topal63
. . .
+533|6778

OpsChief wrote:

Topal, it is almost impossible to lose a debate when you change the conext. Go back and realign your comments to the context of the posting.  And I think I have avoided regurgitating others opinions. So far am have stayed within my discipline of sociology, formulated my own opiinions based on the science and theology as they apply to the topic and context of this threads challenge to decide whether creationism should be taught in classrooms. 

not time to finish now  ...but if we are to talk conversationally I would agree we might be able to understand each other better.
I  am not trying to win or loose a debate. . . anyways. . .

I have demonstrated my opinion. . .

Absolutely NO. . . Creationism and ID-theory have no place in the science classroom.

And of course Creationism, or ID-theory has a place in any private Christian institution, but even here it would be better to keep it out of the science classroom as well (as many Christian Schools offer excellent curriculums). Both Creationism and ID-theory are pseudo-philosophical so I would say they are more theological in nature as they are based upon tradition & assumptive reasoning.
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6760

JaMDuDe wrote:

Animals arent smart enough to think about philosophy. You bringing up that argument to show that there is no God is stupid.

Its called a soul. But you dont believe in it so you tell me where morality came from.
You keep bringing up the soul as it relates to human behavior and how you perceive it to be 'better' than animals. Try studying some psychology instead of swallowing whatever you read on those Christian websites of yours. Lets take a look at 'morality' from the perspective of evolutionary psychology (yes, there is such a thing). Imagine we are looking at a group of humans 100000 years ago (yes, there was a 100000 years ago as well, contrary to your beliefs). The group had to work together to survive, its that simple. If the men were only interested in sex, and ran off after impregnating a woman, the woman would probably die along with his offspring. Now, I imagine this happened anyway, but the point is 'morals' were promoted and reinforced through the reproductive process (both genetically and socially, if you don't know what a 'meme' is, go look it up.) However, the fact remains that morality is almost completely a societal invention. Go to other places in the world and morals are completely different. Go back a few hundred years to Europe and the norms were different. You're attempting to use human behavior to prove the existence of the soul, without any idea of what you're talking about.

Now, lets take a look at why the soul means nothing when looking at human behavior. The brain has been directly linked to behavior in so many ways its not even questioned any more. MRIs (magnetic resonance imaging), CAT scans (Computed Axial Tomography), ECGs (electroencelographs), PET (Positron emission tomography), all of these methods have been used to map the brain and what functions it has. Take any number of mental disorders, like schizophrenia. Shizophrenia drastically alters a person's personality, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a soul. Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple personality disorder) causes a person to have more than one personality. If you met the person at different times, you would swear you were talking to two different people, but they inhabit the same body. Are there two (or more, DID often results in 3 or more personalities) souls in that body? Or is the brain responsible? Alzheimers as well, the nicest Christian you ever met could forget they ever had faith, along with their own wife and children. It has nothing to do with the person's 'soul', and everything to do with their brain. (I know this was brought up before, and you wrote it off, but everyone else with an open mind should seriously consider what I have to say.)

Take Phineas Gage, another example I brought up earlier. His case is well documented in psychology. He accidentally lobotomized himself with a railroad tie and a blasting cap, and walked away from it. However, his personality underwent a major shift. Before the accident, his friends described him as courteous, hardworking and kind, but afterwards he became lazy and mean, and started swearing alot. Why did this happen? He destroyed or damaged much of the part of the brain that is related to personality. Tell me, if the soul is responsible for all our actions, how did he manage to damage his soul with an iron rod?

Whats my point? The brain is far, far more complex than you give it credit for. Either do some studying (I know, it will mean getting information from a real educational source. *gasp*), or stop making ridiculous claims in an effort to bolster your faith. I await your scintillating one line reply, or better yet a copy and paste.
JudgeDredd1824
Member
+32|6714|Wigan an proud of it mate !

JaMDuDe wrote:

Ken, i dont know what all the chemicals on early earth were. But the scientists in that experiment picked the chemicals according to what would make life, not what was on earth. I didnt just say "the conditions werent right", i gave you a link with a good scientific explanation.

Judge, your only giving proof of microevolution.
Did you just use the "E" word ??????

Isn't microevolution just that... evolution on a smaller (time)scale? Just scale it up a bit and voila......EVOLUTION

Q.E. fekkin D
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6711|USA

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Oh and to those who mentioned how the 10 commandments and other bull has shaped your nation/human nature this is crap.

Extensive Research has been done on Monkeys and it has been proven they have a sense of morality and where did they get that from because as far as I'm aware they can't read!

