they mean whatever you wish them to mean."
Interesting position you've taken, after having written this on the last thread:
Aristotle says we need do get our definitions clear, or else we're just not communicating.
I defined those terms. You didn't agree with my definitions. You have not defined those terms in any way, shape or form except to appeal to Rand.
"Miss Rand was very adept at defining her terms."
Rand is not writing your posts, you are. You, who would presume to know so much about "all of philosophy" that you would presume to teach it, ought to have no problem defining any philosophical terms. So define them. Show us how smart you are.
"So if someone is going to attack her philosophical system which she called Objectivism, it is essential to use her definition, and not something pulled out of a dictionary (the compilers of which make no reference to Rand)."
So Darwin doesn't matter to evolution. It's the data that matters. But Rand matters to Objectivism because...?
Because it's a philosophy based on a subjective set of beliefs set forth by a person in whom you happen to believe and with whom you happen to agree?
Funny...Sounds strangely like the justification one might expect to hear offered by any number of adherents to any number of different religious systems.
The really tragic thing is that I don't waste as much of my time talking to JW's who come knocking on my door as I have writing to you.
Talk about weary!
After being in these threads, it's easy for me to see why I like numbers so much better than words!
2=2=2=2=2=2=forever!
Reality=? (Evidently whatever you want!)
A few minutes go by, when an entering customer inquires loudly, "Whose white horse is that outside?"
LR says, "It's mine. Why?"
The man says, "It's awful hot! Ya better do somethin' to cool him down."
LR thinks about it a minute, then says to Tonto: "Go outside and run circles around Silver. That'll make a nice cool breeze for him."
Tonto, faithful as always, does as the LR says.
A few more minutes go by, when another entering customer inquires loudly, "Whose white horse is that outside?"
"It's mine. Why?", LR replies.
"Ya left yur injin runnin'............"
"Ya left yur injin runnin'............"
As an American Indian (Native American) and a member of the Chippewa Nation, I find your joke both ill-suited for this thread, and insulting. And though I am not one to deny you the right to say or write whatever you think, I would certainly like to believe - as a rational person - you are capable of thinking before you write.
Or perhaps I assume too much in calling you "rational?"
good one :-)
You suppose the "Masked Man" wore a mask because he was ashamed to be seen with an Indian? :)
"So anyway, you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality. OK, that leaves subjectivism."
Is it necessary to "pick one"?
"The alternative to subjectivism is the advocacy of objectivity."
This either/or black/white thinking is peculiarly Western, and yields lots of false dichotomies. For example: Darwinism or Young Earth Creationism.
Haven't I blasted a Creationist recently? *hiding behind corner with shotgun at the ready* "Oh, Daaaaaaaaataman! . . . Stiiiiiiiingray . . ."
The quality of these threads has taken quite a slide. You're right about the predictability, especially with a couple (VR & PH). I'm glad you still have your sense of humor. I ran across this and it reminded me of dear old PH.
"How do you know you have a mind? Have you ever weighed it? Smelled it? Tasted, touched, seen, heard, or boiled it down in a beaker? Show me the lab analysis of that which you call your "mind," and I'll be only too happy to believe that you have met the Objectivist standard for proving that you have one."
Sometimes you frighten me, Stingray.
And here's one for Vade Retro (Fits: Retro):
"'Reality exists as an objective absolute.'
Define 'reality.' Define 'exists.' Define 'objective.' Define 'absolute.'"
Sometimes you frighten me, Stingray. But it is a pleasant fright. And sometimes I think these people don't have a clue.
"Sometimes you frighten me, Stingray."
In a good way, hopefully. :)
Later...
I don't want you to feel slighted, garbanzo, so I dedicate this one to you:
Do you guys have a sense of humor? Funny. I thought you did (Swaggart & Bakker stuff).
How do you know you have a mind?
I think it's a legitimate question given the ravings of some on the other side.
You're killing me with those pics!!! They're great!!! I'm going to print them up and take them to work! Thanks...
I won't assign this one to any particular evolutionist.
"As an American Indian (Native American) and a member of the Chippewa Nation...."
I "feel" my leg being ever so lightly ..... pulled. But maybe I'm imagining things.
The despair.com "Futility" pic is classic. Love your stuff, Dataman.
So you found my ball. I knew I hit that one a ton!
The bad news, of course, is I was putting for par at the time.
The bad news, of course, is I was putting for par at the time.
The ultimate sand trap. Just the picture alone without the words is great.
Haven't I blasted a Creationist recently? Quite frankly, I don't have the energy, Ed. Those Fundamentalist-Creationists-types are tenacious critters!
I haven't been following lately - tuned in when I saw your name. I also find it takes too much energy. They know the truth and don't let any facts intrude. It's like arguing with those nutcase anti-NWO types. I heard a couple of the Medved show yesterday. They talk fast and spout "facts" that are completely wrong. By the time you've shown one to be false, they've shot off ten more.
As for picking on the Darwinists, you have a point. Too often they exude an aura of superiority that's fun to prick. Besides, science becomes stronger when challenged. When you stop being skeptical of your own ideas, you're setting yourself up for a fall. As Feynman said, you're the easiest one for you to fool.
BTW, I just finished reading Cradle of Life by Schopf. (It's where I read that Feynman quote, which I hadn't heard before.) Really a great book by a working scientist. You'll enjoy it. Maybe if enough read it, we could have a thread.
Post # 20
Thanks for the bump
I think this is exactly what Garbanzo is trying to sell.
The final judge of moral action is objective reality.
In other words, objective reality is the judge of moral action. He attempts to remove the individual from the decision process. But to judge means: to form an opinion about. In takes an individual to form an opinion and opinions are subjective.
So, the final opinion "subjective reality" of moral actions is determined through objective reality. I find this an extraordinary contradiction. He can't have it both ways.
Either there is an absolute moral law irregardless of individual opinion, or the individual gets to make it up as they go along.
bump
I "feel" my leg being ever so lightly ..... pulled. But maybe I'm imagining things.
Can't be imagining things because it is not objectively real.
But, if it isn't objectively real then how can I imagine it?
But, if I'm imagining it, how can it not be objectively real?
But, if it isn't objectively real then how can I imagine it?
But, if I'm imagining it, how can it not be objectively real?
I keep running around in a circle, I've got to stoppp, too dizzzzy.
You creationoids should be thrilled about this story. It means you're not alone.
Doomsday group lives in Bible days, awaiting endMOUNT GERIZIM, West Bank (Reuters) - In their handmade linen robes, sandals and cloth head-dresses, the White family look like extras on the set of a film about the Bible.
But the family of seven from Detroit, Michigan, are living the Bible days for real in the Promised Land getting ready for what they hope and pray will be the end of the world.
"We're on a pilgrimage out of Babylon," said the mother of the family, Ader, 39. "I believe the millennium is Judgment Day and we are going to be judged."
"We just wait. And if we die waiting, fair enough," said John Kohath, a 74-year-old retired maintenance worker from Guildford, England, with a flowing white beard and a belief that the end might almost be nigh.
By their estimate, based on what they say is a corrected reading of the Hebrew calendar, the year is now 6000 and the end will come when the lost biblical Ark of the Covenant reappears at the dawn of 6001 sometime next spring.
"We're convinced it is in Jerusalem in a cave in the Old City. My husband has been there. He knows," said Ader. "The millennium of Yehoah (God) starts this March or April. It depends on the first new moon after the vernal equinox."
There's more of this. If you want the whole article, CLICK HERE.
The article doesn't say, but I'm quite prepared to make a large wager that these folks don't believe in evolution either. So, creationoids, what are you waiting for? Head over to Israel and join your co-kooks.
#50.........
Hey Pat! What did those Angels Gate folks believe in?
I'm sorry. It was surely not my intent to offend you. Or anyone else for that matter. I was merely keying off of another post that mentioned the Lone Ranger on the earlier thread.
After all of the vitrol that flies back and forth here, I thought that this would LIGHTEN things a bit; not make it worse.
I, too, am a Native American. My ancestors didn't come here quite as long ago as yours did, but I was born here in this country. The state of INDIANa; the city of INDIANapolis. I've posted in other places about the things OUR government has done to your people by breaking 99% of the treaties (laws) that they've written. My heart goes out to anyone who gets stomped on by the do-gooders; either in Washington, or in Window Rock.
At least (I think) that in this thread, we agree that our government has gotten out of hand with EVERYONE these days and we wish we knew how to get some sembelence(SP?) of intelligence back into our leaders.
Hey Pat! What did those Angels Gate folks believe in?
Heaven's Gate, I think you mean. As to their beliefs, it's fair to say that they wouldn't agree with Rand's thinking about reality. And that ought to make creationoids uncomfortable. Here's an actual cut-n-paste paragraph from their website, which I downloaded when they were in the headlines, thinking it would be interesting to look at some day:
Two thousand years ago, a crew of members of the Kingdom of Heaven who are responsible for nurturing "gardens," determined that a percentage of the human "plants" of the present civilization of this Garden (Earth) had developed enough that some of those bodies might be ready to be used as "containers" for soul deposits. Upon instruction, a member of the Kingdom of Heaven then left behind His body in that Next Level (similar to putting it in a closet, like a suit of clothes that doesn't need to be worn for awhile), came to Earth, and moved into (or incarnated into), an adult human body (or "vehicle") that had been "prepped" for this particular task. The body that was chosen was called Jesus. The member of the Kingdom of Heaven who was instructed to incarnate into that body did so at His "Father's" (or Older Member's) instruction. He "moved into" (or took over) that body when it was 29 or 30 years old, at the time referred to as its baptism by John the Baptist (the incarnating event was depicted as "...the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove" - Luke 3:22). [That body (named Jesus) was tagged in its formative period to be the receptacle of a Next Level Representative, and even just that "tagging" gave that "vehicle" some unique awareness of its coming purpose.]
Okay, you creationoids out there. Does this sound like Darwin? No, you must admit it doesn't. Now be honest. Does it maybe sound a little bit like you? Huh? Huh?
I believe in that thing called "reality." I believe that reality necessarily encompasses that which is both subjective (thought, idea, that which can be known through faith, intuition, or revelation) and objective (that which can only be perceived by the senses and that which can be empirically ascertained.)
Thoughts are just as real as the things in front of our noses. There are several types of thoughts. Idea and intuition, and even faith in the sense of trusting a third person's testimony in the absence of personal observation, are legitimate ways of dealing with reality. Revelation can be valid, if you understand it as just another form of intuition. But either way they still have to be verified by the real world - otherwise they're just hypotheses. If you think your revelation is coming from an unseen supernatural spirit being, that's fine, except that if the spirit being doesn't actually exist in reality then that part of the revelation is still just a delusion.Just wishing it were true doesn't make it true. That's really all that generic "objectivism" and Randian "Objectivism" are saying.
So tell me, having never touched, smelled, seen, tasted, or heard your own brain, how do you know it exists? Because you've seen pictures of a brain? So what? I could show you a picture of a unicorn. Does that mean unicorns exist?
How do you know you have a mind? Have you ever weighed it? Smelled it? Tasted, touched, seen, heard, or boiled it down in a beaker? Show me the lab analysis of that which you call your "mind," and I'll be only too happy to believe that you have met the Objectivist standard for proving that you have one.
How do you account for reality that you cannot personally perceive? ...
The fact that I have a mind is axiomatic. We couldn't be having a conversation, and I couldn't be having these thoughts, if I didn't. The fact that I have a brain that produces this mind is a trivial step of faith, as is the belief that Antarctica exists, etc. But Antarctica doesn't exist because I think it does. Rather, I think Antarctica exists because the evidence that it does in fact exist is overwhelming. If I stopped believing in its existence, it would still exist (or not).
"So anyway, you don't believe in the concept of an objective
reality. OK, that leaves subjectivism. for your edification,
here's some understandable sentences regarding what you apparently
believe..."
No, I don't believe in reality the way you define it. And given the Objectivist way of defining it, neither do you, because it is impossible to know all that we know without taking some things on faith, or at least basing our personal knowledge, to a very large degree, on the collective minds and experiences of people we have never met, who themselves had to base their knowledge, to a very large degree, on the collective minds and experiences of people they had never met, and so on.
As I say above, the real world exists regardless of whether we believe in it or not. As people living in a world of objective reality, it's up to us to discover what the true facts of this world are. Our reason & knowledge are survival tools. The real world will keep on existing without us, but we won't exist unless we understand the real world.
"aHA! So now who's the Marxist-Nazi dupe, Stingray?"
I could see why you would conclude that given the fact that you had to misrepresent what I wrote and believed to arrive at such a conclusion. How "objective" of you. But thanks for proving that even an "objectivist" is not beyond "subjecting" reality to suit his or her own purpose. I guess it all depends on what "is" is for you, doesn't it?
You know, Kant also believed there was a world with objective reality - the nuomenal world. He just believed that we could never perceive it; that we're limited to perceiving the phenomenal world. And as stated before:
The theory of subjectivism ... did not achieve a successful sweep of the philosophic world until the appearance of the Critique of Pure Reason. "Things-in-themselves," said Kant, exist, but are unknowable; the world men perceive and deal with, the "phenomenal world," is a human creation, a product of fundamental mechanisms inherent in the structure of human consciousness. On this view, it is the essence of the subject to create the object; and objectivity, as defined above, is impossible to man. ...If believing in the Theory of Evolution is all it takes to make us Friends Of Stalin, Friends Of Hitler, Friends Of Bill, and Friends Of Satan, then you're just as much a Friend Of Stalin and a Friend Of Hitler. Comrade!There are two different kinds of subjectivism, distinguished by their answers to the question: whose consciousness creates reality? Kant rejected the older of these two, which was the view that each man's feelings create a private universe for him. Instead, Kant ushered in the era of social subjectivism - the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality. In Kant's system, mankind as a whole is the decisive group; what creates the phenomenal world is not the idiosyncracies of particular individuals, but the mental structure common to all men.
Later philosophers accepted Kant's fundamental approach, but carried it a step further. If, many claimed, the mind's structure is a brute given, which cannot be explained - as Kant had said - then there is no reason why all men should have the same mental structure. There is no reason why mankind should not be splintered into competing groups, each defined by its own distinctive type of consciousness, each vying with the others to capture and control reality.
The first world movement thus to pluralize the Kantian position was Marxism, which propounded a social subjectivism in terms of competing economic classes. On this issue, as on many others, the Nazis follow the Marxists, but substitute race for class. (emphasis mine)
-- Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, p62
You're still going off half-cocked beating up a strawman.
"The alternative to subjectivism is the advocacy of objectivity."
This either/or black/white thinking is peculiarly Western, and yields lots of false dichotomies. For example: Darwinism or Young Earth Creationism.
Actually, the dichotomy is between The Theory That's Correct and All The Theories That Are Wrong.
Of course, most theories (like the ToE) are complex - made up of several statements - and some may be true and some may be false. So the original Darwinism was shown to be partly false (natural selection the only mechanism & gradualism) but mostly true (common descent by natural means, speciation as a natural event, fossil morphologies as predictive of ancestry, etc.) When you break a theory or belief down, you do eventually end up with a collection of individual atomic statements, each one of which is either true or false, no?
#53.........
Heaven's Gate! Yeah; that's it!
We've covered a lot of space on this thread, so I think it's important to review. Here goes:
So let the flames continue!!!
I could see why you would conclude that given the fact that you had to misrepresent what I wrote and
believed to arrive at such a conclusion.
my family pride is something inconceivable.
First you seem to say the means are objective
reality, then you say the individual makes arbitrary decisions about the application of morality.
In applying those means, we have to deal with reality, and the
results (the ends) are determined by the effects our actions have, and this happens according to
objective laws outside of our subjective control
I think you got the essence of what I was attempting to say.
how do you explain the June bug???
I knew june bugs were ugly
Therefore, you are espousing a scenario, where, each individual will have
separate moral paths based on their separate ends.
You continually attempt to spread layer upon layer of nonsense in an attempt to confuse. No matter
I'm not in the least confused.
"Oh,
Daaaaaaaaataman! . . . Stiiiiiiiingray . . ."
I think that about does it. Have I left out anything important?
Good response to Stingray in number 55, above. In my view, your posts are always among the best, insightful, convincing (to me at least), well reasoned. Trust me I'm wondering how anyone could get the idea that Objectivism somehow excludes the subjective. Amazing.
