Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Holding their feet to the fire ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    Perhaps what Jorge is decrying is that euthanists are taking advantage, wittingly or unwittingly, of the general ignorance of the impossibility of going from a set of "is" statements to a set of "ought" statements, in "selling" their moral positions as "scientific."
    Could be, but Jorge appears to make a far broader insinuation that Chuck invented his Satanic "theory" for the specific purpose of spreading evil through civilization.

    Of course, I don't think even Jorge is that stupid, so the only possible conclusion is that he's an intellectually dishonest propagandized end-justifies-the-means serpentine scumbucket.

    K54

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
      Perhaps what Jorge is decrying is that euthanists are taking advantage, wittingly or unwittingly, of the general ignorance of the impossibility of going from a set of "is" statements to a set of "ought" statements, in "selling" their moral positions as "scientific."
      Possibly.

      And that point most certainly has not been lost on some very influential evolutionists. Here is a great article along those lines by Ruse:-

      Is Evolution a Secular Religion

      He spells the problem out very well. He also notes:-

      Originally posted by Ruse (bolding mine)
      So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism—often an alternative to religion—exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time.
      And Ruse is also the author of a book titled "Taking Darwin Seriously".

      So here we have the word of a philosopher who is not so jaundiced that he sees Darwin/Evolution as evil and unscientific. He certainly understands the importance of Darwin and evolution.

      Interestingly, I wonder if there has been a shift in Jorge's attitude? Glancing at a cople of his rants, he seems to be arguing that Darwin=eugenics, war, rape, granny bashing, abortion, sex, drinking and gambling, and that this constintutes Evolution, as opposed to evolution, wich is just variation and is (supposedly) repeatable and observable.

      I could have sworn that a year and more ago, for Jorge Evolution was equivalent to macroevolution, as opposed to evolution which was no more than microevolution. And Evolution was not true science, because it was metaphisically non inert.

      If I am correct there in that Jorge has switched emphasis, then is it a tacit admission that his Evolution=macroevolution="not true science" claims, were in fact indefensible crap?
      Last edited by rwatts; 09-02-2014, 10:37 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Method View Post
        Evolutionary theory is used to answer very real and practical questions.
        Agreed, I'm not doubting that. I think we're on the same page that evolutionary biology can't be used to answer moral questions, however I think we get to this conclusions in different ways. I don't think the Is/Ought problem is really a problem as such in general, though it might be in certain reductionistic philosophies. If you're arguing that the eugenicists are doing it wrong because of the Is/Ought problem, you're basically assuming a particular kind of Naturalism.

        I say, dispense with the Is/Ought problem, focus on the fact that the science of evolution doesn't study facts directly relevant to making moral decisions.

        Jorge is obvioulsy itching for this discussion because he started the discussion. Would seem kind of cowardly for him to bow out now.
        Jorge never bows out, he's been like this for as long as I remember coming to this forum which is close to a decade now. Have fun tussling with him if you want. I thought this philosophical discussion was much more interesting. At any rate, I don't want it here.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Not the point. Whether or not an Atheist is pro-life or pro-death isn't the point. The point is that those Atheists that ARE pro-death will use Evolution as "scientific" justification for their position.
          Not that I've ever seen. Nor have any examples ever been provided here.

          Stated, but not demonstrated. Thus there's no reason to accept the truth of the above claim.

          Roy
          Last edited by Roy; 09-03-2014, 02:54 PM.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Method View Post
            Scientific theories are silent on the issue of morality. Scientific theories describe how nature is operating. They don't tell humans what they ought to do.

            If you want to talk about secular humanism, then evolution doesn't enter into it at all. Secular humanism is based on empathy and reason, not natural selection.
            Adding to your naivete, Beagle Boy writes: "Morally acceptable or unacceptable only apply to people's personal views, not to any science. Science doesn't takes a position on morality."

            Such views exhibit pitiful shortsightedness, a lack of intelligence, and/or dishonesty. Explaining ...

            I ask you, is science some 'self-existing, disembodied entity'? Of course it isn't - science is an activity that exists only through the actions of human beings. As such, there is an unavoidable connection between the claims of science (i.e., humans) and the direct implications to humanity (moral, economic, political ...etc.) of those (human) claims. Many people love to compartmentalize things so as to get away with murder but that strategy isn't getting past me -- except through dishonesty, we cannot compartmentalize (a la Bill Clinton) things that are intimately connected.

