Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

We cannot live by scepticism alone

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins.

Read more…

Comments
CJYman, you write,
If moral standards are indeed merely subjective then they can change at any point in time according to anyone’s prefrence. Thus, it boils down to might makes right, whether that might is a collection of the majority of people or a very powerful individual.
It is obvious that many moral standards do change, no matter what their claimed objectivity. It is also obvious that history is replete with villains who committed terrible acts while claiming the morally objective high ground. People have been slaughtered for refusing to adhere to "objective" truths. It is further obvious that some moral codes seem quite stable and widespread, but that these don't need to rely on a transcendent or objective appeal. I would say that relatively stable and universal codes may be evolutionary, and that rapidly shifting codes are simply made up. Other points of clarification: Conscious subjectivity is a neat trick indeed! An impressive effect of evolution. By "non-transcendent reality" I mean simply that my experience of the world, and I imagine yours too, is always and irreducibly contingent and partial.David Kellogg
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
---David: "Is it worth noting that trying to paint an opponent as a defender of child prostitution because he answers outside the language of objectivity is a contemptible tactic?" Comtemptible? Are you suggesting that I violated some objective code of justice that binds us all. Or, are you suggesting that I violated your subjective code of justice which may well be different than my subjective code of justice? If, in your judgment, I violated an objective and universal code, you have refuted your own position of relativistic and subjetivist morality. If, on the other hand, I merely violated your code of justice, then you have no reason to complain because I was merely following my code of justice. Are you starting to get the picture?StephenB
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
kariosfocus
f — as one posting digital text in English of sufficient length to be clear cases of FSCI — he is (due to the obvious implications which he strenuously objects to the point of being willing to accept absurdity) unable to accept that FSCI is a description of a simple empirical phenomenon, what does that tell us about his ability to think straight on weighter matters, such as justice and mercy, much less theology?
What does it say about you that you think that such a simple concept as FCSI, which appears to basically amount to "If a given string has meaning (of any sort) then the FSCI in it is directly proportional to the number of bits in the string" can be a serious candidate for a tool to eludicate the possiblity of a naturalistic origin of life? Fine, FSCI means something. Now, address my other points. Does Weasel affix the letters once found and prevent them from mutating any more. What meaning does FSCI have if an onion has more FSCI in it then a human being? What, exactly, is it measuring? Is a onion more or less complex then a human being? Can you do any more then guess at the values for FSCI? "Rules of thumb" just don't cut it in the real world when such issues are at stake. Onlookers, is it not ironic that KF appears to have fallen victim to selective hyperskepticism, compounded by closed-minded objectionism himself with his refusal to even consider that he may be wrong on a single issue? And instead resorts to ad-hominems
cancerous, metastasising gangrene of the mind.
instead of facing the issues head on, on their merits?George L Farquhar
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
DK: "CJYman, discovering such transcendent moral truths in a non-transcendent reality would be a neat trick, but I’m thinking the answer is no." Conscious subjectivity is also a neat trick in an objective universe. Scientific Laws may very well also be examples of time-independent (time transcenednt) realities within a "non-transcendent" reality -- whatever you mean by that.CJYman
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
CJYman: "Morality is an absolute time transcendent standard which people need to use their rational faculties to discover." GLF: "Firstly, how do you know this, specifically? " I merely offered it as an option. Now compare it to the other options GLF: "Then, how much longer do you anticipate it taking? Humanity has had many thousands of years already." How much longer do you think it will take for humanity to have complete knowledge of any subject? GLF: "If it was there to be found, would it not already have been found? What’s the hold up?" I can't believe you are asking these questions. What's the hold up on abiogenesis, the cure for cancer, etc? GLF: "Perhaps it does not really exist at all, have you considered that?" A purely subjective moral standard makes no sense to me as I believe that the universe and evolution are guided processes which had humanity in mind. Furthermore, the result of a purely subjective morality means that ... GLF and DK, If moral standards are indeed merely subjective then they can change at any point in time according to anyone's prefrence. Thus, it boils down to might makes right, whether that might is a collection of the majority of people or a very powerful individual. A subjective morality is a preference, not a standard of truth for individuals to be held to. Believe what you wish, just understand and be willing to live with the logical consequences.CJYman
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
reposted with correct formatting: Kariosfocus
Let’s take it from the top, one more time.