I think that about does it. Have I left out anything important?
Yeah. TAKE YOUR FINGER OFF THE FAST FORWARD BUTTON!
No, wait: Hit Fast Forward again, and maybe you'll hit the future before we do! =:-O
Good response to Stingray in number 55, above. In my view, your posts are always among the best, insightful, convincing (to me at least), well reasoned.
Thanks! I TRY to be clear & pithy, but God knows it's difficult sometimes. (Then one of you guys comes along & restates it much more clearly. :-)
Trust me I'm wondering how anyone could get the idea that Objectivism somehow excludes the subjective. Amazing.
Well, I guess Objectivism is new to Stingray, and some of his debate opponents here are Objectivists, and he's getting flustered, and so we're obviously tools of Satan assigned to the command of the ghosts of Hitler and Stalin (QED), so he must investigate this "Objectivism" thing & see exactly how we were led astray into our depraved insanity.
It has been brought to my attention that my term "creationoid" is offensive. Probably that is true. I now wish to announce a kindler, gentler PatrickHenry. Henceforth I shall avoid the use of that term, except when I respond to someone who refers to me as a marxist, or satanist, etc. But I rarely respond to such people, so my discourse should be much improved. I'm gonna try.
There is very little reason for science & religion to be in conflict with each other........
Until recent times, when the public masses became educated, science was a field dominated by clerics, since they were among the only educated folks around......
Clerics explored science in an effort to better know & understand God and all his wonder.....
They were usually rewarded for their scientific "break-throughs" by being branded a heretic and either imprisoned, killed, or driven from their pulpits......
Everyone knows about Capernicus & Galileo's conflicts with the Church.....but there are countless other examples.....
Joseph Priestley, the "inventor" of Oxygen, well known for his scientific research on air & gases, was a also prominent English Cleric, driven from England as a heretic for his research, was welcomed & "grub-staked" in his new home just off Independence Mall (today) at 4th & Arch Street, Philadelphia, by his longtime friend & correspondent, Ben Franklin..............
Maybe it is time for the "deeply religious", who have persecuted the scientists of their day as heretics for what seems like forever, to recognize that they have usually been wrong..............
And in the end, only make fools of themselves for their efforts to stop people from using the gifts & capabilities that God has given them..........
When the Bible says, "god created man in his own image", they are talking about a lot more than what you see in the mirror.......................
There is very little reason for science & religion to be in conflict with each other........
I keep wondering about this. Each day I announce a new notion of what the problem is. Today I think that we really aren't having a "debate" at all, not in the usual sense.
Two astronomers can debate about the cause and significance of some new evidence. Two biologists can debate about how to classify some newly discovered species. Even two "political scientists" can debate the significance of some election. But there can be no debate when one side claims the other is the victim of a mass dellusion, all the evidence is fake or non-existent, all the arguiments are satanic contrivances, etc. That's not a debate. There isn't any communication going on at all.
So when I get into a "debate" with someone who claims that my entire world is a satanic fraud, my data are fakes, my arguments unacceptable ... I can't do any persuading. It's very important to understand that the other side isn't winning. They can't convince anyone that the whole universe is a sham. There's certainly no proof of that. But there's no way to shake such a person's belief; so they finish the debate imagining that they've won, that the opposition never laid a glove on them. In truth, neither side can score any points on the other, because they aren't using the same language (philosophically speaking).
"So the original Darwinism was shown to be partly false (natural selection the only mechanism & gradualism) but mostly true (common descent by natural means, speciation as a natural event, fossil morphologies as predictive of ancestry, etc.)"
How you come to this conclusion, and with particular regard to "common descent by natural means" in the face of massive and growing adverse evidence is a mystery to me. And the personal and social implications of the Theory are a disaster. Darwinism is, and has been shown to be, principally a set of a priori assumptions which are taken by Evolutionist, principally Academic, True Believers to yield "answers" which are inherent in the assumptions themselves. We have been over this evidentiary ground at length, so I must ask, knowing you are bright, whether you can and are willing to separate truth from sophistry and whether you can "be faithful" to the facts.
Let me list some of the reasons why Darwinism is headed for the scientific trash heap:
1. "Survival of the Fittest" is a tautology.
2. The fossil record is nothing but gaps -- transitional forms are absent.
3. There are many examples of species remaining unchanged for millions of years; i.e. gradual change seems not the rule.
4. A cell is an incredibly complex inter-dependent and inter-connected unit of life which has not been shown to have accreted by "natural" incremental means (argument from design).
5. The biologists have tried for decades to show life emerging in the lab by heating chemicals in a flask and they have failed miserably. They have pretty much ceased in their attempts.
6. There is virtually no body of scientific papers supportive of the Theory of Evolution.
7. Old textbook drawings showing great similarity among species in fetal development have been shown to be false. Likewise, drawings showing the smooth transition from ape to man.
And there is more -- it's a long list, and growing.
Science comes to the Universe and discovers that it's orderly. Science's great success has been in discerning some of the "laws" that govern that order. Then comes the Darwinists who say "It was all a Grand Accident", and do not quibble with this unless you want to quibble with Stephen Jay Gould, Darwin's Great And Wonderful SpokeSophist. This makes no sense, jennyp. Is it not obvious?
I can't help jumping into this one.
1. "Survival of the Fittest" is a tautology. No. "Survival of the survivors" is a tautology.
2. The fossil record is nothing but gaps -- transitional forms are absent. Hee hee. All gaps. All gaps!
3. There are many examples of species remaining unchanged for millions of years; i.e. gradual change seems not the rule. Yes. Bacteria, for example, are still with us. Only the mutants breed mutated offspring. There is not necessarily any reason why the ancestral stock must die. But the mutant offspring may survive and flourish, thus diversity.
I will leave # 4 and #5 for others to deal with. Too tiresome for me.
6. There is virtually no body of scientific papers supportive of the Theory of Evolution. Yes, and I am Napoleon.
I will leave # 7 for others to deal with.
It has been brought to my attention that my term "creationoid" is offensive.
Fewer syllables in "cretin" anyway, and who can bridle at the possibility of being mistaken for a person from the island of Crete? OK, maybe the Epimenides paradox implies a certain negative connotation. (All people from Crete are liars. I, Epimenides, come from Crete. Is my first statement right?)
6. There is virtually no body of scientific papers supportive of the Theory of Evolution.
You're right. Another thing, there is no planet Earth. I don't see a planet Earth, do you see a planet Earth?
Phaedrus: There is virtually no body of scientific papers supportive of the Theory of Evolution.
Patrick: Yes, and I am Napoleon.
Read Behe's Darwin's Black Box. I couldn't possibly make this stuff up.
I will leave # 4 and #5 for others to deal with. Too tiresome for me.
It is interesting that you would skip over #4 and #5, calling them "tiresome". To me, this is the most fascinating part of the whole topic, and these questions amount to huge holes in current theory. The "RNA world" hypothesis is probably the most accepted answer to question number 4, but there are huge problems with the hypothesis. From one of the fathers of the RNA world concept, Francis Crick:
"It may turn out that we will eventually be able to see how this RNA world got started. At present, the gap from the primal "soup" to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide."
From another eminent researcher into the origin of life, Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies:
"Because synthesizing nucleotides and achieving replication of RNA under plausible prebiotic conditions have proved so challenging, chemists are increasingly considering the possibility that RNA was not the first self replicating molecule..."
From NASA, via the Final Report issued after the "Astrobiology Workshop" held September 9-11, 1996 at Ames Research Center, California:
"It has been postulated that there was a time in protobiological evolution when RNA played a dual role as both genetic material and a catalytic molecule ("the RNA world"). However, this appealing concept encounters significant difficulties. RNA is chemically fragile and difficult to synthesize abiotically. The known range of its catalytic activities is rather narrow, and the origin of an RNA synthetic apparatus is unclear."
There are many other theories addressing Phaedrus’ question #4. Here are a few, all from www.panspermia.com . . . the RNA World section:
A few scientists still say that DNA could succeed in starting life on its way But even the shortest DNA strand needs proteins to help it replicate. This is the chicken-and-egg problem.
There is a "proteins first" school. For example, Manfred Eigen, of the Max Planck Institute, says, "There is no doubt that proteins, which are more easily formed, were first on the scene". Of course, these first proteins must be much shorter than any used in life today, because of the sheer unlikelihood of forming useful long ones out of a soup of amino acids.
Physicist Freeman Dyson solves the chicken-and-egg problem with a double origin, one for metabolism (proteins) and one for replication (strands of nucleotides).
In Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, A. G. Cairns-Smith says that clay crystals could have served as the scaffolding upon which the first short DNA or RNA genome was constructed. A recent elaboration of this idea prompted one writer to wonder, "Primordial soup or crêpes?".
Even more recently, another tangent on this path leads to zeolite. Biologists Harold J. Morowitz, David Deamer, and others, advocate a theory that could be paraphrased as "containers first."
Jeffrey L. Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography holds the minority view that the early Earth was frozen and believes precellular life started in "cold soup" under the ice.
Conversely, chemists Claudia Huber and Günter Wächtershäuser say the soup where life originated was actually quite hot, probably, near undersea volcanic vents, where iron and nickel sulfides might catalyze some of the necessary reactions. Cornell Astronomer Thomas Gold wonders if life might have originated in a hot environment even deeper in Earth's crust.
Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute, says, "...whenever a collection of molecules contains enough different kinds of molecules, a metabolism will crystallize from the broth".
Another idea is the "PNA world." Because starting the RNA world is so difficult, there probably needs to be a pre-RNA world. PNA, or peptide nucleic acid, might have some of the properties necessary to constitute that world. This would be pre-precellular life.
For any of these theories to be valid, there must have been some mechanism cranking out, by some precellular process, random strings of nucleotides and amino acids, . . . and a whole lot of luck to chance into a gene and many friendly proteins. There is no evidence in life today of anything that produces huge quantities of new, random strings of nucleotides or amino acids, some of which are advantageous. See www.panspermia.com for more problems with current abiogenesis theory.
These problems provide plenty of room for alternative theories: Intelligent Design and Cosmic Origins. There have been several examples of fossilized bacteria found in comets or meteorites that have landed on Earth, and bacteria (the most primitive form of life that we know of)in some of its forms is virtually immortal and can survive millions of years without metabolism. It is clear to Scientists today that bacteria can survive the conditions of space.
On October 27, 1996, geneticists showed evidence that many genes are much older than the fossil record would indicate. Subsequent studies have strengthened this finding.
You can believe whatever you want about the origins of life. Personally, I don’t believe things unless I know them to be true.
Thanks, PH for the thread!
--jazz
Maybe Behe says there's no planet Earth. That would be the clincher.
BTW, I just finished reading Cradle of Life by Schopf. (It's where I read that Feynman quote, which I hadn't heard before.) Really a great book by a working scientist. You'll enjoy it. Maybe if enough read it, we could have a thread.
I think this is a great idea! I'm going to look for the book today. Maybe others will likewise partcipate in a book discussion thread . . .
I'm game for a Schopf discussion, fast as I can get my hands on it. Meantime, I can't believe this thread. Kant, schmant! Rand, schmand! What kind of science is this? Bunch of philosophes grises clacking their dentures over what is real. I'm still kicking myself for not lecturing Stingray on nuclear packing fractions when he posted that there were no old supernova remnants in the universe.
Either there is an absolute moral law irregardless of individual opinion, or the individual gets to make it up as they go along.
There is. An individual can choose a moral code, but he can't choose the results of his moral code. I think our disconnect is because we are talking about different things. I'm talking about how we know a particular moral code is good or bad - we know this by its results and we know the results by observation - and we judge the results by this standard of value - a man's happiness as a rational being. I suspect you're discussing a list of "thou shalt nots".
When I say that reality is the judge, what I mean is simply this - that actions have consequences. If I walk off the top of a building, I can't choose what happens from that point. I can however choose to walk off the top of the building or not walk off the top of the building. I can choose to do anything I want, constrained by the laws of physics - but not all choices are good. This is what I meant by saying that individuals can't choose the results of their actions - they can however choose their actions to accomplish certain results.
I'm not proposing a list of "Thou-shalt-nots" which everyone will follow always. I am however saying that certain actions promote one's happiness, which is the only proper end of a moral code. In effect, my description of moral action is somewhat more restricted and more general than yours, in that the primary moral rule is to leave others alone and not interfere in their lives and for them not to interfere in mine. As I said before, morality is a precondition for happiness not a sufficient cause of it. To be happy, one must act in accordance with reality. Morality lies in accordance with reality with the understand of man's basic rational nature. And rational people will agree given that they are describing the same reality. The process of integrating reality is not an automatic one, but since reality is objective people will eventually come to the same conclusion since they are describing the same thing.
At the core, what I'm saying is this - think of morality as an objective toolbox of sorts in which everyone has the same tools but uses them for different things. As a programmer I understand this as having to conform to the realities of the language I'm working in and the limitations of the platform I'm working on - happiness lies in getting my app to work properly - to do that ultimately I have to follow objective rules. Other coders may be working on other projects, but they to have to follow the same objective rules (here we're assuming that everyone writes in a single language).
What I'm focusing on is the larger question of why morality is important and why it isn't arbitrary and what a correct moral code gives us - happiness (note that this is distinct from simple pleasure) and not a particular list of "thou-shalt-nots". Morality is objective in that only by conforming to certain rules will one obtain happiness and that not just any type of behavior will work to produce happiness.
Now if you don't believe that actions have consequences that stem from the nature of the action, then I wonder why you're a conservative, since one consistent trait of liberals is that nothing is anyone's own fault. By actions have consequences, I simply mean that one's life is the product of one's actions and choices and that by carefully choosing one's actions, one can choose the type of life one wants. Different people will choose different types of lives according to their own values, however no one can choose the results of a given action. To clarify, results stem from the nature of an action - I can however choose my actions to acheive a particular result, but not the result of the action itself.
For example, simply thinking about a million dollars won't do anything to get me a million dollars. I can choose to think about 1 million dollars, but I can't choose the results of thinking about 1 million dollars - I can't change basic reality.
"There are several types of thoughts."
Thought n.: the action or process of thinking: mental concentration on ideas as distinguished from sense perceptions or emotions: the arranging of ideas in the mind.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary
"Idea and intuition, and even faith in the sense of trusting a third person's testimony in the absence of personal observation, are legitimate ways of dealing with reality.
"Revelation can be valid, if you understand it as just another form of intuition." jennyp
Here is where you run afoul of your own world view:
Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith [even "small steps of faith"] or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible)."
Ayn Rand Institute
You cannot be an Objectivist and accept the existence of any part of reality that you cannot know by sensory or empirical means. You cannot be an Objectivist and believe there are things that you cannot know about reality.
Realizing this, instead of rejecting Objectivism, you are forced to redefine it:
If you think your revelation is coming from an unseen supernatural spirit being, that's fine, except that if the spirit being doesn't actually exist in reality then that part of the revelation is still just a delusion." jennyp
"Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — " Ayn Rand Institute
"Just wishing it were true doesn't make it true. That's really all that generic "objectivism" and Randian "Objectivism" are saying." jennyp
— and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality." Ayn Rand Institute
The reality of the Objectivist position is stated above, as expressed in your side's own propaganda sheet. Your attempt to recreate that reality by redefining it places you even further at odds with the belief system you allege to embrace.
Finally, the very essence of thought itself -- "the arranging of ideas in the mind" -- is a purely subjective process, proving that even that thing which you call "Objectivism" is the product of a "subjective" process!
As such, Objectivism is no more subject to proof by empirical means than is any other subjective set of beliefs! It is just an idea in your head, one that you -- the Objectivist -- cannot logically and consistently defend without destroying.
In the end, you can believe whatever you wish about me, your beliefs, or reality as a whole. But you shouldn't pretend that any of your beliefs are rational or logically consistent with any world view except that which belongs to jennyp.
By definition, that makes you the "subjectivist," not me.
An individual can choose a moral code
Garbanzo you got, you finnaly admit we get to choose. The rest of what you propose is anti-climatic now.
but he can't choose the results of his moral code.
Contradiction 1 by G: Similarly an individual can choose his own ends towards fufilling his pursuit of happiness.
I think our disconnect is because we are talking about different things. I'm talking about how we know a particular moral code is good or bad - we know this by its results and we know the results by observation - and we judge the results by this standard of value - a man's happiness as a rational being.