I know when the air is hot or cold because I sense it, and I know when something is right or wrong for the same reason!!!!
Animals react to instinct, humans make conscience choices

Sticking your finger in your ass and sniffing it in front of a bunch of children at the zoo doesn't seem to be a very moral thing to do.
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|6837
Skruples  the soul and body work together. If a person gets a disease or blows half their brain out their body will change behavior. They still have the same soul its just their physical body changes. The soul isnt responsible for ALL of our actions or behavior. YOU have a consciousness. Your not a super overly developed animal. You can think about how your own body is thinking. Esteban is the one who made the argument that we didnt get our moral law from the 10 commandments because monkeys have morality and they cant read.


Judge, microevolution on a larger time scale is not responsible for why spiders are supposed to be related to whales.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-06-02 18:50:19)

Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6734|Canberra, AUS

JaMDuDe wrote:

Skruples  the soul and body work together. If a person gets a disease or blows half their brain out their body will change behavior. They still have the same soul its just their physical body changes. The soul isnt responsible for ALL of our actions or behavior. YOU have a consciousness. Your not a super overly developed animal. You can think about how your own body is thinking. Esteban is the one who made the argument that we didnt get our moral law from the 10 commandments because monkeys have morality and they cant read.


Judge, microevolution on a larger time scale is not responsible for why a butterflies are supposed to be related to whales.
Last sentence. Could you expand on why a series of small accumalations in genetic difference over a few billion years can't lead to separate animals?

Genomes are very susceptible to damage. The DNA of each cell is ripped to shreds and patched countless times in its lifetime. However, some mutations take just ONE 'letter' to be replaced. Take stone man syndrome. Or Kleinfelter's. Down syndrome (slightly different). Supermales. Superfemales. All these are caused by very minor defects either in genetic structure OR a dodgy meiosis of the egg and sperm. The last few are surprisingly common.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6826|Cambridge (UK)
Define 'soul'.

Edit:
<kchhhk>Push hard on that genetics flank Spark!
...
...
...
<kchhhk>Oh! Nice work over there on the Evolutionary Psychology Skruples! Keep it up!
...
<kchhhk>I'm coming round on their metaphysicals.
...
<kchhhk>Go! Go! Go!
...
<kchhhk>Get bodies round that flag!
...
<kchhhk>Spawn on me! Spawn on me! (pre 1.3 obviously)

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-06-02 19:20:36)

JaMDuDe
Member
+69|6837
spark if small changes over long periods of time created new species it would be called macroevolution.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6826|Cambridge (UK)

lowing wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Oh and to those who mentioned how the 10 commandments and other bull has shaped your nation/human nature this is crap.

Extensive Research has been done on Monkeys and it has been proven they have a sense of morality and where did they get that from because as far as I'm aware they can't read!

I know when the air is hot or cold because I sense it, and I know when something is right or wrong for the same reason!!!!
Animals react to instinct, humans make conscience choices
That's a very black and white division you imply there, lowing - I'll come back to that...


Many animals clearly make conscious choices in many situations. And most, if not all, primates (of which we are one) are very good examples of this - they are comparitively intelligent - tool use of one form or another is weadspread within the primates.

And, again most, if not all, primates (and again, of which we are one) also react to 'instinct' - there's another thread elswhere on, losely, 'weapons in society' - unless you are trained to consciously control it, people react on instict when facing a danger of any kind - such as facing a knife or gun - the 'fight or flight' instinct kicks in - and to an extent we train ourselves as we grow, but there is still that core 'instict' that we need to overcome.


lowing wrote:

Sticking your finger in your ass and sniffing it in front of a bunch of children at the zoo doesn't seem to be a very moral thing to do.
What do children do when they have an itch? - they scratch it - it doesn't matter where it is, they scratch it - as we grow older we learn the 'accepted behavioural patterns' of society - it is this memetic framework that most strongly modifies our behaviour away from pure instict - higher apes can be taught a rudimentary sign or symbolic language they appear not have either the drive, or mental sophistication, to develop what we might call 'a sophisticated language'.


Also, just as in the example of one monkey stealing from another teaching an infant monkey that stealing is wrong - through observation of the reaction of the monkey that had been stolen from - so do we also learn some of the 'accepted behavioural patterns' of society through observation of others.


Now, I particularly picked out the examples of intelligent tool use and language as they both clearly require a 'concious process' - intelligent tool use requires a conscious selection of material, shape, working and method of use. Language requires the concious selection of sound, shape, form, working, method, etc...


Just by scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg of scientific data we can see that, rather than there being any aspect of our conciousness, intelligence or whatever which is a 'leap' beyond our nearest relatives, there is, in fact, a gradual sliding scale.