Let's not. Repeating yourself is not necessary.
Such as the sentences of ACII text characters in your last posts.
And this relates to proving the originl of life via naturalistic causes is impossible how, exactly?
So, once we take time to think clearly and in light of empirical observations, instead of dogmatically and rhetorically, we see that FSCI is not even a hard concept to understand or to accept. And, it is formally a subset of the CSI concept.
Emperical observations written down in a standardized format and submitted for review may be useful. I understand FSCI. Did I say I did not? Did I ask you to explain it again, when your "always linked" is "always available"?
As to what the OOL researchers of the 70’s - 80’s meant, I will leave it to onlookers to compare Orgel
Yes, please do. And please ignore the fact that Orgel would have disagreed with almost every single word you've said so far. The fact that he happened to use the phrase "specified complexity" is about the only relationship I can see between your "work" and his.
That should be clear enough — for those who are open-eyed so they can see what is there to be seen by those willing to see. For, “one confuted against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Insults are the last refuge of a poor mind. I ask you once more: Does Dawkin's Weasel affix the letters in place once they are correct or leave them free to mutate once they are correct? I offer you the same challenge, $100,000 to a charity of your choice if you can find a quote from Dawkins where he says that is how his basic example operates. If you refuse to correct your basic misunderstandings then I fail to see how you can pronounce on things such as OOL and expect anybody to listen if you can be wrong on such a simple issue and refuse to correct yourself.George L Farquhar
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
StephenB:
You cannot logically say in one breath that something is wrong and then in another breath say that it is not objectively wrong.
Sure I can. In fact, there's a significant literature on relativism. You can choose to ignore it, but that's not my problem. CJYman, discovering such transcendent moral truths in a non-transcendent reality would be a neat trick, but I'm thinking the answer is no.David Kellogg
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
StephenB: sure I can. In fact, there's a significant literature on relativism. You can choose to ignore it, but that's not my problem.David Kellogg
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
DK: "3. Some morals are beneficial products of evolutionsary adaptations, and some morals are created along the lines of your option (2), with the proviso that they are collectively, not merely subjectively created." Which brings us to the point ... Is evolution guided to create beings which will then work together as a collective whole to discover (as opposed to subjectively creating) pre-existing, time transendent moral truths -- the objective moral code? P.S. a collection of subjectivity is still still subjective.CJYman
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
----David: "Sure I think it’s wrong. I don’t think there’s any need to invoke so-called objective standards to say so. In fact, I don’t think you’ve named any." To say that something is wrong, is to say that it is objectively wrong. You cannot logically say in one breath that something is wrong and then in another breath say that it is not objectively wrong.StephenB
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
CJYman
Morality is an absolute time transcendent standard which people need to use their rational faculties to discover.