No I'm not disconnected. You are proposing to remove the individuals ability to choose his moral code through some rationalization, which you can't.
So let's see if I got you: The individual knows moral right from wrong, by the individual setting a standard and the individual judging the moral code by his standard and his standard is whatever makes him happy. Beautiful in its simplicity. Moral right and wrong, is determine by the people (so much for objectivety), the standard is set by the people (subjectively), judged by the people(opinioned), for the people's personal happiness(so much for reality). Garbanzo this is brilliant. You have graduated "moral relativism 101". I don't need to continue.
But you know I will.
To continue:
I suspect you're discussing a list of "thou shalt nots".
Nope
When I say that reality is the judge, what I mean is simply this - that actions have consequences.
This is unproven, you keep stating it but fail to prove it. Moral actions, impure thoughts for example, have what consequences that you can measure via reality. Assuming of course you have impure thoughts and consider them a moral action.
You are also fudging again. I thought your whole statement was about objective reality. Now it is just reality. Are you saying the subjective exists in reality?
I'm still waiting for you to define this thing you call Garbanzo's Moral Law.
If I walk off the top of a building, I can't choose what happens from that point. I can however choose to walk off the top of the building or not walk off the top of the building. I can choose to do anything I want, constrained by the laws of physics.
You keep helping me Garbanzo, if you keep this up I'll have nothing to counter. Let me explain; You can choose to walk off the building or not. The physical outcome is inevitable, you will fall. However, the moral outcome right or wrong is based upon whether or not this makes you happy. If you're a "Heavens Gate" person or if life is trully miserable for you or if you believe in reincarnation, this may be what makes you truly happy. That means it is morally right for you. Definitely not for me.
This is what I meant by saying that individuals can't choose the results of their actions - they can however choose their actions to accomplish certain results
Contradiction # 2: Anyone else see the flaw. Try this Garbanzo => "X" = moral action "A" and "Y" = result "B".
This is Garbanzo's logic not mine follow this:
they can however choose their actions to accomplish certain results: If I choose "X" then I get "Y"
individuals can't choose the results of their actions: If I choose "X" then I don't get"Y".
Garbanzo, want to try this one again?
To be continued
Continued
I'm not proposing a list of "Thou-shalt-nots" which everyone will follow always. I am however saying that certain actions promote one's happiness, which is the only proper end of a moral code.
Who decided this, you obviously (I am however saying). I refute this. I'm an individual and I have decided that emotional neutrality is the proper end of an absolute moral code. Why is yours or mine absolute or better for that matter?
In effect, my description of moral action is somewhat more restricted and more general than yours
Who cares? I will add irrelevant.
in that the primary moral rule is to leave others alone and not interfere in their lives and for them not to interfere in mine.
First, who decided this as the primary moral rule? Oh, you did again, sorry. Here try this: I say that the primary moral rule is: everyone who is under 6 feet is inferior and should be eliminated to further propogate a strong species, this will make me truly happy. Which directly conflicts with yours of non-interference. Why is yours or mine absolutely moral? Mine makes me happy.
Besides, I thought you said that the primary moral rule is for us to obey the moral law, which leads to happiness. This will make Clinton, the Government of Red China, Hitler, Hillary, and a lot of psychopaths very unhappy. If your are going to change your Moral Law, then it truly isn't absolute. You have changed to a Moral Law of non-interference. Interesting but I believe inconsistant. This would make Garbanzo's contradiction #3.
As I said before, morality is a precondition for happiness not a sufficient cause of it. To be happy, one must act in accordance with reality.
Uh oh, Garbanzo's contradiction #4: moral action is a means to an end - The ends (happiness). In other words, Correct morality is the cause of happiness.
Also, Why? Oh I forgot, because you said so. (I said). I disagree, I'm an individual and I have decided that morality is actually a hindrance to my personal happiness. What makes your definition or mine absolute? According to you mine is morally correct.
Morality lies in accordance with reality with the understand of man's basic rational nature.
I got it: Morality is real because we rationally realize Morality. Or, If we rationally realize Morality it is real. This is brilliant, can I use it?
To be continued
Continued:
since reality is objective people will eventually come to the same conclusion since they are describing the same thing.
I completely disagree with this. There is an experiment the police run every so often it goes like this. There is a room with 15 people in it, a thug comes in and robs one of them at gunpoint and runs out. A real situation. Want to guess how many different "real" descriptions the police get of the thug. Want to guess how many of the people can be convinced the thug looked completely different that reality. The answer for both is usually 15.
At the core, what I'm saying is this - think of morality as an objective toolbox of sorts in which everyone has the same tools but uses them for different things. As a programmer I understand this as having to conform to the realities of the language I'm working in and the limitations of the platform I'm working on - happiness lies in getting my app to work properly - to do that ultimately I have to follow objective rules. Other coders may be working on other projects, but they to have to follow the same objective rules (here we're assuming that everyone writes in a single language).
Okay, I'll play.
Garbanzo's assumptions:
#1: only one toolbox; #2: only one kind of tools; #3: only one language; #4: only one platform; #5: objective rules; #6: people work on different projects
Toolbox = moral code, so only one by assumption
tools, language, platform, rules = objective items to be used for actions yet to be determined.
G's creating a project that works = his happiness
X's destroying a project that works = his happiness
Whatever you create through your moral pathway (getting it to work) Garbanzo is going to make you happy (therefore morally correct for you). The second you are done X takes those same tools and takes a different moral pathway, he destroys your project (getting it to not work) making him happy, cause that was his project (therefore morally correct also). He used the same objective items but his moral action was one of destruction where yours was one of creation. Both of your actions caused each of you to be happy, both used the same tools etc, your moral actions/pathways were different (creation/destruction) and the outcome therefore different. Who is morally correct?
I await your response.
more to come.
Excellent, as usual, White Knight.
Based on their own words quite to the contrary of what they claim to believe, we see that garbanzo is a moral relativist and jennyp is a subjectivist ("Zeig Heil!")
Which simply goes to prove that if one does not stand for the truth, one will fall for anything.
Later...
Continued:
What I'm focusing on is the larger question of why morality is important and why it isn't arbitrary and what a correct moral code gives us - happiness (note that this is distinct from simple pleasure)
Why should it be distinct from simple pleasure. Oh, once again because you said so. Will once again, I say, it isn't distinct. Who is right?
not a particular list of "thou-shalt-nots". Morality is objective in that only by conforming to certain rules will one obtain happiness and that not just any type of behavior will work to produce happiness.
Who makes the rules? Still waiting for Garbanzo's Moral Law. Again, you do. Why can't I make the rules. I say, that any rule that makes you happy is a good rule, and I plan on changing mine every day. Who is right? I also, plan on changing my behavior everyday to suit my own personal goal of happiness. Why is mine not right?
In other words, per Garbanzo, make it up as you go along.
Now if you don't believe that actions have consequences that stem from the nature of the action, then I wonder why you're a conservative, since one consistent trait of liberals is that nothing is anyone's own fault.
Particularly beneath you Garbanzo. My political leanings have nothing to do with this discussion or yours for that matter.
Next paragraph has so many contradictions, so little time to discuss them.
I simply mean that one's life is the product of one's actions and choices and that by carefully choosing one's actions, one can choose the type of life one wants.
I disagree, you are claiming that concepts/ideas don't affect the type of life we want or our actions. Ridiculous. Therefore the product of ones actions cannot be the sum total of the life we want. What about hope, faith, love, beauty, etc. Are you saying these have no input on the type of life we want. If you aren't, then one's life is more than the total of one's moral actions.
Different people will choose different types of lives according to their own values, however no one can choose the results of a given action.
Garbanzo's contradiction #6: they can however choose their actions to accomplish certain results
But we have done this already so does it count. I say yes.
I can however choose my actions to acheive a particular result, but not the result of the action itself.
Garbanzo's contradiction #7: (We did this one also.)
Garbanzo => "X" = action "A" and "Y" = result "B". This is Garbanzo's logic not mine follow this:
I can however choose my actions to acheive a particular result: If I choose "X" then I get "Y"
But I can not (choose) the result of the action itself.: If I choose "X" then I don't get "Y".
For example, simply thinking about a million dollars won't do anything to get me a million dollars. I can choose to think about 1 million dollars, but I can't choose the results of thinking about 1 million dollars
Unless of course you are on "Who wants to be a millionaire?"
But what this has to do with anything, I don't know.
I can't change basic reality.
Another stunning statement. I hope you meant by thinking about it. So you are saying, I can't think my way into anything. How do you get anywhere. I normally think before I act. Sometimes Thinking prevents me from acting. This is an act in itself. Thinking in itself, is an action. Like I said, you haven't proven all actions have consequences. This is a good refutation. Thanks for providing it for me.
This whole thinking thing is actually a side note anyway.
Answer the question; Who decides which outcomes of actions performed are morally right and morally wrong?
You own words should help you here: we know a particular moral code is good or bad - we know this by its results and we know the results by observation - and we judge the results by this standard of value - a man's happiness.
That's is right Garbanzo; WE DECIDE, THAT MAKES MY MORAL LAW AS GOOD AS YOURS, OR ANYONE ELSES. All according to you.
One last question you didn't answer yet: As you get to decide morality; do you then have no objection to William Clintons' lying, cheating, adultery, stealing, raping, and power grabs as this has undoubtedly made him happy?
Precisely.
Your posts are as usual, right on the target.
I think those who doubt evolutionary theory are making a serious mistake... one quick observation of the Clinton-Gore crowd, and the GOP RINO party hacks should provide strong evidence for evolution.
Maybe God is chance. Maybe you can't see beyond that. Maybe God does what he will for reasons of his own. Who knows? Whatever philosophy you need to bear is OK with me. We all need to make sense of the world. But how much do you have to pay?
Your attempt to recreate that reality by redefining it places you even further at odds with the belief system you allege to embrace.
You have uncovered a problem with the evolutionists on this thread: lack of definitions and shifting definitions. Garbanzo's feeble attempt at defining morality is another example. When terms and concepts are redefined as the situation warrants, then the rationalists are supremely irrational.
"Henceforth I shall avoid the use of that term, except when I respond to someone who refers to me as a marxist, or satanist, etc."
Wear whatever shoe fits you, dude. I said you were a "materialist lackey," based on your repeated affirmation of those features of your beliefs consistent with a materialist world view. What about that is not true?
Furthermore, every one of these posts from the original thread:
"Will any of this material put an end the seemingly endless debates on this subject matter? Of course not. So let the flames begin anew!!
"I suppose all of this is rather threatening to the small-minded."
"It is such a shame that some people have such weak faith that they find science to "threatening" to their faith....."
"Nice try, but it will probably never end since creationism is an emotional belief rather than a rational one. Personally, I think it's a response to cultural and social structures which disempower the individual."
"What could be more debilitating than the concept that your mind is essentially worthless, and everything is ruled by an all-knowing, all-powerful creature who is beyond your wildest imaginings, and who set up the universe in order to plunge virtually all of us into an eternity of torture. I donno, but if I believed that stuff I would really feel disempowered."
"I certainly don't expect to "convert" anyone. It's not conversion that I'm after. That's a religious activity, getting folks to swap one set of dogmas for another. My only purpose here (other than the sheer fun of it, which is considerable) is to present information. I want people to think for themselves..."
"I may not be making any progress here, in fact I'm sure I'm not, but I know what I'm doing. Even if I'm all alone. Besides, it's fun."
"...the bible, filled as it is with wizards, witches, sticks turning into snakes, water turning into blood, women turning into salt, gang bangs, homosexual love, murder and dismemberment, doesn't prove the existence of a creative god any more than comic books prove the existence of Superman."
preceded this:
"Such are the kind of people who defend evolutionism. Their very purpose here is to distract, distort, deceive, and destroy. They are free to believe anything they wish, but this thread - if nothing else - shows them to be the cackling, babbling fools and Marxist lackeys they really are."
In the first place, every one of the responses from your ilk above (and more) were such gross mischaracterizations and outright lies about creationists that I responded the way I did (above) out of sheer outrage. That's because your behavior was outrageous. I should know better than to let myself be provoked by mentally impaired children who really can't help themselves, but such is the cross I must bear.
Secondly, I was only giving you what you commanded from your readers. "So let the flames begin anew!!"
Finally, you had been so roundly and soundly shown to be an intellectual fraud and lightweight on other threads, that I suppose the only way you could redeem yourself in the eyes of your "slappies" was to start a thread in which one of your very first responses was to call the opposition "small-minded."
A little of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? (No, you don't think and therein lies your whole problem.)
So wear whatever epithet fits you, PH, and wear it proudly. I'll save you the trouble of having to refer to the other thread for them:
You're a "Brown-Shirt and Black Trenchcoat wearing Marxist/Materialist lackey who serves at the feet of Satan and worships at the altar of Rand."
There. Consider yourself "flamed." You've certainly earned every bit of contempt you sought in your stated reasons for starting these threads.
"But I rarely respond to such people..."
That's only because in a true war of ideas, you're an unarmed man. Your only recourse is to insult people right out of the box. And when the favor is returned, you pretend that you didn't have anything at all to do with the mess that was made on Jim's server.
You're a fraud and a lightweight. Add those to the list of flames you sought.
By the way, don't bother responding to the challenges put forth to you regarding defining your terms above. Such is not to be expected from a philosophical "genius" whose first shot fired is calling those with whom he disagrees "small-minded."
"You have uncovered a problem with the evolutionists on this thread: lack of definitions and shifting definitions. Garbanzo's feeble attempt at defining morality is another example. When terms and concepts are redefined as the situation warrants, then the rationalists are supremely irrational."
Which is both absolutely true, and absolutely stunning when you consider the fact that tyhey're the ones always calling us "irrational."
I seem to recall a word for that from psychology...let me see if I can recall..."Projection" was the term, I believe. Yes, here it is:
Projection:
the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety.
One only needs to look at the reasons why these threads were begun to see how true this is.
Later...
Stingray to PatrickHenry: That's only because in a true war of ideas, you're an unarmed man. Your only recourse is to insult people right out of the box.
I second that.
Unarmed man! That's a 
one!
Oh, and one more thing for all the "idiot savants" wailing that this thread has turned towards a discussion of philosophy, please note the following, emphasized and enlarged for your convenience:
ANOTHER MASSIVE ANTI-CREATIONISM MEGA SITE (Thread 3)
Garbanzo you got, you finnaly admit we get to choose. The rest of what you propose is anti-climatic now.
I've not "admitted" anything - this has been my point all along. An individual can do anything he pleases, subject only to the laws of physics. However he cannot change the results of his actions. He can only change his actions to get results. Think of it as this - actionA => resultA and ActionB => ResultB. An individual cannot change the pairing of an action with a result, i.e he can't make actionA => resultB or actionB => resultA. If he wants resultB then he must choose actionB.
So let's see if I got you: The individual knows moral right from wrong, by the individual setting a standard and the individual judging the moral code by
his standard and his standard is whatever makes him happy. Beautiful in its simplicity. Moral right and wrong, is determine by the people (so much for
objectivety), the standard is set by the people (subjectively), judged by the people(opinioned), for the people's personal happiness(so much for reality).
The individual understands right from wrong by using his rational faculties. For example a person can believe that the gravitional force between two objects inversely proportional to the cube (rather than the square) of the distance between the objects. There is nothing in nature which forbids that idea from occuring. It is however wrong in that it doesn't reflect reality. An individual can obviously choose to believe in any set of laws of physics he chooses to. However, in order to survive, he must understand the correct laws and apply them to his life.
[Actions have consequences]
This is unproven, you keep stating it but fail to prove it.
I would think it would be obvious. Our lives are determined by our choices. We make choices everyday, some good and some bad. We understand bad choices by their effects on us.
Moral actions, impure thoughts for example, have what consequences that you can measure via
reality. Assuming of course you have impure thoughts and consider them a moral action.
I wouldn't consider "impure" thoughts moral or immoral.
However, the moral outcome right or wrong is based upon whether or not this makes you happy. If you're
a "Heavens Gate" person or if life is trully miserable for you or if you believe in reincarnation, this may be what makes you truly happy. That means it is
morally right for you. Definitely not for me.