And that's just looking within the primates.

When we look further afield we see Caladonian Crows showing clear intelligent tool use. We see dolphins. We see elephants. We see, believe it or not, pigs. Dogs. Cats. Hell it's everywhere!
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|6837
How do you know that monkeys learn their morals by infants seeing other monkeys that steal bananas get smacked? Has it been observed that monkeys learn what is morally right through observation of other monkeys?
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6826|Cambridge (UK)
I do not have any references to hand, but, yes, it is my understanding that the development of a 'defined system of accepted behaviors' (otherwise known a 'moral system') through observation has indeed been scientifically demonstrated in many animals. Not just primates.

(Edited to correct spelling (it's late/early! (04:23)))

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-06-02 20:23:58)

Xietsu
Banned
+50|6616
What differentiates the beast and the man is that we are capable of conceptualization. You also must realize that quite a number of creatures have both consciousness and instinct, and that everything we do and everything they do is a direct example of such. Despite our genetically superior implement o' perception, our anatomical ability to establish and orchestrate a cohesive, complex language is the defining quantity behind our ability of conceptualization. The only difference is that our instinct is so heightened in comparison. These hypothetical situations of adrenaline-kicked forms of recourse are just the reaction of hormones jumping in during an identified threatening, exciting, or sensually stressing situation. It is a function of the brain and not an example of how when "humans operate by 'instinct alone'". It is a sensation that usually provokes a response in the extreme spectrum. Instinct is always operative. Anyways...why the hell does it matter? I kinda' lost where this connected to our particular creationism/evolutionist discussion...

*Oops, my bad, kinda' missed Esteban's post...erm...and the latter half of the 4th page @_@...

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-03 06:54:36)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6711|USA

Xietsu wrote:

What differentiates the beast and the man is that we are capable of conceptualization. You also must realize that quite a number of creatures have both consciousness and instinct, and that everything we do and everything they do is a direct example of such. Despite our genetically superior implement o' perception, our anatomical ability to establish and orchestrate a cohesive, complex language is the defining quantity behind our ability of conceptualization. The only difference is that our instinct is so heightened in comparison. These hypothetical situations of adrenaline-kicked forms of recourse are just the reaction of hormones jumping in during an identified threatening, exciting, or sensually stressing situation. It is a function of the brain and not an example of how when "humans operate by 'instinct alone'". It is a sensation that usually provokes a response in the extreme spectrum. Instinct is always operative. Anyways...why the hell does it matter? I kinda' lost where this connected to our particular creationism/evolutionist discussion...

*Oops, my bad, kinda' missed Esteban's post...erm...and the latter half of the 4th page @_@...
Oh.........................and here I thought it was because I didn't stick my fingers in my ass and sniff it..stupid me.
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6616
Well apparently that wasn't the case. You said "Animals react to instinct, humans make conscience choices". Apart from not even making the proper reference to your intended concept of conscious (you know, you and your thoroughly suck-ass spelling ), it's incorrect nonetheless.
SGT.Mays
Member
+2|6803|Ohio
Personally, I think that since the majority of the people on this planet beleive in some form of God, the atheist can go fuck off on their little corner and stop tell everyone else what to do.

On topic, Evolution is as sorely founded an idea as creationism, the diffrence being that evolution has some evidence while creationism just always says "God did it". Anyway, according to evolution the big bang started everything. Well what caused that? did all the sudden space just decide to let loose some pressure? Or did God toss a firecracker into it? And where the hell did life come from? It just POOF magically appeared on the face of this planet? Until evolution can show me what happened when they claim the Earth started I'll keep my mind on the problems at hand, BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING DEAD AND GONE! HONESTLY WHO THE FUCK CARES WHY WE ARE HERE, BUT WHILE WE ARE HERE WHY NOT TRY TO HELP EACH OTHER OUT A BIT!
That's my opinion and no amount of video game forum talk will change it.

Last edited by SGT.Mays (2006-06-03 07:34:01)

Xietsu
Banned
+50|6616
Why the hell should we help eachother out a bit if we don't care about a purpose for existence? Contradiiiiiiiction.

I think you also forgot to say that the god-believers and the religious should "**** off" as well. Just because a majority of a populace chooses to create and engross themselves in frivolous assumption doesn't mean that the minority that does the same exact thing is in the wrong.

From what origin does your need to claim that a supernatural being had to initiate the Big Bang or anything that is? Who the hell said there had to be an "initial creation" in the god damn first place? You must realize that existence has had to have just been. To create and fantasize about some "almighty" -- for whatever fucking reason -- is just purely foolish in terms of rational, reasonable, and logical approach towards the deciphering of origin and education of our masses.