Firstly, how do you know this, specifically? Then, how much longer do you anticipate it taking? Humanity has had many thousands of years already. If it was there to be found, would it not already have been found? What's the hold up? Perhaps it does not really exist at all, have you considered that?George L Farquhar
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
GLF: "Pick a paper and explain how it supports design as opposed to evolution (which on the face of it is what it would be supporting, as by your logic it would not have been published if it supported design)." Heh?!?!? One of the claims of the math behind Modern ID Theory is that evolution itself is indicative of design. Not one simulation of the evolution of CSI has been shown to be possible absent previous intelligence. If it is indeed true that evolution is indicative of previous intelligence, then every paper which explains how evolution occurs also indirectly provides evidence of an ID mechanism for generating CSI. However, the fact that no paper has yet provided evidence that mechanisms void of previous intelligence are capable of generating CSI is directly supportive of the design hypothesis -- ie: ID Theory is yet to be falsified [a counter example has yet to be produced]. I'm quite confident that is what Jerry meant when he stated: "Nearly every paper of the several hundred thousand if not all papers in evolutionary biology are either neutral on design or support design." ...and... "I ask a evolutionary biologist for studies to show just this and he gives me studies that are in complete accord with ID." ...and... "So your money is safe because you know no one will publish a study if it made the claims I outlined but it does not change the findings from these studies. It is all a game at the moment and it is rigged." IOW, the studies implicitly support design yet no one would be caught dead explicitly advocating design; or else the would be "fired" from the scientific community.CJYman
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Stephen: GLF is actually -- sadly -- inadvertently giving us a case study on selective hyperskepticism, compounded by closed-minded objectionism, and on how this reduces him to self-referential absurdity. If -- as one posting digital text in English of sufficient length to be clear cases of FSCI -- he is (due to the obvious implications which he strenuously objects to the point of being willing to accept absurdity) unable to accept that FSCI is a description of a simple empirical phenomenon, what does that tell us about his ability to think straight on weighter matters, such as justice and mercy, much less theology? Onlookers: think about what the evolutionary materialism that is so enthusiastically championed is doing to the minds of these poor men. (And, PLEASE pray for them. Only prayer will help; beyond a certain point.) So, the question in the post at the head of the thread has been decisively answered: selective or radical skepticism is self-refuting and utterly endarkening of the mind and of morality. It is blatantly intellectually and morally bankrupt, and areas of thought, opinion and policy influenced by such endarkened understandings are tainted with that cancerous, metastasising gangrene of the mind. (Sorry for the strength of the language, especially if we are to have any hope of a cure. if the diagnosis is gangrene and cancer behind it, we need to know, and we need to act without delay! And, we must soberly understand that metastasis is USUALLY fatal, but we have to try to rescue our civilisation. The alternative is too horrible to accept without a fight.) But, that is not all: 1 --> should we be sending our children to schools taught by such men, at primary, secondary or tertiary levels? 2 --> Should we entrust such men of darkened understanding with policy making power? 3 --> Should we trust news, commentary and opinion shaped by such men? 4 --> Do we have reason to trust a "scientific consensus" shaped by such thinking; without a point by point independent audit and insisting on hearing both sides of any significant questions? 5 --> Should we trust such men to manage our money well, in the bank or in the legislature? 6 --> Can we trust such to lead our nations and our civilisation aright? And, more; much more. Serious issues are on the table. Let us try, and let us pray. Miracles still happen. GEM of TKI PS: GLF -- Please, excise the hyperskepticism before it is too late. PLEASE. For you own good, and for the good of those you care about.kairosfocus
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Is it worth noting that trying to paint an opponent as a defender of child prostitution because he answers outside the language of objectivity is a contemptible tactic?David Kellogg
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Kariosfocus
Let’s take it from the top, one more time.
Let's not. Repeating yourself is not necessary.
Such as the sentences of ACII text characters in your last posts.
And this relates to proving the originl of life via naturalistic causes is impossible how, exactly?
So, once we take time to think clearly and in light of empirical observations, instead of dogmatically and rhetorically, we see that FSCI is not even a hard concept to understand or to accept. And, it is formally a subset of the CSI concept.
Emperical observations written down in a standardized format and submitted for review may be useful. I understand FSCI. Did I say I did not? Did I ask you to explain it again, when your "always linked" is "always available"?
As to what the OOL researchers of the 70’s - 80’s meant, I will leave it to onlookers to compare Orgel
Yes, please do. And please ignore the fact that Orgel would have disagreed with almost every single word you've said so far. The fact that he happened to use the phrase "specified complexity" is about the only relationship I can see between your "work" and his.
That should be clear enough — for those who are open-eyed so they can see what is there to be seen by those willing to see. For, “one confuted against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Insults are the last refuge of a poor mind. I ask you once more: Does Dawkin's Weasel affix the letters in place once they are correct or leave them free to mutate once they are correct? I offer you the same challenge, $100,000 to a charity of your choice if you can find a quote from Dawkins where he says that is how his basic example operates. If you refuse to correct your basic misunderstandings then I fail to see how you can pronounce on things such as OOL and expect anybody to listen if you can be wrong on such a simple issue and refuse to correct yourself.