            Since I know how hard it is for you people to 'get it', here's just one example: what do many "scientists" say about a 2-week-old human fetus? Well, many of those "scientists" say that it is "just a lump of tissue ... a potential person but not yet a human". Okay, so based on that "scientific" proclamation, what kinds of laws do legislators then enact into law? Right - they pass laws making it legal to abort (a.k.a. kill) human babies. Why? Because "science" has proclaimed that it's "not yet human" and therefore it's "not murder". And who says so ... who provides the "scientific" justification for this law? "SCIENCE" ("scientists"), that's who! We also know how that story unfolds and Evolution has played a huge role in this story. So, do the proclamations of "science" directly impact the moral realm? You bet your butt they do!

            Are you 'getting' any of this? For several of you I know very well that NOTHING will make you 'get it' - you are too heavily entrenched in your anti-biblical belief system and don't have the intellectual integrity to admit your error - be it moral or any other. But maybe this will help someone here.

            Jorge
            Last edited by Jorge; 09-03-2014, 06:11 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
              Not that I've ever seen. Nor have any examples ever been povided here.

              Stated, but not demonstrated. Thus there's no reason to accept the truth of the above claim.

              Roy
              I have long stated that you and your 'kind' are, among other things, sadly ignorant and/or dishonest. Let's grant that, in this case, you are merely ignorant. I personally have known about Evolution being used to justify abortion since the early 1970's and yet you have "never seen it"? WOW! What planet have you been on?

              Below is a thought found in AiG ... there is a ton more from multiple sources:


              "Many will remember being taught at school that as an embryo develops in its mother’s womb it goes through a fish stage with gill slits, etc., and other evolutionary stages until it becomes human. In other words, the idea is that as the embryo develops it passes through all the evolutionary stages reflecting its ancestry. This theory of “embryonic recapitulation” was first proposed by a man called Ernest Haeckel. Not many people realize that this whole theory was an intentional deception. I quote, “But it still remains true that, in attempting to prove his law, Haeckel resorted to a series of dishonest distortions in making his illustrations. Branding them as dishonest is not too harsh, since Haeckel mentions where he originally procured some of his drawings without mentioning the alterations he made.”

              Eventually, Ernest Haeckel admitted this fraud, but the deplorable aspect is that this theory is still taught in many universities, schools, and colleges throughout the world. Admittedly, evolutionists who have kept up with the latest writings know that this view is wrong and refrain from teaching it in their classes. However, in most of the popular school textbooks and reading materials this view is still promulgated in various forms, often very subtle.

              As people accepted that the child developing in a mother’s womb was just an animal reflecting its evolutionary ancestry, there was less and less problem about destroying it. As evolutionary ideas became more accepted, the easier it became to accept abortion. In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.

              Again, let me state here that abortion certainly existed before Darwin popularized his evolutionary theory. However, his evolutionary theory has been used to give abortion its respectability, and thus we see the great increase in abortion today."


              Jorge

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                Not that I've ever seen. Nor have any examples ever been povided here.

                Stated, but not demonstrated. Thus there's no reason to accept the truth of the above claim.

                Roy

                I have.
                well, sort of,
                I don't know if the word was "justification", I think, in my experience, "enabling"

                ...as far as that goes, the pro-abortionists were probably about as pro-abortion as I was "pro-life"

                That is to say, I didn't do much more than "vote pro-life" and argue about it on the old Usenet (is anybody old enough to remember arguing on newsgroups in the 1990s , that came with the outlook express where your email used to be)

                I had just got "saved" (born again) and was on fire for Jesus etc etc
                ....and went from prochoice to prolife and started arguing about it right away.

                I asked the prochoicers, "what about what God wants?"

                that didn't work, they replied "what god?"

                I asked, "who do you think created us?"

                they said evolution. Well, I thought God used evolution to create us, and for some reason, up to that point, it never occurred to me that evolution was being used to enable atheism or legal abortion.

                so I got the big idea, I am going to have to go to the source and undo it,
                ...yeah, all by myself


                so I left alt.abortion and talk.abortion and I forget the other newsgroup names and started taking on the fellas at talk.origins.

                I didn't do to good, its hard to argue against evidence you believed to begin with.
                They didn't know or care too much about abortion in that group, except PZ Myers though.

                ....but all I can say is I remember the prochoicers chief enabler was evolution and therefore no god to worry about.



                ***subject change*** ***subject change*** ***subject change warning***



                ..about that PZ Myers though,
                ...when debating abortion I had all my biology textbooks and embryology texts, the "zygote is a new human being" stuff. and I looked in MEDICAL dictionaries, Tabers, Stedmans, Mosby's, American Medical Assoc Encyclopedia, and looked up 'zygote' and "fetus' and 'embryo' and they were pretty consistant, it a human being, fetus is a "child" (albeit *unborn* child)
                ...and those citations pretty much shut down the "science is on the side of legal abortion" arguments.

                so PZ Myers , a biology prof at Minnesota I think, produced his own biology textbook and IIRC, zygote NOT a human being.