No the outcome simply is. Actions and choices are moral not outcomes. For example, if a moral code is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", by your reasoning you could say that is subjective since "as you would have them do unto you" is dependent on the individual. I would say that it is objective because it is the only means by which rational people can live with other in peace and failure to observe that rule has its consequences.
Contradiction # 2: Anyone else see the flaw. Try this Garbanzo => "X" = moral action "A" and "Y" = result "B".
they can however choose their actions to accomplish certain results: If I choose "X" then I get "Y"
individuals can't choose the results of their actions: If I choose "X" then I don't get"Y".
I explained this above - I can choose an action. I can't choose what the result of that action will be. However, if I note the relationship between a particular action and a particular result I can change my actions to achieve that result. If I wanted to fly to Paris - I can choose to flap my arms around. No matter how much I choose to flap my arms around I won't get to Paris that way. I can't change the fact that flapping my arms around will not get me to Paris. I can note however that if I buy a airline ticket to Paris and board the flight, that will get me to Paris. I can choose another set of actions which accomplishes my goal where the first choice didn't.
Who decided this, you obviously (I am however saying). I refute this. I'm an individual and I have decided that emotional neutrality is the proper end of
an absolute moral code. Why is yours or mine absolute or better for that matter?
If you're happy being neutral...
in that the primary moral rule is to leave others alone and not interfere in their lives and for them not to interfere in mine.
As noted above, this is the only way for rational people to live in peace.
Besides, I thought you said that the primary moral rule is for us to obey the moral law, which leads to happiness. This will make Clinton, the Government
of Red China, Hitler, Hillary, and a lot of psychopaths very unhappy. If your are going to change your Moral Law, then it truly isn't absolute. You have
changed to a Moral Law of non-interference. Interesting but I believe inconsistant. This would make Garbanzo's contradiction #3.
Actually I haven't changed. I don't think I've explained myself that well on this so I'm attempting again to be somewhat more coherent. As said above, the only way rational individuals can live in peace and pursue their own ends is to let others pursue their peaceful ends in peace.
Uh oh, Garbanzo's contradiction #4: moral action is a means to an end - The ends (happiness). In other words, Correct morality is the
cause of happiness.
Moral action is necessary, but not sufficient. To act in accordance with objective reality is moral.
I'm an individual and I have decided that morality is actually a hindrance to my
personal happiness. What makes your definition or mine absolute? According to you mine is morally correct.
You can decide anything you please. However your decisions don't change reality and they don't change the consequences of your actions. You can decide that you are an elephant but it doesn't make it so. The absolute nature of moral action stems from the basic nature of man, which is why we don't give moral attributes to sea otters.
I completely disagree with this. There is an experiment the police run every so often it goes like this. There is a room with 15 people in it, a thug comes in
and robs one of them at gunpoint and runs out. A real situation. Want to guess how many different "real" descriptions the police get of the thug. Want to
guess how many of the people can be convinced the thug looked completely different that reality. The answer for both is usually 15.
However there is an objective reality. Our perceptions of reality may be wrong but an objective reality exists. As I said before, the process of understanding reality is not an automatic one. If the participants were allow to discuss what they've seen with each other, they'd probably come to a more consistent statement. If evidence were left behind, and they were allowed to analyze it, they'd come to a position that was even closer to objective reality. I didn't say that rational people will never disagree on anything, but rather that any such disagreements can be worked through and at some point they will have to come to an agreement since reality is objective.
Whatever you create through your moral pathway (getting it to work) Garbanzo is going to make you happy (therefore morally correct for you). The
second you are done X takes those same tools and takes a different moral pathway, he destroys your project (getting it to not work) making him happy,
cause that was his project (therefore morally correct also). He used the same objective items but his moral action was one of destruction where yours was
one of creation. Both of your actions caused each of you to be happy, both used the same tools etc, your moral actions/pathways were different
(creation/destruction) and the outcome therefore different. Who is morally correct?
You completely miss the point of the analogy. The point is that in order to achieve my goal, I have to obey certain objective rules and that can't reach my goal by following arbitrary rules.
Hence, your issue about X is irrelevant since I wasn't even considering X or his goals in my goals. If X is a rational individual, he leaves my work alone. If X wants his program to compile, then he has to obey the same rules as I do. The different projects represent different life goals - you're explictly adding something to the analogy I didn't have. If someone wants to interfere with my life goals, he is morally wrong to do so, unless my life goals impact on him.
Why should it be distinct from simple pleasure. Oh, once again because you said so. Will once again, I say, it isn't distinct. Who is right?
Largely, because that's the definition I'm using. Happiness here isn't simple hedonism but rather one's long term best interests.
Who makes the rules? Still waiting for Garbanzo's Moral Law. Again, you do. Why can't I make the rules. I say, that any rule that makes you happy
is a good rule, and I plan on changing mine every day. Who is right? I also, plan on changing my behavior everyday to suit my own personal goal of
happiness. Why is mine not right?
As I said before, you can decide to do anything you want according to any set of rules you want to - but you can't change the results of your choices because you can't change the underlying reality. You can change your behavior anyway you please, but not all behaviors result in happiness. You can believe in anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. The results of your actions simply are. The ought comes from following your own best interests.
I disagree, you are claiming that concepts/ideas don't affect the type of life we want or our actions. Ridiculous. Therefore the product of ones actions
cannot be the sum total of the life we want. What about hope, faith, love, beauty, etc. Are you saying these have no input on the type of life we want. If
you aren't, then one's life is more than the total of one's moral actions.
Actually I am claiming exactly that. We have to take positive actions in order to survive and acheive what we want. Hope is irrelevant and I'm (as might have guessed) not big on faith. However our lives are the products of choices - we choose to act. Even if we want beauty and love, we have to act in order to get those things. Our lives are not automatic. And I'll repeat that you're wandering close to liberalism, where nothing is anyone's own fault or that money and prosperity are the results of luck not choices made.
[For example, simply thinking about a million dollars won't do anything to get me a million dollars. I can choose to think about 1 million dollars,
but I can't choose the results of thinking about 1 million dollars ]
Unless of course you are on "Who wants to be a millionaire?"
But what this has to do with anything, I don't know.
This have everything to do with what I'm discussing. I can choose actions, but I can't choose the results of a given action. I can choose to hope for a million dollars, but unless I actually act (even on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" you have to answer questions correctly) simply hoping for a million dollars doesn't result in having a million dollars. Again you're wandering close to liberal budget thinking.
[I can't change basic reality.]
Another stunning statement. I hope you meant by thinking about it.
Or any other means. I can't change the laws of physics or man's basic nature.
This whole thinking thing is actually a side note anyway.
I'm not surprised to hear you say that.
Answer the question; Who decides which outcomes of actions performed are morally right and morally wrong?
It's an ill-formed question since I don't argue that outcomes are morally right, just choices. A choice is morally right if it leads to one's own happiness.
To further illustrate your relationship to modern liberalism, it would be like asking who decides whether or not Bill Gates wealth is moral or immoral. His wealth is neither moral or immoral, it just is. The actions he takes to obtain that wealth may be moral or immoral. And as it was obtained by voluntary trade without the initiation of force, it was morally obtained.
He acting in accordance with his own values obtained a great deal of wealth for himself and others.
You own words should help you here: we know a particular moral code is good or bad - we know this by its results and we know the
results by observation - and we judge the results by this standard of value - a man's happiness.
That's is right Garbanzo; WE DECIDE, THAT MAKES MY MORAL LAW AS GOOD AS YOURS, OR ANYONE ELSES. All according to you.
I'm not sure how you got that from my statement. Objective reality means that results are independent of personal preferences - to clarify yet again, this means that I can't change the pairing between an action and a result. I can change my actions however to acheive a given result. It's much like the process of science, not all scientific theories are equal, even though it is humans who theorize. Who decides whether or not one scientific theory is better than another - objective reality decides (and yes I'm engaging in anthropomorphism here). If a theory doesn't square with objective reality (i.e. it gives bad results) then the theory is wrong and we chuck it in favor of something else which is closer to objective reality. In short, there is a difference between objective reality and our understanding of objective reality and we use our rational faculties to close that gap. Same thing with moral reasoning - we note that some things work and some things don't and rational individuals avoid the things which don't work.
One last question you didn't answer yet: As you get to decide morality; do you then have no objection to William Clintons' lying, cheating, adultery,
stealing, raping, and power grabs as this has undoubtedly made him happy?
Has it? Golfing in the rain? The fact that his administration is a joke and he'll only be remembered for sex acts with an intern? I'm actually enjoying what's happening to him and it's all his own fault.
Since I said I'd avoid using the term "creationoid," I thought things would quiet down. How wrong I was. In post #85, Stingray (to whom I had posted virtually nothing lately) quoted a bunch of my earlier stuff (some of which was material I was quoting from others), and then said a few amazing things: ...you had been so roundly and soundly shown to be an intellectual fraud and lightweight on other threads .... Now that's odd, because since I registered on FreeRepublic, about 5 weeks ago, most of my FR posting has been to these evolution threads. So if I've been exposed as a lightweight, it's only in the mind of Stingray, and not where anyone else has seen it.
Then Stingray said: ... you pretend that you didn't have anything at all to do with the mess that was made on Jim's server. Huh? This illustrates what I've been trying to say. Once you let a little bit of madness into your brain (like all the gymnastics one must go through to be a creation "scientist"), there's no way to draw the line. The madness grows, and it creeps into every part of your life. Now we have a full-blown delusion: "Those godless evolutionists are attacking the servers of god-fearing folks." Stingray, you need help. If you go on without seeking professional treatment, it's only a small step to Jonestown. I'm serious.
Pat, I'm replying here on #90, but have cut out your original question for #1.......
What, then, is so theologically disturbing about the theory [evolution]? What is there about evolution that places in question even the very existence of God?
From A christian standpoint, there are verses such as found here in the Fifth chapter of Romans..... (Emphasis mine)
1: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
3: And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4: And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5: And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6: For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7: For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8: But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9: Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10: For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11: And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15: But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16: And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17: For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18: Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20: Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
If, we are to accept Evolutions claim that man came into being by graduallism, we miss the whole thrust of of faith. If there was no Adam, no one man that first disobeyed, how can we possibly need a Savior? If there was no starting point for sin, how can there be an ending one?
Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Perhaps now people may have a bit of an insight as to why Christians are SO passionate about the subject!
"Maybe Behe says there's no planet Earth."
That's why I like debating you and Patrick. So much of what you say is completely irrelevant. Arrogance and ignorance do indeed go hand-in-hand.
If, we are to accept Evolutions claim that man came into being by graduallism, we miss the whole thrust of of faith. If there was no Adam, no one man that first disobeyed, how can we possibly need a Savior? If there was no starting point for sin, how can there be an ending one?If we, as Christians, do not understand what happened in the Garden, then our whole underlying concepts of our faith is built on sand, not rock.
Perhaps now people may have a bit of an insight as to why Christians are SO passionate about the subject!
I understand; I really do. And please don't think this was any easier for me than it is now for you. This is the problem people of faith have been having ever since the days of Galileo, when it became impossible to deny that the Bible wasn't always in strict accordance with the observations of science. Galileo himself said that if our observations seem to conflict with scripture, it must be we don't have a good understanding of scripture. I don't know about that. It's very difficult to deal with incorrect scripture, yet millions do.
Many different denominations simply don't worry about such things. I think it's possible to accept the Bible on matters such as sin and salvation, and to disregard as unimportant technical gliches the details about the shape of the earth, the structure of the solar system, and how long it took for all these species to appear. The catholic church now behaves this way. Many mainline Protestant denominations behave like this. I don't think the Jews, who are the ones who wrote the book, worry very much about the solar system's incompatability with scripture.
Anyway, I understand the problems. But the solar system is a fact. And I think evolution is too. God bless.
That's why I like debating you and Patrick. So much of what you say is completely irrelevant. Arrogance and ignorance do indeed go hand-in-hand.
Arrogant, maybe, but not ignorant or irrelevant. How many times do we have to link in all the debunkings of Behe before your side quits chaining yourself to him? If he's your last hope, you have none.
I was (and still am) marvelling at your insistence that:
There is virtually nobody as good as ignoring the elephant in the living room as a YEC. In these discussions, it has come to my attention that there's a scientific periodical out there called Evolution. Now, I've only read synopses of a few individual articles that have appeared in this journal, but it is scientific and scholarly and it publishes monthly. That thing alone would refute your blind don't-see-an-elephant denial. Also, I've subscribed to Scientific American since 1975. That periodical alone refutes your argument from your own ignorance. I've subscribed to National Geographic for the last 15 years. That's another one. How many more are there? You've got to start getting out a little, Phaed my man. Ex Nihilio and ICR aren't telling you the whole story.There is virtually no body of scientific papers supportive of the Theory of Evolution.
Yes, Virginia, there is an objective reality out there, however difficult or even impossible it may be to know it all. It's there. Its nature is independent of what church your Daddy took you to when you were little.
Now that's odd, because since I registered on FreeRepublic, about 5 weeks ago, most of my FR posting has been to these evolution threads. So if I've been exposed as a lightweight, it's only in the mind of Stingray, and not where anyone else has seen it.
And I have 'em all. Care to have me show others where you have been trounced...again?
Then Stingray said: ... you pretend that you didn't have anything at all to do with the mess that was made on Jim's server. Huh?
The mess to which I am refering is the space that has been wasted on his server with your silly and offensive threads, the sole purpose of which was to elicit heat, not light. And then you act as though you had nothing whatsoever to do with the "heat" you and your slappies get for posting such BS.
As logos wrote, you're breaking new ground every day: a passive/aggressive evolutionist.
For someone who doesn't claim to be intellectual roadkill, you sure are playing the part of a [mortally] wounded animal.
Me, earlier: There is virtually nobody as good as ignoring the elephant in the living room as a YEC.
There I go again, forgetting that you're Stingray's faithful non-YEC companion. (Is it warm in his tepee?) Funny how hard that is to remember. What is that saying about when something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?
Yes, Virginia, there is an objective reality out there...
Objective:
"...existing independent of mind; relating to an object as it is in itself or as distinguished from conciuosness or the subject; (3): belonging to nature or the sensible world: publicly or intersubjectively observable or verifiable esp. by scientific methods; independent of what is personal and private in our apprehension and feelings; of such nature that rational minds minds agree in holding it real or true or valid; c. emphasizing or expressing the nature of reality as it is apart from self-conciousness; treating events or phenomena as external rather than as affected by personal feelings or prejudices. 2: perceptible to the sense or derived from sense perception (data.)"
Webster's Third New International Dictionary
Reality:
"the quality or state of being real. Something that is real.; the aggregate of real things; the actual nature or constitution of something; the actual state of things; what actually exists; what has objective existence; what is not a mere idea: what is not imaginary, fictitious or pretended; what exists necessarily: what is neither derivative nor dependent."
Webster's Third New International Dictionary
Objective Reality is simply another way of saying "real reality" which presumes what? That there is such a thing as "unreal reality" to which the Objectivist must stand in opposition?
Saying that you believe in reality because it's real is like hearing a Democrat say he believes in "jobs for people." The only logical retort to either position is, "So?" They are both utterly inane, intellectually vacuous statements.
"...however difficult or even impossible it may be to know it all. It's there. Its nature is independent of what church your Daddy took you to when you were little."
If one accedes to the fact that reality is impossible to know, then one is, by definition, not an Objectivist, because Objectivism rejects the notion that reality is impossible to know.
If you accede to the fact that part of the nature of reality lies in its impossibility to be known, then you place youreself on the side of the religious skeptic, who claims that the nature of God is impossible to know. And Objectivism rejects mysticism or skepticism of any kind.
Time to find a new philosophy: one that doesn't require you to destroy it while you defend it.
Gosh! "Objective reality" is redundant. (Picture me shrugging.) OK. "Creation Science" is an oxymoron.
Time to find a new philosophy: one that doesn't require you to destroy it while you defend it.
I'm melting away, me-elting awa-ay! What a world, what a world!
Find-um any more Cretacious miner's hammers lately, Buffalo-Breath?
"(Is it warm in his tepee?)"
Not bad. I try to keep it a constant 68 degrees year around. I use two specific means by which to achieve this: forced-air heating and air conditioning, depending on conditions outside.
I'm curious, though: how do you manage to keep warm under that slimy, damp rock? It must be very uncomfortable for you, although I suppose discomfort is something a worm such as yourself doesn't have the capacity to feel.