George L Farquhar
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
CJYman, what about 3. Some morals are beneficial products of evolutionsary adaptations, and some morals are created along the lines of your option (2), with the proviso that they are collectively, not merely subjectively created.David Kellogg
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Sure I think it's wrong. I don't think there's any need to invoke so-called objective standards to say so. In fact, I don't think you've named any.David Kellogg
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
GLF, In conjuction with what StephenB just stated ... Having people disagree on what is moral does not negate an objective moral code. This only means that we need to work together to discover this objective moral code. Jewish practises may easily have missed the mark, as is the potential for every religion, however that means nothing concerning the potential of an objective moral code. The main point thus becomes a difference between two viewpoints: 1. Morals are subjectively created by fallible humans and are subject to change. 2. Morality is an absolute time transcendent standard which people need to use their rational faculties to discover.CJYman
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
jerry, Your position appears confused. First you say
Nearly every paper of the several hundred thousand if not all papers in evolutionary biology are either neutral on design or support design.
Then you say
I ask a evolutionary biologist for studies to show just this and he gives me studies that are in complete accord with ID.
And then you say
So your money is safe because you know no one will publish a study if it made the claims I outlined but it does not change the findings from these studies. It is all a game at the moment and it is rigged.
So there are several hundred thousand papers that support design, but at the same time no such studys have been published? How can a paper "support design" without making any claims regarding design? Perhaps an example would help? Pick a paper and explain how it supports design as opposed to evolution (which on the face of it is what it would be supporting, as by your logic it would not have been published if it supported design).
The research I describe would all be on the wish list of many ID researchers if they could get funding.
I'm having a conversation with Kariosfocus at the moment. His problem is not getting funding. It appears to be finding the courage to stand behind his ideas in a more public forum where experts in the relevant field will examine his work. And anyway, if this research is being conducted already then why would ID researches want to simply replicate it? And I understand Douglas Axe and the Biologic people are funded and performing research right now. To recap. Papers are being published that support design but that make no direct claims that support design. ID Research is being conducted and at the same time it's not being conducted because the darwinistas somehow stop it happening. Is that about the size of it?George L Farquhar
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
---George: "Is forcing a female child to marry OK then? As long as sex is not actually sold, it’s just part of the “bundle”? ----"Is that moral, according to you?" Where did you get the idea that Old Testament history is limited to moral acts? You have been hanging around with David too long. Now, back to business. Do you think that child prostitution is wrong?StephenB
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
David Kellogg: I have asked you several times if you believe that child prostitution are wrong. In each case you refuse to answer that question and resort to a series of contested definitions and dubious historical references. Since you will not answer the question for yourself, I am reduced to answering it for you. I will withdraw my assertion when you make a definitive assertion of your own. Meanwhile, it is clear to me and everyone else that you do not thing that child prostitution and murder are wrong. Otherwise, you would say so. Where is the courage of your convictions? As I have pointed out more than once, your Biblical citations are irrelevant, because you did not produce any evidence of child prostitution in the Bible. Please write this down: Marriage is not prostitution. Even if there were examples of child prostitution in the Bible they would still be wrong. Do you labor under the misconception that every act in Old Testament history is reputed to be a moral act? If so, please disabuse yourself of that false notion. In similar fashion, your references to Abraham are irrelevant. If Abraham had killed his son, then we would have something to talk about. He didn’t, and, as the narration goes, God did not allow it. Even at that, you really ought to follow through with your own logic. Is it your contention that whatever God commands ought to be done? If so, say so and we can work with that. If not, then leave God out of it and speak for yourself. Here is the bottom line: All rational people know that child prostitution and murder are wrong. The only question we are left with is this: Are you and George Farquhar rational people.StephenB
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
GLC: Sigh! Let's take it from the top, one more time. Namely, functionally specific complex information is at root an observation based DESCRIPTION of information that is functionally specific, complex and . . . ah, yes, informational. Such as the sentences of ACII text characters in your last posts. More specifically:
a --> 192 -3 are functional -- more or less contextually responsive text in English b --> Specific, not only as to context but also to the fact that if the bit strings were perturbed at random, the text would very soon lose functionality, as the overwhelming number of bit strings of the same length are utterly non-functional in the relevant context. c --> complex, as at he relevant string lengths, messages will be drastically isolated. d --> informational: they express a linguistic message. e --> Similarly, the programs in your hard drive or RAM or ROM are FSCI, but in an algorithm-executing context. f --> DNA strings are similar to that.