                ...because it wasn't long before prochoicers countered my citations by citing PZ Myers' textbook.
                To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                Comment


                • Double post: apologies
                  Last edited by tabibito; 09-03-2014, 06:43 AM.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jorge
                    As people accepted that the child developing in a mother’s womb was just an animal reflecting its evolutionary ancestry, there was less and less problem about destroying it. As evolutionary ideas became more accepted, the easier it became to accept abortion. In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.
                    True enough. Tell em to provide the results of the genetic tests that prove the foetus isn't human.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                      Empathy. (As an example.)

                      Empathy is not just something which is confined to religious fundamentalists. In fact, I can locate many examples of religious fundamentalists who use God's will as a reason for behaving in the most non-empathetic of ways.

                      So do you really wish to claim empathy all to yourself seer, and deny it to atheists and other folk?
                      But why should empathy override practical considerations? Why is that rational? I mean in the animal world the weak and infirmed are left to die off. So they can not compete for scarce resources nor can they pollute the gene pool by reproducing. And we are just animals - correct?

                      I don't see where Dawkins is off here:

                      The scientist Richard Dawkins has become embroiled in another Twitter row, claiming it would be “immoral” to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down’s syndrome.

                      The British author made the comment in response to another user who said she would be faced with “a real ethical dilemma” if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with the disorder.

                      Dawkins tweeted: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”
                      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...yndrome-foetus
                      Last edited by seer; 09-03-2014, 07:10 AM.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        I have long stated that you and your 'kind' are, among other things, sadly ignorant and/or dishonest. Let's grant that, in this case, you are merely ignorant. I personally have known about Evolution being used to justify abortion since the early 1970's and yet you have "never seen it"? WOW! What planet have you been on?

                        Below is a thought found in AiG ... there is a ton more from multiple sources:


                        "Many will remember being taught at school that as an embryo develops in its mother’s womb it goes through a fish stage with gill slits, etc., and other evolutionary stages until it becomes human. In other words, the idea is that as the embryo develops it passes through all the evolutionary stages reflecting its ancestry. This theory of “embryonic recapitulation” was first proposed by a man called Ernest Haeckel. Not many people realize that this whole theory was an intentional deception. I quote, “But it still remains true that, in attempting to prove his law, Haeckel resorted to a series of dishonest distortions in making his illustrations. Branding them as dishonest is not too harsh, since Haeckel mentions where he originally procured some of his drawings without mentioning the alterations he made.”

                        Eventually, Ernest Haeckel admitted this fraud, but the deplorable aspect is that this theory is still taught in many universities, schools, and colleges throughout the world. Admittedly, evolutionists who have kept up with the latest writings know that this view is wrong and refrain from teaching it in their classes. However, in most of the popular school textbooks and reading materials this view is still promulgated in various forms, often very subtle.

                        As people accepted that the child developing in a mother’s womb was just an animal reflecting its evolutionary ancestry, there was less and less problem about destroying it. As evolutionary ideas became more accepted, the easier it became to accept abortion. In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.

                        Again, let me state here that abortion certainly existed before Darwin popularized his evolutionary theory. However, his evolutionary theory has been used to give abortion its respectability, and thus we see the great increase in abortion today."


                        Jorge
                        AIG's unsupported claims are no more credible than your unsupported claims.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          But why should empathy override practical considerations? Why is that rational? I mean in the animal world the weak and infirmed are left to die off. So they can not compete for scarce resources nor can they pollute the gene pool by reproducing. And we are just animals - correct?
                          We are not purely rational. Rational is not always the best strategy.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JonF View Post
                            We are not purely rational. Rational is not always the best strategy.
                            OK, so you are irrational - thanks...
                            Last edited by seer; 09-03-2014, 07:59 AM.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • @ Leonhard.

                              I've been going over what I wrote so far, and I realize that there is a vast amount of work to be done. This will be impossible to fit into one post, once(if I can ever complete it) it''s done. Just as you find Jorge to be "grating", I find others who regularly post in this section the same way. So once/if I finish, I will be starting a new thread, one that I will ask everyone else to stay out of. It will be a lot to go through, and a lot to read. So it could take quite a while to finish.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                OK, so you are irrational - thanks...
                                It's not black or whit, rational or irrational. There are shades of gray and there is a continuum of possibilities between wholly rational and wholly irrational.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X