Later, you ignorant, fascist, racist, moron.
"Find-um any more Cretacious miner's hammers lately, Buffalo-Breath?"
None that I would submit for your ignorant scrutiny, "Excrement-head."
Later, you ignorant, fascist, racist, moron.
Now, now! You've been very coy about whether you're pulling our legs with this Indian business, Tonto. We don't know you're an Indian and you don't know that I'm not. What if I told you that my own Indian name is "Argues-With-Bunco-Artists?"
. . . ignorant . . .
Be nice, or I'll never explain to you about nuclear packing fractions, Chandrasekhar limits, and why your no-old-supernova argument was as bogus as everything else you've ever cut and pasted into this forum. Put that in colored squares and smoke it.
"...all the debunkings of Behe...
I'm sure the biologists do not like "one of their own" not parroting the party line, and I'm also sure that's all the so-called debunkings amount to. Why don't you/they simply defrock him? His stuff, if you've read it (I have), is carefully reasoned and well-supported.
and I'm also sure that's all the so-called debunkings amount to.
Not if you've actually read the criticisms. Should I go get them again so you can ignore them again? You've been on most of the same thread I have.
"(Is it warm in his tepee?)"
Nasty little bugger, aren't you? In any event, I live in my own teepee.
I'm still trying. Kinder, gentler ... kinder, gentler ... kinder ... gentler. I don't know if I can hold it in any longer. But I'll let you carry the load for a while. You're doing fine. Oh, you forgot to mention Nature Magazine. The holy grail for getting getting published.
"We don't know you're an Indian and you don't know that I'm not."
I know you're not. A self-respecting Native American belonging to any tribe wouldn't mistake a Wickiup or TeePee for a Wigwam, given the fact that I said I belonged to the Chippewa Nation.
In any event, it (and your "Buffalo Breath" comments) like VOTFR's Jew parallel on the other thread reflect the small-minded mocking of anything you don't know or understand that we've come to expect from your side in these "debates."
For what should be a complete and total debunking of Behe, including his core "irreducible complexity" thesis, which he did not invent or credit to its inventor, a Nobel Prize biochemist from the '40s named Müller, check reply number 80, jennyp to Iris7 on the "Euphemisms" thread. Pay attention this time. You were there before, but the experience seems to have made no impression on you. Study yourself being dragged kicking and screaming through the evidence for speciation. You can also note your hero Stingray making a fool of himself with various Carl Baugh frauds and 60K colored-square filibusters. Experience is wasted on the non-sentient.
Oh, you forgot to mention Nature Magazine. The holy grail for getting getting published.
You're right, I forgot. But it doesn't matter. They don't exist. Phaedrus doesn't see them. Maybe there's a point to all that objectivist/subjectivist crap you guys were arguing there after all.
"Should I go get them again ...?"
I've answered you, Vade, and I don't like repeating myself unless I'm dealing with children or fools. Care to pick one?
Oh, on the same thread you'll also notice Mr. Truth pushing the theories of people who think the pyramids were built before old man Ussher says the world was made. How does he reconcile his contradictory bogus theories? And why don't you ask him, Mr. Critical Thought, since he won't get back to me on it?
"You've been very coy about whether you're pulling our legs with this Indian business, Tonto."
My, you certainly do have a way with rejecting any reality that doesn't conform to your view. Tell me, what's being "coy" about this?
"As an American Indian (Native American) and a member of the Chippewa Nation, I find your joke both ill-suited for this thread, and insulting."
So you can believe I'm lying about this or not. But it certainly doesn't excuse your use of epithets that others reading this who might also be Indians would find offensive.
On a personal note, why do you believe it's OK to call me "Tonto," allege that I live in a "TeePee," and call me "Buffalo-Breath." whether you believe I'm Indian or not?
L.N. Smithee is a member here who claims to be black. Would you call him "Shaft," allege that he lives in the "'Hood," and call him "Watermelon-Breath," whether you believed he's black or not?
You're the very kind of unthinking, reactionary moron that gives this site a bad name.
By the way, Elsie...
Apology accepted.
Thanks Pat, for the kind words above.
But 'The REST of you guys' are fussing again!
Buffalo breath? Well, I've eaten buffalo and it's GOOD! Put me down as an occasional BB!
Na-naya-Na-na-na! I'VE taken both SA and NG longer than that!
I know about the tree rings and the silt layers and the ice levels and all that stuff; and I believe God created all that we see. I'll just have to leave it at not having enough knowledge as yet to completely resolve things sufficiently in my own mind. I know that a LOT of stuff, that we KNEW in the old days, has been proven to be false. And there is a lot that we also SUSPECTED in the old days has been proven to be true. In a hundred years from now (If Christ tarries) our descendants will dig up an old disk drive from JR's server site, find these rantings and wonder-"What WERE they thinking!?"
Have you deliberately mischaracterized the substantial criticisms of Behe? Or is your inability to see contrary evidence at work again? I didn't wait for your answer, I linked them in (or linked in jennyp's multiple links). How do you defend saying that all it (the "so-called debunkings") amounts to is that people don't like Behe's opinion?
Here's what you dismiss with that see-nothing statement:
1) Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is fundamentally flawed and was rejected by its original inventor Müller.
2) Behe deliberately misquotes and distorts other authors, always in his own favor.
3) Behe hasn't done his homework in areas outside his own specialty, and often not there. (Like apparently being totally unaware of Müller.)
4) Serious scientific discoveries are generally peer-reviewed and published in technical journals before the popularizing books are written. Behe skipped all preceding steps with his "discovery" and went straight to the mass market. Why was that?
Is that what you mean by amounting to nothing except disagreement with the opinion?
Some people bring out the worst in me and I'm arguing with at least two of them now. (Yes, it's there in spades to be brought out.) Thanks for settling me down. I apologize to any genuine Native Americans offended by my treatment of Stingray's treatment of you.
On a personal note, why do you believe it's OK to call me "Tonto," allege that I live in a "TeePee," and call me "Buffalo-Breath." whether you believe I'm Indian or not?
You may note that my reply to Elsie includes an apology to any genuine Native Americans that may have been offended by my remarks. If that includes you, then I apologize to you. (Drat! That no doubt also proves your thesis that I'm responsible for the Holocaust, Stalin's Ukrainian Famine, and Mao's Great Leap Forward. That's OK, I've built up brownie points by keeping my yard well raked this fall.)
I'm trying to think through what it would be like to live with the creationist's worldview. I would have to believe the following things (some of this I've posted before):
I alone express the truth, along with a few of my supporters on this thread. And I'm not entirely certain of them.It is absolute truth that the world and all who dwell therein were created in a miracle which happened about 6K years ago.
Those who claim to understand the world (scientists) are all frauds and con men. All are in a vast conspiracy to trick me and cause me to loose my faith. And all of them are going to hell. All who believe in evolution especially.
The evolutionists in these threads are all evil, satanic, marxist, fascists, mass-murderers, humanists, atheists, what else? Materialist lackeys. More? Well, you know ... bad stuff. Never mind that all those marxists never post anything but their love of America, the Constitution, individual rights and the free enterprise system. I can see through all that.
The evidence against my position does not exist. The fossil record is all gaps. ALL GAPS. Nothing in between the gaps.
All who refer to the so-called "facts of reality" are deluded.
All who attack my position are clearly reeling in panic because I have struck too close to home.
All who rely on science are mindless cultists. (I, of course, am not a mindless cultist, but all my opponents are.)
To oppose my view is to embrace evil. In particular, those who disagree with me are responsible for all the horrors of the 20th century.
Miracles happen, and I hate all those who would question this, because they are marxist scum, and I am wonderful.
God, the miracle worker, could end the world at any moment; he could make me vanish in a puff of smoke; he could dump a whole mountain on my head (although I don't live near any mountains); he could whisk me to the moon where I'd explode in the vacuum, or to the sun where I'd fry; etc. Anything could happen at any moment, and it's all unpredictable. I have no control, no understanding. All I can do is pray and hope.
Every one of the responses from evolutionists and their ilk are such gross mischaracterizations and outright lies about creationists that I respond out of sheer outrage. I should know better than to let myself be provoked by mentally impaired children who really can't help themselves, but such is the cross I must bear.
PatrickHenry is an intellectual fraud and lightweight. Also a "Brown-Shirt and Black Trenchcoat wearing Marxist/Materialist lackey who serves at the feet of Satan and worships at the altar of Rand."
I am happy.
I don't know about this stuff. I fear that I'm just not cut out to be a creationist.
I fear that I'm just not cut out to be a creationist.
You've got the mantras down, man! Just start working on sincerity. When you can fake that, you can go on a lecture tour like "Dr." Hovind.
Think of it as this - actionA => resultA and ActionB => ResultB. An individual cannot change the pairing of an action with a result, i.e he can't make actionA => resultB or actionB => resultA. If he wants result B then he must choose action B.
Why not? You sir are mathematically incorrect once again. If action A then result A does not rule out if action A then result B. And If action B then result B does not rule out If action B then result A. The only way to rule out these results is if you stipulate, If action A then result A and If action A then not result B and you must also eliminate mathematically every other possible result for action A and action B. You sir, have done the opposite by saying moral actions A can have multiple results A, B, C, etc (individual happiness). Therefore if action A then result B or C or D or E etc is quite possible as the result in the moral context is individual happiness.
This would be Garbanzo contradiction #8. For those of you keeping count at home.
The individual understands right from wrong by using his rational faculties. For example a person can believe that the gravitional force between two objects inversely proportional to the cube (rather than the square) of the distance between the objects. There is nothing in nature which forbids that idea from occuring. It is however wrong in that it doesn't reflect reality. An individual can obviously choose to believe in any set of laws of physics he chooses to. However, in order to survive, he must understand the correct laws and apply them to his life.
I thought the idividual determined moral right from wrong by whether it made him happy or not. You finally get to the real truth about what you believe, I'll quote you: The individual understands right from wrong by using his rational faculties. The individual understands right from wrong. You can stop there. This is your basic premise, whatever process he uses, it is ultimately up to him to understand right from wrong and as this is based on the individuals knowledge it is subjective. He can determine it any way he wants. The rest is more blustering about physical laws. Which I've shown don't work in your analogy. One more time for Garbanzo. You say moral right(pathway) delivers individual happiness. You have multiple consequences resulting from you moral good, therefore you must have separate moral rights (pathways) to get to different individual's happiness's. Some of these may be in contradiction with each other, which makes them somewhat less than absolute. Physical laws have only one outcome.
Once more the example for Garbanzo.
Four people, each with different ends (happiness requirements, A,B,C,D) are traveling down a single lane road (moral actions). It is the only road (moral law) there is no way to exit(there is only one objective moral law). This is your path, it ends at point A. But three of the four people wanted to go to B, C, D respectively. Therefore you need multiple paths (moral laws) to ensure each individual makes it to his end (happiness). Some of these ends may be in the opposite direction (opposed to someone elses moral law).
Actions have consequences, this is unproven, you keep stating it but fail to prove it.
I would think it would be obvious.
You would, therefore, still unproven and I might add in the context we are discussing, moral actions which are good, producing happiness, is not necessarily true. There are moral actions which are basically neutral. Therefore producing no positive or negative consequences, a nul result.
Actions and choices are moral not outcomes.
So? You said: I'm talking about how we know a particular moral code is good or bad - we know this by its results, what a correct moral code gives us is happiness(the result). The result you keep refering to is happiness. You are attempting the same tired argument: A moral code is good or bad based on whether it makes us happy or sad. But who determines whether it makes us happy or sad? We do, each individual performs different moral actions which make them happy, therefore different moral codes. This means your moral code is not absolute, but dependent on a flexible/variable outcome (happiness) moral or not.
The main point is: Your moral code is not absolute it is subjective based on individual references to happiness.
For example, if a moral code is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", by your reasoning you could say that is subjective since "as you would have them do unto you" is dependent on the individual. I would say that it is objective because it is the only means by which rational people can live with other in peace and failure to observe that rule has its consequences.
No this is what you are saying, I'm just pointing it out. By the way, who decided this is the only means people can live with each other. Why is living in peace the objective. I know, cause Garbanzo said so. If I disagree, and believe the opposite. Why is this not correct?
Objective reality means that results are independent of personal preferences
But this sir, is in contradiction to your proposal. As stated: "A choice is morally right if it leads to one's own happiness." Happiness is not objective but subjective.
This would be Garbanzo contradiction #9.
to clarify yet again, this means that I can't change the pairing between an action and a result.
But I have shown this to be mathematically wrong and against your own statement above: A choice is morally right if it leads to one's own happiness." Multiple individuals = multiple possible happiness = multiple pairings = with multiple moral paths to get there.
This would be Garbanzo's contradiction #10
Bill Gates wealth. His wealth is neither moral or immoral, it just is. The actions he takes to obtain that wealth may be moral or immoral. And as it was obtained by voluntary trade without the initiation of force, it was morally obtained. He acting in accordance with his own values obtained a great deal of wealth for himself and others.
I just couldn't pass this one up. Who decided the method to obtain the wealth (voluntary trade without the initiation of force) was moral? Oh, Garbanzo did. And why is this moral? Oh, because Garbanzo decided it was. The wealth is not the result; his happiness as you've stated is the result. But as you said: A choice is morally right if it leads to one's own happiness(the result). So the real answer to whether the action is morally good or morally bad is if Mr Gates is happy, not how much wealth he created. As happiness is a relative term (dependent on Mr. Gates's state of mind), he may have been happy when he first accomplished the action to gain the wealth, he may not have been. Therefore the action could have been morally good or bad. Also, over time he may have come to hate the action he took to gain the wealth or he may have come to like the action (only Mr Gates knows). This is subjective, therefore the action may be morally good or bad not only at the time of the action, but according to Garbanzo, this action could turn morally bad or good over time, depending on Mr Gates' relative happiness.
Per Garbanzo: And as it was obtained by voluntary trade without the initiation of force, it was morally obtained. which is in contradiction with Garbanzo: A choice is morally right if it leads to one's own happiness.
Yep you got it, Garbanzo contradiction #11
Your own words one more time: we know a particular moral code is good or bad - we know this by its results and we know the results by observation - and we judge the results by this standard of value - a man's happiness.
Try this, who determines which moral code is good or bad and which man's happiness is the standard. This is a two parter.
First, the "standard of value" is man's happiness but as shown this is ultimately flexible and variable depending on the individual and when you ask the individual(what makes him happy could change over time). So there is no true standard of happiness this is a contradiction.
Uh oh, Garbanzo contradiction #12
Second, who determines the correct moral code, why the individual does by what will make him happy. So whatever moral code directs you to a moral action you judge to make you happy is morally good, if it makes you sad it is morally bad. With infinite possible ways to make different individuals happy, there are infinite moral codes with different moral actions of good and bad.
So once again we come full circle; The Moral Law According to Garbanzo (as he won't define it for me); THE INDIVIDUAL MUST DECIDE WHICH MORAL LAW WILL DIRECT GOOD MORAL ACTIONS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL WITH HAPPINESS.
I wonder if Clintons moral actions (raping J.B.) made him happy at the time (morally good)? Does that still hold true today(being morally good). Does that moral action, currently, make him sad (morally wrong). If so doesn't this contradict your moral law? No, it just means it is relative.
Always at your disposal. The WhiteKnight
Müller
Apparently, even Nobel Prize winner Müller misspelled his name "Muller." Odd.
Well, Stingray, your attempt to salvage some truth out of your absurd position is admirable, but a fool's errand. To help clarify what I said, I'll repeat your quotes, with proper emphasis to help make things clear for you:
"There are several types of thoughts." Thought n.: the action or process of thinking: mental
concentration on ideas as distinguished from sense perceptions
or emotions: the arranging of ideas in the mind. Webster's Third New International Dictionary "Idea and intuition, and even faith in the
sense of trusting a third person's testimony in the absence of
personal observation, are legitimate ways of dealing with reality. "Revelation can be valid, if you understand it as just
another form of intuition." jennyp
Here is where you run afoul of your own world view:
Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible)."
Ayn Rand Institute
You cannot be an Objectivist and accept the existence of any part of reality that you cannot know by sensory or empirical means. You cannot be an Objectivist and believe there are things that you cannot know about reality.