So, once we take time to think clearly and in light of empirical observations, instead of dogmatically and rhetorically, we see that FSCI is not even a hard concept to understand or to accept. And, it is formally a subset of the CSI concept. Moreover, since all digital data structures [and per A/D conversion all information is but one step from being digital] can be expressed as strings [that's how we store them in computer memories . . . ], the concept is formally equivalent to Functional Sequence Complexity as well. As to what the OOL researchers of the 70's - 80's meant, I will leave it to onlookers to compare Orgel:
Living organisms [notice the functional context, onlookers] are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.6 [Source: L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Observe the functional informational macromolecule context]
And to observe Thaxton et al's summary from the literature circa 1984:
Yockey7 and Wickens5 develop the same distinction, that "order" is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as could might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, "organization" refers to physical systems [broader than life-systems, BTW] and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts. Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity. In short, the redundant order of crystals [which traces to mechanical forces of crystallisation and does not store significant information, which requires aperiodicity] cannot give rise to specified complexity of the kind or magnitude found in biological organization; attempts to relate the two have little future.
That should be clear enough -- for those who are open-eyed so they can see what is there to be seen by those willing to see. For, "one confuted against his will is of the same opinion still." GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
StephenB
You tried to tie the word “prostitution” to Old Testament events that were clearly not prostitution.
Is forcing a female child to marry OK then? As long as sex is not actually sold, it's just part of the "bundle"? Is that moral, according to you?George L Farquhar
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
George, One of the main propositions of ID is that naturalistic methods can not generate novel complex functional changes to a genome. One way to study such a hypothesis is to map genomes to verify that there is not naturalistic origin for complex functional structures. So far thousands of genomes have been mapped or partially mapped. Not one has shown how a complex functional structure has arisen naturally. How do I know. Human nature. If one did find such a process leading to such structures and could provide empirical evidence for it then one would then be measured for their tux or gown for the Nobel Prize presentation. The fact that no one even hints at that they might have something is indicative of something. I ask a evolutionary biologist for studies to show just this and he gives me studies that are in complete accord with ID. This is by a person who desperately want to put us down and would crow for years if he could. The research I describe would all be on the wish list of many ID researchers if they could get funding. As it is no one in their right mind would make the claim that this research supported ID and expect to get a dime in support. But yet the results of these studies go in the support ID column and in the anti naturalistic macro evolution column. So your money is safe because you know no one will publish a study if it made the claims I outlined but it does not change the findings from these studies. It is all a game at the moment and it is rigged. So your offer is disingenuous.jerry
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
StephenB
Here is the bottom line: All rational people know that child prostitution and murder are wrong. The only question we are left with is this: Are you and George Farquhar rational people.
What does rationality have to do with it? I thought it was the objective moral law that made it wrong? Is this the same objective moral law that was in force in biblical times when owning slaves was considered perfectly moran, nay encouraged?
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
There are plenty of other examples.
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Were the people who wrote those words rational StephenB?George L Farquhar
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
George Farquhar, I offer you my congratulations. You have been very successful in your mission to disrupt the theme of this thread and lure several ID advocates into a discussion on intelligent design. I take my hat off to you. Meanwhile, it is on the record that I asked you a straightforward question about the morality of child prostitution. Since you refuse to answer the question, I can safely assume that you do not think that child prostitution is wrong. Keep in mind that it was your example, not mine, so I don’t hesitate to use it. Nor do I feel any hesitancy to affirm your position for you. Indeed, I had exactly the same experience with David Kellogg, another moral relativist who, even though he would not be forthcoming about his position, at least had the courage and imagination to find ways to rationalize it through convoluted definitions and dubious historical references. You, on the other hand, have chosen to simply avoid the matter altogether and change the subject. In the final analysis, though, your silence speaks as loudly as David’s pretexts and rationalizations. I read you loud and clear. In your judgment, there is nothing objectively or absolutely wrong with child prostitution.StephenB
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Jerry @ 182
Absolute nonsense. Nearly every paper of the several hundred thousand if not all papers in evolutionary biology are either neutral on design or support design.