Realizing this, instead of rejecting Objectivism, you are forced to redefine it:
People can come to conclusions in all kinds of ways. There's hypotheses, theories, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, associative memory, intuition, gut feelings, wildass guesses, etc. etc. The final test of all of these conclusions is: Do they conform to what we actually observe, or logically flow from those observations? The essence of the scientific method is to reason inductively from particular observations to form a theory of why we see said observations and not others, to discover deductively what other observations the theory predicts we should observe, and then verify whether said predictions can in fact be observed. The ultimate arbiter of truth or falsehood of our ideas is always observation of the objective reality to see if our subjective model of reality conforms to it. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."If you think your revelation is coming from an unseen supernatural spirit being, that's fine, except that if the spirit being doesn't actually exist in reality then that part of the revelation is still just a delusion." jennyp
"Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural — " Ayn Rand Institute
"Just wishing it were true doesn't make it true. That's really all that generic "objectivism" and Randian "Objectivism" are saying." jennyp
— and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality." Ayn Rand Institute
Finally, the very essence of thought itself -- "the arranging of ideas in the mind" -- is a purely subjective process, proving that even that thing which you call "Objectivism" is the product of a "subjective" process!
Now you're just being some kind of neo-Cartesian. I mean really: "the very essence of thought itself ... is a purely subjective process"? That means that there's no correlation between thoughts and the realities happening outside our brains. Now who's embracing absurdities?!?
Let it never be said that the Theory of Evolution doesn't work in the real world! --> CLICK HERE
"School boards and science educators need to understand this simple fact: if students don't learn about evolution, they can't possibly understand modern biology or medicine."
Good find, even if they snuck a little propaganda in at the end! :)
Nice link. Surprise, surprise. Science, using evolutionary theory, is making progress solving problems. Who would have imagined? From your link:
Testing the approach using past data, the scientists correctly predicted the dominant strain of flu in nine years out of 11. The chances of doing this by random guessing are tiny, just one in two billion.
... "School boards and science educators need to understand this simple fact: if students don't learn about evolution, they can't possibly understand modern biology or medicine."
Hee hee. I guess the kids in Kansas are just going to be out of it. Now if I were a creationist, I would respond in this manner: "Lies, marxist satanic lies, all of it. There is no data. There are no viruses (disease is caused by evil spirits, don't you know). This is a plot by the devil to capture your soul and jab your tooshie with pitchforks forever."
L.N. Smithee is a member here who claims to be black. Would you call him "Shaft," allege that he lives in the "'Hood," and call him "Watermelon-Breath," whether you believed he's black or not?
I am black, I don't live in a "hood", I don't like watermelon, and if you think that I am a "sex machine for all the chicks," you're mistaken.
Not that I could blame you for assuming.
THE INDIVIDUAL MUST DECIDE WHICH
MORAL LAW WILL DIRECT GOOD MORAL ACTIONS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE INDIVIDUAL WITH HAPPINESS.
There is only one way for people to live and accomplish their goals - and that is to lead a moral life - i.e. make the right choices. In your world, science is subjective because human being individually decide whether or not a theory fits the available data.
My premise is simple. Actions have consequences - if you don't believe then there's nothing I can do for you - it's a simple fact of nature. Morality is choosing those actions which lead to happiness as I have defined it above. The reason why a single moral code can lead to multiple results is that is that morality is simply acting in accordance with reality. The principle is objective - the particulars are individual. By moral behavior I simply mean that a person must understand reality and act accordingly. The realities we face are all the same and if you don't understand why living in peace is important to human beings then there's nothing I can do for you.
To sum up, reality is objective and there's nothing I can do to change reality. I can however act in accordance with reality to accomplish my ends just as engineers use the laws of physics accomplish their ends. Same laws of physics, different ends. And this is why morality is objective, the same moral actions can lead to different ends. I have not said that morality delivers happiness - I have said that morality is a necessary condition for happiness and if you can't understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions then there is nothing I can do for you.
I could go on about how moral action is like the scientific method but you don't really seem to understand the scientific method so there is little I can do for you. We hypothesize and test, just as we do with life and we judge whether or not the results conform with the theory. Humans judge acts, but they can't change the basic realities of the universe.
So finally, if you want my moral law, then it is this - that actions have consequences and we must therefore choose our actions carefully.
So there.
If I disagree, and believe the opposite. Why is this not correct?
Because it's not in accordance with reality simply put. You can disagree but ultimately this is what produces a peaceful society, so you're simply wrong about it.
#123, 122, 121........ Well, I went over there and read it. Too bad it didn't have any other links to go to the ACTUAL site that has some data to look at. It would be nice to perhaps see what had caused the writer to come up with such wonderful phrases, and maybe I could agree. But as it stands now.....
A lion wakes up one morning feeling mean. He goes out and corners a zebra and roars, "Who's the king of the jungle?"
The trembling zebra says, "You are, mighty lion! You are the king of the jungle!"
Next, the lion confronts a gorilla and bellows, "Who's the king of the jungle?"
The terrified gorilla stammers, "You are, mighty lion! You are the king of the jungle!"
On a roll now, the lion swaggers up to an elephant and roars, "Who's the king of the jungle?"
Fast as lightning, the elephant snatches up the lion with her trunk, slams him against a tree half a dozen times, swings him around her head, flings him to the ground, then stomps him.
Dazed, the lion picks himself up, shakes himself out, and says, "Gee, just 'cause you don't know the right answer, you don't have to get sore!"
You're going to have to watch it with these jokes. Freepers are starting to learn the "professional victim" game the libs have done for so long. I feel the spirit of Johnny Cochran emerging from within me . . . (Talk about "demonic possession!") . . .
As a cat owner, I am offended by your obvious contempt for feline life forms!
As I wrote before, you are free to believe anything you wish. But I have demonstrated in no uncertain terms the vacuity of your beliefs, and the inconsistency in which you hold them.
Enjoy what ever comfort you take from them, but don't delude yourself into thinking they are anything more than a collection of fragmented, disjointed ideas cobbled together by taking one from Column A, one from Column B, etc. Together, they represent the incoherent, incomprehensible world-view of jennyp. Whatever else you may think or believe, it is neither objective, nor "Objectivism."
"You're going to have to watch it with these jokes. Freepers are starting to learn the "professional victim" game the libs have done for so long."
That's nothing compared to the racial slurs and B.S. that passes for debate coming from you. Elsie apologized to me and was sincere. I accepted her apology. You, on the other hand, remain a shameless, spineless worm who would not dare say what you have written here to my face, or I would make you eat those words.
If disparaging someone based on their race or ethnicity is what passes for debate from you, then you are and shall remain, an ignorant, racist, moron, and a shining example of one of evolution's "best and brightest" apologists.
If disparaging someone based on their race or ethnicity is what passes for debate from you, then you are and shall remain, an ignorant, racist, moron, and a shining example of one of evolution's "best and brightest" apologists.
You already peaked in squirmy hatefulness with your "evols are Stalinists and Nazis" post on Thread 2. There's no point in trying to top yourself. :)
If you've had a little trouble getting taken seriously with your offended ethnicity . . .
Phaedrus: I "feel" my leg being ever so lightly ..... pulled. But maybe I'm imagining things.
. . . it's probably because you've been so bogus for so long that you're the boy who cried "wolf." You don't have any credibility left to squander, Mr. Truth.
On another point: I continue to believe that there's a real world. We can't grasp it fully with our consciousness but we just have to do the best we can. I've never given a rat's butt if that makes me an objectivist, if Ayn Rand or even Stingray would approve. What is is. And it's independent . . . (You're big on definitions, look it up. INDEPENDENT) . . . of what church your Daddy took you to when you were little.
Uh-oh! As if the flu-prediction-thru-evolution article wasn't provocative enough, check this out: Scientists find evidence that apes have "souls"!
Scientists have found the strongest evidence yet that some animals could have "souls".Basically, scientists have found this same structure in the great apes. (But not in any other species.)They have located the cells responsible for self-consciousness in the human brain — and found similar clusters in great apes. The cells, named "self-awareness neurons", appear to integrate the work of various parts of the brain — and create a sense of individuality.
The suggestion that consciousness is a physical process is certain to provoke religious controversy as well as debate over the ethical treatment of great apes. Some would argue that if they have a sense of self-awareness then they should also get some "human" rights.
The role of the neurons in humans has been confirmed in studies of patients in which the cells had been damaged by head injuries. Such patients lost all sense of being an individual and sank into a near-vegetative state.
Now if I were a creationist, I would respond in this manner: "Lies, marxist satanic lies, all of it. There is no data. There are no viruses (disease is caused by evil spirits, don't you know). This is a plot by the devil to capture your soul and jab your tooshie with pitchforks forever."
No, I think they'd say "Well, how come nobody's seen a flu virus turn into a frog? I mean, these are just variations within the 'virus kind'."
What's significant about the discovery, however, is that the scientists built a family tree of the viruses, and used the evolutionary principle that the next year's flu viruses are this year's descendants, and therefore there's a circumscribed set of possible karyotypes (variations at the RNA level) that these descendents could have. If I read it correctly, they then determined which of these possible mutations would create a protein shell that looks the most different from this year's viruses. (It's the ones that end up looking the most different that would be least likely to be detected by our antibodies & therefore thrive.)
It's the same principle that lets evolutionary scientists to infer relationships among fossils based on their morphology.
What is is.
You know I realize you don't give a rat's butt, but that's a very Rand-like statement :-)
Your link didn't take me to the story about apes having "souls" (i.e. certain cell structures in the brain). If you can find it again, it's worth posting as a stand-alone article.
Gentlemen: This is Stingray's latest post to VadeRetro:
You, on the other hand, remain a shameless, spineless worm who would not dare say what you have written here to my face, or I would make you eat those words.If disparaging someone based on their race or ethnicity is what passes for debate from you, then you are and shall remain, an ignorant, racist, moron, and a shining example of one of evolution's "best and brightest" apologists.
Now I haven't been perfect, but my most vigorous prose has been aimed at ideas. Perhaps not always, but I've generally tried to keep things on a decent level. At least I put out some ideas along with my other stuff. Anyway (enough about me, as they say) am I the only one here who's getting fed up with Stingray's endless trash? If I'm alone, and everyone else thinks Stingray's discourse is fine, than okay. But if you agree that Stingray should make an effort to talk more about ideas and less about what horrible people the opposition is, it might help if you briefly said so. Otherwise, I'm afraid this thread will die from toxic poisoning.
... the opposition ARE ...
Sorry. Too much editing, too little proofing.
"If you've had a little trouble getting taken seriously with your offended ethnicity . . . it's probably because you've been so bogus for so long that you're the boy who cried "wolf." You don't have any credibility left to squander, Mr. Truth."
And as I pointed out to you, Mr. Ignorant, Racist, Moron, it doesn't matter whether you believe I'm American Indian or not. Why does that justify using racial epithets that would offend anyone who is?
Would you use the same slurs directed to anyone else of color? If so, then you're a racist. If not, why do you presume it's OK to direct them at Indians? In any event, you're still a racist. But I bet you're one of those "sneaky racists." I bet you've got an extra set of white linens just for those occasions when you burn crosses on people's lawns.
Oh, and one more thing:
Darwin was a racist, too, so I'm sure in your mind that perfectly justifies your racist attitudes to anyone who doesn't look like you.
Later, Mr. Ignorant, Racist, Moron
Re your supposed debunkings of Behe, like this Most Corrupt Administration In The History Of The Republic, you do not argue the facts, you engage in ad hominum attacks. Since you are clearly a child or a fool, I will repeat myself, but this time loudly, clearly and directly: IT IS ALL LIES.
"I'm trying to think through what it would be like to live with the creationist's worldview."
This Darwinism vs. Creationism is a disingenuous game you are playing, Patrick, and it has been being played since Inherit The Wind, which is as shoddy piece of propaganda as has ever hit the silver screen. Darwinian "science" is as full of holes as swiss cheese, but you and your ilk are deathly afraid to address it on the merits. That is not science. It is politics, and very destructive politics at that.
Every one of your assumptions in post 116 is false except for
PatrickHenry is an intellectual fraud and lightweight
which shows that you don't understand your opponents or their arguments. Perhaps you can't understand. Perhaps you don't want to understand. I think its a little of both. Are you so young that you don't embarrass yourself with the utter nonsense you post or is it that you don't care how foolish you appear?Keep on being foolish because I can guarantee that Stingray will make sure your words come back to haunt you.
"But if you agree that Stingray should make an effort to talk more about ideas and less about what horrible people the opposition is, it might help if you briefly said so. Otherwise, I'm afraid this thread will die from toxic poisoning."
You (PatrickHenry) began all three of these threads with the expressed goal of inciting flames and insulting people. And now, when people respond in kind to the provocations you and your kind opened with, you cry, "the horror!" Proof that you people are nothing but bullies, who can dish it out but can't take it.
Furthermore, I have written of a great many ideas here. The fact that your side cannot respond to them rationally is your fault, not mine. I have asked you to define your terms. You have elected not to. That is your problem, not mine.
And finally, when one of your side's arguments is reduced to calling a self-professed Native American "Buffalo-Breath," "Tonto," and alleging that this Native American ("Aboriginal" American if the word "Native" is too vague for you) lives in a TeePee (when he is too ignorant to realize that the ancient Ojibwa resided in Wigwams) then it is you and your side who are proven to be devoid of any rational ideas or even civil discourse (your "creationoid" epithet just one more example.)
Would VadeRetro call a black "Barbecue-Breath," "Superfly," or allege that he lives in "da 'Hood?" If so, then he's a racist. If not, he's a selective racist. In either case, he's a racist, and his remarks are ignorant, demeaning, and just plain stupid. Such are the arguments your side is reduced to when it can't win on substance. If you can't stand the heat from the flames you inspired, get out of the kitchen.
These threads were a toxic wasteland from their inception. They should die and the sooner, the better. Better yet, they should all be pulled.
"Uh-oh! As if the flu-prediction-thru-evolution article wasn't provocative enough, check this out: Scientists find evidence that apes have 'souls'!"
You are young, jennyp, and so probably don't realize that you consistently substitute words and labels for thought. That is a shame, but presumably you will think more deeply with time and experience. Answers are not found in academe, which has never progressed beyond adolescence. In other words, you are exploring the surface of things extensively. All these labels are just labels and they mean little. And you can say that I smiled.
The role of the neurons in humans has been confirmed in studies of patients in which the cells had been damaged by head injuries. Such
patients lost all sense of being an individual and sank into a near-vegetative state.
Sounds like some of the posters on this thread - and I won't name any names, but when your major contribution to thread is pictures rather than discussion...
You already peaked in squirmy hatefulness with your "evols are Stalinists and Nazis" post on Thread 2. There's no point in trying to top yourself.
What about that phase he went through labeling people as "chimps"?
IT IS ALL LIES.
I'm starting to picture you and Stingray screaming into your monitors as you type. Yelling loudly does not add logical force to your attempts at argument.
I find it hard to believe that the matters alleged in the criticisms of Behe can't be true. Can they be making it up that Behe used blood clotting as an example of irreducible complexity that cannot be explained naturally? Can they be making it up that specialists in that field were surprised to learn that they have no natural explanations? Look at any of the points in any of the linked criticisms of Behe and ask yourself if anyone could get away with making up such a thing out of whole cloth.
Why does that justify using racial epithets that would offend anyone who is?
Perhaps a bit of a trap lay in that situation from (as usual) not believing a word out of your keyboard. I'm only 65 percent versus 30 percent with 5 percent of my neurons still undecided convinced now. I was genuinely over the line and may have offended some people. My apology, accepted or not, was genuine for the offense it covered. I continue to consider you a humbug, a gasbag, a purveyor of carnival show huckster fantasies.
But I bet you're one of those "sneaky racists." I bet you've got an extra set of white linens just for those occasions when you burn crosses on people's lawns.
I'm so sneaky I evidently fool myself. I have no animus known to me against anyone for their skin color or other ethnic qualities. If I've enjoyed the occasional ethnic joke in the past, such humor is a healthy attribute of well integrated multi-racial societies. The Hawaii of an earlier day was something of one. That said, it was headed the wrong way when I was last there. (One of my favorites in the ethnic joke genre is: How many WASPS does it take to change a light bulb? Two. One to call the electrician and one to mix the martinis.)
. . . then you are and shall remain, an ignorant, racist, moron, and a shining example of one of evolution's "best and brightest" apologists.
And I suppose your raging, hate-filled posts are the proof that Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. Wipe the spittle off your screen and take your blood-pressure medicine!
What about that phase he went through labeling people as "chimps"?
I think that was Dataman with the funny "Here's you," "Here's you" pictures. But I may be remembering the wrong slice of dignified academic debate. (Snort!)
"... ask yourself if anyone could get away with making up such a thing out of whole cloth."
You persist in this attack on Behe's character. I will repeat for the 3rd or 4th time, Behe's work is carefully reasoned and extremely well supported -- pages and pages footnotes and references. I've read it and it's sound. Behe's detractors are liars and they have an agenda.
You persist in this attack on Behe's character. I will repeat for the 3rd or 4th time, Behe's work is carefully reasoned and extremely well supported --
pages and pages footnotes and references.
But you obviously don't understand it. Just because you have footnotes doesn't make it true. The purpose of footnotes is to allow others to look at your evidence. If Behe misused or distorted his sources then that has to be addressed. You can't simply claim that Behe's right just because he's telling you what you want to hear and that everyone else is lying. What about their reputations and their reasoning and their sources?
The fact that Behe went straight to mass-market is troubling. It simply isn't done. You publish first in peer-reviewed journals and give others the opportunity to criticize your results rather than trading on your credentials as Behe is doing. The reason why this is done is that scientists quite often retract claims after publication due to responses. You don't go to mass market until after a certain amount of discussion about a topic is gained.
Behe's detractors are liars and they have an agenda.
How did Jerry Coyne manage to lie about Behe's self-serving mangling of Coyne's previously published statements? Are you saying H. J. Muller doesn't exist? I did a web search on him and you can find references to his important work in genetics all over the web even now. Is it all a conspiracy? You're not explaining yourself well. It can't possibly be "all lies."
Did Behe not say what he's alleged to have said? Much of the criticism is that his bland denials of any progress in areas A, B, C, and D are contradicted by the previously published technical literature which Behe has studiously ignored. Was that literature whipped up later and planted in libraries throughout the country? How do you fake that?
There is only one way for people to live and accomplish their goals - and that is to lead a moral life - i.e. make the right choices.
Again I ask why this has to be. I can give you many examples of people not living moral lives who no doubt accomplished their goals. Ghengis Kahn, Stalin, Clinton, Hillary.
I've lost count on your numerous flaws.
In your world, science is subjective because human being individually decide whether or not a theory fits the available data.
No this is your world, you're the one who is proposing the concept of: Any action you take, which, makes you happy, is morally good. Not me. I have not suggested that science is subjective, you have, with this happiness nonsense, I'm just pointing out your errors. Thanks for helping me.
" If Behe misused or distorted his sources . . ."
Give it a rest, garbanzo. Your attack on Behe is just quieter than Vade's, that's all. Love your use of the understated "troubling", but it's still crap. Behe shows that Darwin cannot be right at the molecular biological level, and beyond this, that there are virtually no scientific papers in his field which even address the Theory of Evolution. You guys must hate him.
#128........
...And you probably type on a MAC as well.......
(Another one...)
So many cats, so little time!
You probably saw the two that went by last week or so?
1. How to give a cat a bath
&
2. How to give a cat a pill
Both of those cat threads were hilarious. No, I'm typing on the typical Pentium II with software by Bill Gates, Inc. I love my cat, but after he has his fatal accident (3 lives down, 6 to go) I'm not getting another pet.
Interesting article. It reconfirms the vestigial inter-relatedness of groups of distinct species like the anthropoid apes. And maybe if we show PETA that cows lack self-awareness I can eat beef in peace, except for worrying over BSE.
Any action you take, which, makes you happy, is morally good.
Which it is. But only certain types of actions will make you happy given that we are more or less the same and live in the same world, i.e. morality is objective given the nature of man and the nature of the universe. Only by following certain rules can you be truly happy. The actions which one can take and still lead a happy life are expansive but not unlimited. And I'd doubt that Bubba and Hillary are happy. In fact, their duplicity has made it difficult for them to acheive their goals - no one trusts them because they have lied repeatedly. Hillarycare failed miserably. Bubba lost the Congress to the Republicans.
And again by happiness I don't mean simple pleasure or hedonism - I mean following one's long term best interests. The Clintons provide an object lesson in how not to govern or how not to leave a legacy of contempt.
Simply put, what I've meant in all of this is that lying, cheating, and stealing have consequences and that a person who engages in activities such as these are ultimately hurting themselves. The results of, say, promiscuity are evident and rational people will act in a such a way to avoid the results of being promiscious. It's that simple. To avoid the consequences of theft, don't steal. To reap the rewards of education, study. To protect your health, stop smoking. And the list goes on.
By actions having consequences, I mean simply this - for example if you smoke 3 packs a day for 30 years, you're probably going to get sick. You can't alter the relationship between smoking and various diseases - you can't decide that you'll never get cancer or heart disease even if continue to smoke. You can however choose to not smoke or to quit smoking.
Morality lies in understanding that an action (say smoking) has consequences (like lung cancer or heart disease or emphysema) and that if you value your life then you shouldn't smoke.
Pat! Time for a new thread, as this one is Sllowwwwwwinggggg dowwwwwwwnn....... too muchhhhhhh!!....
#128... (actually, my point was a bit more subtle)[at least I thought so!]
#132...... But the 'Scientists' haven't found a 'soul' in humans yet, have they?
#134.....I thought that was a WJC statement!
Behe
shows that Darwin cannot be right at the molecular biological level, and beyond this, that there are virtually no scientific papers in his field which even
address the Theory of Evolution.
It's simply not true. And Behe didn't say that no papers address evolution - he said no papers address the evolution of "irreducibly complex" structures, which itself is false. I and jennyp and others have produced many many references to papers on evolution. Did we make up those references? Is the journal Evolution a fiction? Is Nature completely devoid of articles on evolution?
I'm really beginning to think you're mentally ill.
QUESTION: SHALL WE HAVE A THREAD FOUR?
This is normally the time when I would start preparing for THREAD FOUR. However, unless a few of the more rational voices here specifically ask me to do it, I don't think it's going to be worth the bother. Things have lately degenerated into mindless name-calling, and I'm not learning much about the topic, just abnormal psychology. Hell, I can watch the democrats on CNN for that. So if you guys really want a continuation thread (I've got all the HTML stuff saved and ready to go from before) let me know. I'll give it a try if you want. Otherwise, I think we've learned all we're going to by these means.
As much fun as these threads have been in the past, I reluctantly vote "Against." This is only because of the roaring venomous irrationality from certain parties and not because I'm out of ammo. I don't want to imagine what a Thread 4 would look like. (And I fear Dataman's withering jpeg ridicule.)
My premise is simple. Actions have consequences - if you don't believe then there's nothing I can do for you - it's a simple fact of nature.
Again this is unproven. Just because you say something, Garbanzo, doesn't make it real. Saying this is a fact of nature, by the way, is not proof, especially scientifically. I never disagreed with you on this statement, I'm just showing the assumptions you make, in an attempt, to prove a point.
You are trying to equate the physical laws of action/reaction with morality. Where moral action doesn't equate moral consequence, which contradicts your actions have consequences assumption. You are trying to twist logic by saying actions have consequences, you give examples of physcal actions that give physical consequences, but then you propose that moral actions don't have moral consequences, just results. This is not logical sir. But that doesn't seem to bother you.
choosing those actions which lead to happiness as I have defined it above.
You still haven't proven why happiness is the ultimate end. But then, proof isn't required for you. This would be another assumption on your part. Again, if someone else chooses a different end, say simple hedonism, why is that not the ultimate end? Why is yours correct and this not?
The reason why a single moral code can lead to multiple results is that is that morality is simply acting in accordance with reality.
Wait a minute you just told me something completely different. You said: Think of it as this - actionA => resultA and ActionB => ResultB. An individual cannot change the pairing of an action with a result, i.e he can't make actionA => resultB or actionB => resultA. If he wants result B then he must choose action B.
Thanks G you make this easy.
This would be Garbanzo contradiction #"H*ll I lost count"
To be continued
I don't know where everyone really is in this, being a newcomer to this thread, but I would like to work to some concensus so this doesn't deteriorate into (or continue to remain) in its present condition.
It strikes me that the instigators of this thread are militant Randite objectivists, who delete in tormenting their theistic opponents, especially conservatives. But that's just a facile observation. One thing though that I see in both sides are some rather obvious defects, probably coming in ways we don't realize from our common American heritage. I'll credit Douglas Franks book "Less than Conquerors".
Our heritage as Americans in the age of reason leads both unbelievers and believers to adopt a naive hope and faith in science. 19th century believers in particular who traditionally shared, as George Daniels put it "an almost childlike faith in science" continue to feel the need Darwinism. It comes from 19th century scottish common sense rationalism, and results in what some have termed "religious objectivism". Randites similarly share this naive faith in science and objectivism, but from Darwin's sceptical point of view.
The point is, both sides in this argument over creationism feel that scientific legitimization is essential for their legitimization. Hence the the nasty talk. As an old WSJ article said, disguising religion as science is the only way we can return it to our schools. Hence the nasty posturing and war or words.
It would be nice to know if these Randites would explain their political stance on this forum, to me at least, a bit further. It might quell what will just continue to be an indeterminable sectarian debate.
I second the motion. It's become increasingly frustrating to discuss basic concepts with people who want to live in fantasy worlds.
"I continue to consider you a humbug, a gasbag, a purveyor of carnival show huckster fantasies."
Which, in turn, justifies your use of demeaning and racially motivated slurs. To wit:
"Stingray is a 'humbug, a gasbag, a purveyor of carnival show huckster fantasies,' so that makes it ok to smear an entire race of people because I don't like Stingray."
It's no different than if you were to say, "Jesse Jackson is a 'humbug, a gasbag, a purveyor of carnival show huckster fantasies,' so that makes it ok to call him 'Barbecue-Breath,' 'Superfly,' and allege that he lives in 'da 'hood.'"
For one who claims to be "rational," you have gone way over the edge. I suggest you wipe the venom off your own screen, racist.
And by the way, your "apology" was about as sincere as Bill Clinton's, which is to say there was no apology. You are, and remain, a classless turd.
Again this is unproven. Just because you say something, Garbanzo, doesn't make it real. Saying this is a fact of nature, by the way, is not proof, especially
scientifically. I never disagreed with you on this statement, I'm just showing the assumptions you make, in an attempt, to prove a point.
I said at the beginning it was an axiom. If you don't understand what word axiom means then look it up. I never said I didn't have any assumptions. Obviously every logical system begins with a set of axioms. That actions have consequences is an axiom of this system and one that is we both seem to agree is valid, our only difference then is the conclusions we come to given the set of axioms. A consistent logical system should not have contradictions. You managed to completely mangle my system and insert things into it which I've never said.
My analogy with the physical universe wasn't that physical acts lead to physical results - but that actions inevitably lead to results. I didn't qualify "physical" - you added that in. The laws of physics are objective, physical theories are not and are subject to revision. Data is neither good or bad it just is. Results are neither good or bad, they just are. Theories and moral actions can be either good or bad, but data and results aren't. That is the proper analogy.
Again if you don't understand how a necessary condition differs from a sufficient one, then look up some elementary logic. For example, in order to run a successful business, one must keep good records. Keeping good records doesn't mean you will be successful. You keep insisting that I support the latter when I continually support the former and have continually pointed out that a morality is necessary to lead a happy life, but is not sufficient condition. Hence, individuals can differ about what they want and still be following an absolute objective morality.
"It's simply not true."
Well, garbanzo, it IS true, and worth repeating.
" Behe shows that Darwin cannot be right at the molecular biological level, and beyond this, that there are virtually no scientific papers in his field which even address the Theory of Evolution. You guys must hate him."
It would be helpful if you would read Darwin's Black Box. I suggest that you do so.
Ok...let me go this another way.
Axiom 1: Human beings have free will
Axiom 2: Actions have consequences
Axiom 3: Reality is objective
Axiom 4: Human beings are part of reality
Axiom 5: Human beings are rational conscious sentient beings.
Definition 1: Morality is that which promotes human happiness.
To prove: (Theorem 1)
Morality is objective.
To show that morality is objective, one has to show that human happiness is an objective quantity. Human beings exist as a part of objective reality by (4). The human capacity for happiness exists by (5). Therefore human happiness is an objective quantity.
QED
To prove: Man understands moral action through reason.
By (1) man has free will. He is free to choose his actions. By (2) there are results to his choices. By (3) he cannot choose these results. By (5) he can analyze these results and apply them towards his own life. By (1) he can alter his behavior to get certain results. Only certain results will make him happy by (T1). By (5) he understands these actions as moral.
QED.
Hello jennyp.
I am massively tired of this spurious debate which sets Darwinism against Creationism, so I thought I would give you a gift. The following is from pages 117 and 118 of Expecting Adam by Martha Beck.
"In Japanese there are two words for 'thing': koto and mono. Koto means an intangible thing, like a concept or behavior or idea. Mono means something physical, an object you could hold in your hand."
Beyond making better cars, the Japanese are clearly deeper thinkers than the so-called "elites" in this country. It is my "theory" that American public education right on "up" into the Harvard's and Yale's is a process of lobotomization involving excising the "koto" from the minds and brains of the young.
Expecting Adam is a wonderful book, and educational in the truest and finest sense of the word.
And by the way, your "apology" was about as sincere as Bill Clinton's, which is to say there was no apology. You are, and remain, a classless turd.
You're milking a statue, counsellor Cochran. I have apologized to anyone offended by certain specific over-the-line remarks, kindled by your over-the-top reaction to Elsie's harmless joke which has been emailed all over the Internet in the last week. (There seem to be a lot of us closet racists out there.) You're much, much too easy to trigger spitting hate, scorn, irrational rantings, and profanity. Hours or days before this last episode, Patrick Henry suggested in apparent seriousness that you seek help. I don't think he meant a dentist. I second his motion.
"In Japanese there are two words for 'thing': koto and mono. Koto means an intangible thing, like a concept or behavior or idea. Mono means something physical, an object you could hold in your hand."
English has a pair of adjectives, abstract and concrete. So what's the big deal?
To show that morality is objective, one has to show that human happiness is an objective quantity. Human beings exist as a part of objective reality by (4).
The human capacity for happiness exists by (5). Therefore human happiness is an objective quantity.
QED
To tighten this up a little...
To show that morality is objective, one can show that human happiness is an objective quantity. Humans are objective quantities by (4) and (3). The human capacity for happiness is exists by (5). Therefor human happiness is an objective quantity.
QED.
So far, garbanzo and VadeRetro vote against Thread Four. Fine with me, guys. As I said, I doubt that we'd be missing much, except increasingly tasteless comments from a few creationist extremists who think of themselves as divinely inspired. If Jesus had desciples like some of them, He would have lived and died an unhappy and friendless carpenter in an unimportant Roman province. And maybe we'd all be speaking Latin.
#134.....I thought that was a WJC statement!
Me: What is is.
WJC: That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
I quote Fearless Leader's legendary defense from a flawed memory, but that's pretty close. I'm not the one who posted "Define 'exists.'" (Third person present indicative of the verb "to be?")
PH, I am a Christian, but let me thank you at least for the first of these links by the AAAS.
Obviously we need more understanding of both science and religion in our schools. This article illustrates and emonstrates somewhat the need for both. The real need though is for more just classical educatin, without which the arguments of both science and religion can't be fully understood.
Personally I think Ann Rand is not a great thinker, and wonder why you people follow here trends reflexively.
Me: (Third person present indicative of the verb "to be?")
Sloppy, sloppy! Try, "to exist!"
To sum up, reality is objective and there's nothing I can do to change reality.
Another assumption, you eliminate the subjective (only the objective is real), but then use it in you moral law: You said: Morality is what allows an individual to lead a happy life, happiness, is a subjective human emotion.
I have not said that morality delivers happiness - I have said that morality is a necessary condition for happiness
But you said: Morality is what allows an individual to lead a happy life. But in any case it is the same thing, as I show in the following.