If you can cite 50 papers that directly support design (that evolution acting alone could not suffice) I will donate $100,000 to a charity of your choice. Of course, you have to provide a quote from each one where telic design is noted as the only possible mechanism. For I am rich. If you want to reduce the number then we can talk about the $$. I linked to a google scholar search for "evolution" upthread. Why don't you start there? It won't take long, if as you say every paper published supports your point. It does make me wonder however, if Kariosfocus tells me that design thinkers cannot publish for fear of reprisals then how can all of these papers have been published? Seems there is a difference of opinion there.George L Farquhar
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
I have asked you several times if you believe that child prostitution are wrong. In each case you refuse to answer that question and resort to a series of contested definitions and dubious historical references. Since you will not answer the question for yourself, I am reduced to answering it for you. I will withdraw my assertion when you make a definitive assertion of your own. Meanwhile, it is clear to me and everyone else that you do not thing that child prostitution and murder are wrong. Otherwise, you would say so. Where is the courage of your convictions? As I have pointed out more than once, your Biblical citations are irrelevant, because you did not produce any evidence of child prostitution in the Bible. Please write this down: Marriage is not prostitution. Even if there were examples of child prostitution in the Bible they would still be wrong. Do you labor under the misconception that every act in Old Testament history is reputed to be a moral act? If so, please disabuse yourself of that false notion. In similar fashion, your references to Abraham are irrelevant. If Abraham had killed his son, then we would have something to talk about. He didn’t, and, as the narration goes, God did not allow it. Even at that, you really ought to follow through with your own logic. Is it your contention that whatever God commands ought to be done? If so, say so and we can work with that. If not, then leave God out of it and speak for yourself. Here is the bottom line: All rational people know that child prostitution and murder are wrong. The only question we are left with is this: Are you and George Farquhar rational people.StephenB
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Joseph
It is very wrong to ask ID to have the answers when your position doesn’t answer anything and it has more resources available to find the answers.
I can give you the answers to those questions. --Is all life designed, just some of it or what? All life is designed via evolution. --How do you tell teh difference? As all life is designed via evolution there is no difference as no life has been designed other then by evolution or humanity. Life designed by humanity (or altered) shows in the fact that the nested hierarchy has been violated (i.e jellyfish DNA in a rabbit). --Can you give me an example of a designed and a non-designed organism? As all life is designed by evolution there are no examples --Are only IC structures designed, or is that just one way to tell? IC structures are in fact a prediction of evolution, many years before it became part of the ID movement. Evolution can make IC structures, in the same way that arches are constructed by humans.
And to refute/ falsify ID all YOU have to do is to demonstrate that an accumulation of genetic accidents can bring forth living organisms from non-living matter OR at least demonstrate that a flagellum can “evolve” via an accumulation of genetic accidents from a population that never had one.
I think you'll find it's the other way round. Unless ID can prove itself then you'll be stuck here forever. You don't win simply by not being disproved. I hear there is a teapot in outer space you might be interested in disproving exists.
On another note it is the people who think our existence is due to an accumulation of genetic accidents who should be locked-up. In that scenario there aren’t any morals and anything goes.
And yet the vast majority of scientists working in the life sciences believe that and I understand rates of murder and other immoral behaviour are average. How do you explaint that Joseph? Or is that just another fact to be ignored, like so very many others?George L Farquhar
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Joseph
For example George, please show us the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that E. coli’s flagellum “evolved” via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=flagellum+evolution+&btnG=Search Which one would you like to start with?George L Farquhar
March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
1 9 10 11 12 13 18

Leave a Reply