So according to you: If I'm not moral(it's a pre-condition) I can't be happy and if I'm happy I must be moral (it's a pre-condition). This leads to the question can I be moral but not happy. The answer is no. To be happy I must be moral and If I'm not moral I can't be happy therefore if I'm moral I'm happy. So morality does deliver happiness by logical reasoning from your own statement. This is also mathematically correct.
X = morality Y = happiness
If not X then not Y therefore mathematically if X then Y.
So one more contradiction for Garbanzo.
if you can't understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions then there is nothing I can do for you.
You know for someone who claims to be so rational, you are very illogical and severly flawed in your "rational" thinking. But here, at least, your right, there is nothing you can do for me.
I could go on about how moral action is like the scientific method but you don't really seem to understand the scientific method so there is little I can do for you.
An interesting, but again false assumption. I don't have to be a scientist to understand your failed attempts at logic and reason.
We hypothesize and test, just as we do with life and we judge whether or not the results conform with the theory. Humans judge acts, but they can't change the basic realities of the universe.
This would be great stuff if not for the myriad number of unproven assumptions, speculations, and outright contradictions on your part, and of course, we have to agree with your interpretation of your "facts" as flawed as they are.
So finally, if you want my moral law, then it is this - that actions have consequences and we must therefore choose our actions carefully.
I have to say, for a moral law, this is extremely vague: "actions have consequences".
If I may, GARBANZO'S MORAL LAW we must choose
By the way what happened to: Morality is what allows an individual to lead a happy life
I guess for you morality is just: make it up as you go along.
The WhiteKnight
Axiom 3: Reality is objective
Definition 1: Morality is that which promotes human happiness.
To prove: (Theorem 1) Morality is objective.
To show that morality is objective, one has to show that human happiness is an objective quantity. Human beings exist as a part of objective reality by (4). The human capacity for happiness exists by (5). Therefore human happiness is an objective quantity.
Axiom 3: Reality is objective and subjective; and
Definition 1: is an assumption unproven therefore the rest of your argument is flawed. I don't need to read the rest, it is based on speculation and an axiom I've restated.
Obviously every logical system begins with a set of axioms. The question is, why do you get to pick the axioms?
I am a Christian, but let me thank you at least for the first of these links by the AAAS.
Yes, that's a great article. As I've pointed out to others, many Christians accept evolution, just as virtually all accept the solar system (although the solar system was wildly controversial in Galileo's day).
The real need though is for more just classical educatin, without which the arguments of both science and religion can't be fully understood.
Yes. 100% agreement there.
Personally I think Ann Rand is not a great thinker, and wonder why you people follow here [her] trends reflexively.
Not "reflexively." Hardly that. And I don't agree with everything she says. I really don't know anyone who does. But she's got a lot to say. More than many who only call themselves philosophers, but who really aren't.
I never said I didn't have any assumptions.
My problem isn't with the fact you have assumptions, but the flawed nature of your assumptions.
But only certain types of actions will make you happy given that we are more or less the same and (we)live in the same world
And again by happiness I don't mean simple pleasure or hedonism
what I've meant in all of this is that lying, cheating, and stealing have consequences and that a person who engages in activities such as these are ultimately hurting themselves.
And I'd doubt that Bubba and Hillary are happy
I find it interesting that all by yourself, you have determined that being moral leads to happiness; and now you are telling us what makes each of us happy.
For a moral law, I find your insistence on defining everyone elses feelings rather subjective and quite impossible.
Definition 1: is an assumption unproven therefore the rest of your argument is flawed. I don't need to read the rest, it is based on speculation and an axiom
I've restated.
Do you not understand what the word "definition" means? Or axiom? Definitions are not proven, they are defined. It would be like attempting to prove a triangle is three-sided polygon. A triangle is a three-sided polygon by definition -you don't prove it.
[
Obviously every logical system begins with a set of axioms.]
The question is, why do you get to pick the axioms?
Because I'm making the argument. You're free to make your own definitions and use your own axioms to make an argument of your own. However, if you want to analyze my argument then you have to use words as I've defined them and my axioms as I have chosen them. If you want to dispute the axioms then go ahead - tell me which axiom you dispute - objective reality? The ability to change objective reality? Think you can wish your way out of lung cancer if you smoke 4 packs a day? And you still haven't even gotten to my theorems.
And you still don't recognize the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. Are you too proud to ask? You can look it up. But to be generous, a condition can be necessary without being sufficient, and it can be sufficient without being necessary.
Say A => B and C => B
C represents a sufficient (but not necessary) condition for B.
Say now (A and C) => B
C represents a necessary but not sufficient condition for B, as does A.
Say A => B and B => A
A represents a necessary and sufficient condition for B.
Applying this to my argument: I've said that morality is necessary (but not sufficient) for happiness but you keep insisting that I'm saying that morality is a necessary and sufficient condition. I hope this helps.
My analogy with the physical universe wasn't that physical acts lead to physical results - but that actions inevitably lead to results. I didn't qualify "physical" - you added that in.
The following is your example, not mine. You did qualify physical result, cause the only other option is non-physical results, which you have ruled out.
If I walk off the top of a building, I can't choose what happens from that point. I can choose to do anything I want, constrained by the laws of physics.
Again you contradict yourself, this must be annoying for you. Does this make you sad? If so, is it morally wrong? Results are neither good or bad, they just are.
This is also an assumption and a flawed one. If I stop you from walking off your building, then you will live, obviously a good result for you. Unless of course this doesn't make you happy. I'm not sure what it does for me.
I wouldn't bother with thread four - no point, for all the reasons you and others have cited. Stingray is a truly diseased personality. Thanks for all your work in trying to foster a serious minded discussion.
If I walk off the top of a building, I can't choose what happens from that point. I can choose to do anything I want, constrained by the
laws of physics.
Is English not your first or primary language? You still don't get the point - the point is that actions have results and I can't change the results of a given action. That's the point of the physics analogies - not that I used the word "physics". This isn't even a contradiction - you're simply not getting it. The point isn't whether or not the results are physical or nonphysical, which is beside the point for the analogy - but rather that the results will happen regardless of whether or not I want them to. If I walk off the top of a building, I can't will myself to walk on air and that was the point which you don't seem capable of understanding.
Physical actions do lead to physical results, but that wasn't the point I was making nor did I apply that analogy to the morality of results. This "midrash" of my posts is getting way past annoying. The point was that actions lead to results regardless of my personal desires, i.e. the universe is objective. At least attempt to understand what I write if you are capable of it.
I wouldn't bother with thread four - no point, for all the reasons you and others have cited. Stingray is a truly diseased personality. Thanks for all your work in trying to foster a serious minded discussion.
I appreciate your thoughts; and I agree with you, garbanzo and VadeRetro. I'm not going to start thread 4. But look, it's not like all the mature, informed, and intelligent folks on this thread are never going to meet again. I plan to be around. And I hope to run into you guys all over the place. And who knows? One of us may post a new evolution article and then we'll give it another go.
Yes, that's a great article. As I've pointed out to others, many Christians accept evolution, just as virtually all accept the solar system (although the solar system was wildly controversial in Galileo's day).
I would disagree that any real Christian accepts what we call evolution. That does not mean that we cannot accept many parts of evolution as science. I can accept dinosars for instance, the age of the earth, biochemical analyses of humans, the big bang theory up to a point. What is that point, you ask? Well briefly, it is the point where baconian science, that is science based on empirical science, becomes Saganian science, the "pseudoscience" based on philosophical speculation.
I can agree with these scientific theoris up to a point, that says this is he physical record Godcreated and the path he pursued. But the philosophical inference, that the mind is nothing more than biochemical processes, life nothing more than chance outcomes, the earth and cosmology nothing more than impersonal self creating physical laws, is a philosophical speculation. Even Darwinians can't agree in a positive way on these things. When you say that science understands everything and there is no room for a creator, no need to ask for thedivine hand in understanding these things, you are going beyond these things.
In this country there is science, and there is pseudo -science. I don't object to science, but I do object to pseudoscience, or to the banning of religion in place of pseudoscience, which is really just ersatz religion, as in some of Sagan's fanciful theories, and the confusing of such in the school system. Especially when they have taken out reference to even legitimate necessary references to religion in schools, such as in history or ethics for example.
The creation science debate is a slightly unfortunate event, but if it was taught, it would probably be the least wacky part of most Churches agenda's anyway. I don't really understand the fuss over it, even from Randites.
The question is, why do you get to pick the axioms?
Because I'm making the argument.
Now you've got it!! You sir, are making the argument and setting the rules irregardless. Your moral law is no better than anyone else's.
It is as simple as that
Do you not understand what the word "definition" means? Or axiom? Definitions are not proven, they are defined.
Oh, I understand. A definition is: a statement of the meaning of a term or word.
So again you are wrong. Definitions aren't defined, they are a statement of meaning of a term or word. Terms or words are defined. You again sir, are defining your terms, this does not mean they are accurate. Just because you make up the definition doesn't make it true.
However, if you want to analyze my argument then you have to use words as I've defined them and my axioms as I have chosen them.
Now you are making up the rules with which we debate with, truly amazing. Well, the answer is, I don't have to play by your rules. And, I can show the flaws in your logic, arguments and definitions, which are numerous.
Your moral law is no better than anyone else's.
Of course it is - it conforms with reality as is observed. It's better because it works better at what it's supposed to do. Now if you argue that my axioms are incorrect or that my logic is incorrect that's another thing - which you haven't done yet. Your pseudo-profundities (such as proving my moral code is based on axioms) aside, it would be interesting for you to actually discuss the argument rather than irrational fuming and nitpicking.
Now you are making up the rules with which we debate with, truly amazing.
Poor thing, you've never seen a formal argument...those are the rules of debate. Crack open a math or logic journal for once.
Or better yet, read Euclid's Elements or any decent high school geometry text. An argument depends on its premises and on the validity of the logical deductions it makes. You seem to criticize neither. I have made an argument here. You can either discuss the argument I have actually made or you can make your own argument. However I can't discuss an argument I haven't made.
Say A => B and C => B
C represents a sufficient (but not necessary) condition for B.
Here is your math flaw, If C is a sufficient condition then the equation would be if B=>C, not C=>B. Think of 3 circles, label them A,B,C, each circle is smaller than the previous. A encircles B and B encircles C. This is the situation you have created with your statements. A = Necessary cond for B, B = Condition, C = Sufficient for B, but not required for B. I can't have B with out also having A, I can have C but it is not required for all conditions B. I can have B without having C.
Say now (A and C) => B
You can say this because A encompasses B
C represents a necessary but not sufficient condition for B, as does A.
Wrong as I have just proven. If A=>B, But, If C=>B doesn't work mathematically. The only equations that work are A=>B, B=>C, & A=>C.
Say A => B and B => A, This is not necessarily true unless you also assume A=B.
Your Turn.
Poor thing, you've never seen a formal argument...those are the rules of debate. Crack open a math or logic journal for once.
Not me. You better open up a debating manual. Wrong once again. So much wrong with your statements, so little time.
[Say A => B and C => B
C represents a sufficient (but not necessary) condition for B.]
Here is your math flaw, If C is a sufficient condition then the equation would be if B=>C, not C=>B. Think of 3 circles, label them A,B,C, each circle is smaller than the previous. A encircles B and B encircles C. This is the situation you have created with your statements.
No it isn't. In terms of sets A < B and C < B. (Both A and C are within B) This is what I've set up. To show that a given element is an element of B it sufficient to show that it is an element of C (anything that lies within C is automatically within B), i.e. it is a sufficient condition. It isn't necessary for the element to be an element of C to be an element of B - it can be an element of A since A < B. It'd be nice if you actually understood math.
[Say now (A and C) => B]
You can say this because A encompasses B
C represents a necessary but not sufficient condition for B, as does A.
Wrong as I have just proven. If A=>B, But, If C=>B doesn't work mathematically. The only equations that work are A=>B, B=>C, & A=>C.
This doesn't even make any sense. I'm really beginning to think you really aren't all that bright. Again in terms of sets - what I've set up is B = A n C ( "n" is the intersection sign). To show that x E B, you have to show that (x E A) and (x E C), i.e. (x E A) is a necessary condition but insufficient to show that (x E B).
Say A => B and B => A, This is not necessarily true unless you also assume A=B
Good grief, you're stupid. The whole point is that if the condition is true then A is a necessary and sufficient condition for B. In terms of sets A=B.
#156........
Vade, you missed a chance here. I know OTHERS here would have puffed up with GREAT indignation by either
1. being insulted for using a MAC
or
2. being insulted for evening someone THINKING that they might use a MAC!
Amen on the pet thing. Ya love 'em and they're like family, but they never grow up and move away! I was down to zero about 12 years ago and then my daugther informed me that she'd not be able to keep her pets where she was going to be living and nobody else would take them and she didn't want to kill put them to sleep and they LOVE you Dad and would you take 'em please please PLEasE! Purtty please-please-pleaseeeeeeeee wah wah wah
(And as Paul Harvey would say, "...and now you know the REST of the story")
One died a few years ago and only ol' Patches is still hangin' in there. He's getting mighty weak in his hind legs and doesn't get around much any more. I don't know..............
This is probably my parting service to this thread. More links, this time from Yahoo. Many are sites we haven't discussed or linked to in the past. So if anyone still cares, CLICK HERE.
2. being insulted for evening someone THINKING that they might use a MAC!
Confession time: I had a 512k "fat mac" from 1985 to 1993, when the disk drives broke and I threw it in the dumpster rather than fix it. The Mac was my second computer. I still have an Osborne I (the first so-called portable) in my basement. I would have donated it to the Smithsonian but someone else actually did it while I was just joking.
I can defend the Mac purchase. At the time, Apple had a monopoly on windows and it was far and away the best and easiest computer you could buy. But they blew it big on pricing and making it easy for third party vendors to write software while their technical edge slipped away. By 1993, when Clinton was saluting the then president of Apple in his first SOTU address, I couldn't justify buying Mac again. I got a 486, which my baby sister has now.
I know how you feel, agonizing over what to do with Patches. They pretty much are family after a while.
For all you nuts that still believe in Evolution, consider this. You make think I'm joking, but I'm serious about this.
What if a alien came to earth and told you Evolution was a lie, that they made you along time ago as an experiment, and showed you the "secret" of life, as proof that you were nothing more than their creation. As part of their scientific study of their new creation, they put humans on earth, to see if there creation had any intelligence. After waiting Billions of years, which is nothing to your average alien, they come back to see what has become of their creation.
Shocked, they find that their creation was advancing in intelligence so rapidly, that soon, it could even threaten them. So they decide on dumbing down their creation, with a disease of the mind. That disease will lower our intelligence, so that we would no longer be a threat, and be useful slaves to them. The disease would also lower our intelligence in one part of the brain, so much, that we would believe that we just evolved out of thin air. They would do this, so that their creation wouldn't know they were created to be the alien's slaves.
The aliens also knew that their creation was so intelligent, that if they found out they were created to be slaves, they could develop a vaccination against this disease, and prepare to attack their would be masters. They decided to introduce their disease into the Professors at Universities first, because they knew they had to infect the most intelligent humans first, or they had no chance of getting the disease to spread to all their creation before a vaccination was developed.
Their timing was perfect, if they had waited much longer to come back earth to see about their creation, their plan could have backfired, and threatened their very existence, due to the anger of the humans being created to be their slaves.
As you can clearly see, their plan is working well, and soon all people who even have an idea they were created, will be dead.
Your probably wondering why the aliens told you this. Because you were one of the few that believed in evolution even before they unleashed their disease on the humans. They knew you were a "bad seed" and would be no threat to them. They also knew that you were so dumb, that you wouldn't believe them, even after they showed you the proof that you were created by them.
I know this story is total lie, but it is more believable than Evolution.
[Say A => B and C => B
C represents a sufficient (but not necessary) condition for B.
I'll start here. Your A => B sequence means: If you
have Condition A then you also have Condition B. There could be parts of A without B, the sequence makes no claims as to whether or not A=B. A=B would be the only case where If A then B and If B then A. Therefore excluding the A=B case, B must be less than A in your sequence above. Because if A In terms of sets A < B and C < B. (Both A and C are within B) This is what I've set up. To show that a given element is an element of B it sufficient to show that it is an element of C (anything that lies within C is automatically within B), i.e. it is a sufficient condition.
If this stood by itself without the statement you made above you would be correct that both A and C are only sufficient conditions for B. They cannot however, be necessary conditions for B. For either A o