Also, in case you didn't know, life can be struck from inanimate matter. Don't know the specifics on the reaction required, but it can be done if circumstance allows.
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|6837
No it cant. Life cannot come from non-life. "It can be done if the circumstances allow" means if something made and controlled perfect conditions for life to form and controlled how the amino acids and everything came together, then some life may form.

To say we made God and think that the universe made itself out of nothing is foolish. Scientists say there had to be an initial creation.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-06-03 08:12:53)

OpsChief
Member
+101|6736|Southern California
Historically speaking Science and Religion have been in competition. Each has had turns "in power" over the millenia. We should be careful that we don't let one of the two contestants define all the rules. At least let's be aware of the consequences of one-sided matches.

Once Hitler got most of his nation to buy into his views they had no choice but to follow because he had removed the checks in the system. Options and check-and-balances are vital to human survival and the maintenance of civilization. Let's also not confuse the occasional fools of science or religion with the messages those disciplines bring to our world.

Finally if the world ended tomorrow with 100% human casualties science is irrelevant but God and the Eternal soul doesn't need earth.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-06-03 11:58:25)

Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6754|San Francisco
Not good, OpsChief.  You just Godwinned the thread.  Why did you just try to compare Science to Hitler?

I'm sorry, but the only time that a religion has controlled most of the Western world was called the Dark Ages.  We went through an Enlightenment for a purpose, to pull ourselves out of such a grip on the minds of the people.

To creationists in general: Is it so hard to accept the fact that Evolution was based on and uses scientific principles to define it's position?  Is it so hard to understand that a Science class teaches science, not philosophy?  You understand that it is a Theory that currently has more and more evidence and proof leading up to its full acceptance as fact?  You realize that the book of genesis and literal bible interpretations are completley fallible and have no basis other than your own faith, therefore can only be subjectively interpreted (including identical levels of faith not being able to be measured or had between different individuals) ... and lastly, do you really want to be in the same boat and on the same level as THIS person?

Currently, religion remains checked in it's own position...you can believe in it if you want to, and it no longer rules half of the Globe.  It's not a matter of one over the other, it's a matter of what can be taught in a Science curriculum, what defines a Philosophy, and how free you can let people think in todays world.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6711|USA

Xietsu wrote:

Well apparently that wasn't the case. You said "Animals react to instinct, humans make conscience choices". Apart from not even making the proper reference to your intended concept of conscious (you know, you and your thoroughly suck-ass spelling ), it's incorrect nonetheless.
NO I meant conscience as in an awareness choices. We think about a problem and react to it....we build better tools that make life easier.....monkeys have been using a stick since the beginning of time. Animals will react scared even when it isn't logical for them to do so.It is their instinct taking over.We react differently depending on the variables of a situation. An animal will ALWAYS react with a survival instinct regardless of the variables.

Conscience....as in the ability to make decisions based on feelings as well as facts

Last edited by lowing (2006-06-03 13:01:28)

JaMDuDe
Member
+69|6837
Marconius, creation isnt faith-based like the FSM. There is scientific evidence of it. Heres a crazy creationist website that offers a testable creation model.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog … mary.shtml
OpsChief
Member
+101|6736|Southern California

Marconius wrote:

Not good, OpsChief.  You just Godwinned the thread.  Why did you just try to compare Science to Hitler?

I'm sorry, but the only time that a religion has controlled most of the Western world was called the Dark Ages.  We went through an Enlightenment for a purpose, to pull ourselves out of such a grip on the minds of the people.

To creationists in general: Is it so hard to accept the fact that Evolution was based on and uses scientific principles to define it's position?  Is it so hard to understand that a Science class teaches science, not philosophy?  You understand that it is a Theory that currently has more and more evidence and proof leading up to its full acceptance as fact?  You realize that the book of genesis and literal bible interpretations are completley fallible and have no basis other than your own faith, therefore can only be subjectively interpreted (including identical levels of faith not being able to be measured or had between different individuals) ... and lastly, do you really want to be in the same boat and on the same level as THIS person?

Currently, religion remains checked in it's own position...you can believe in it if you want to, and it no longer rules half of the Globe.  It's not a matter of one over the other, it's a matter of what can be taught in a Science curriculum, what defines a Philosophy, and how free you can let people think in todays world.
hmmmm I didn't compare science to Hitler!!!!  And I didn't God win the thread either, I am not here to make believers out of you or anyone else. What I said was it is dangerous to remove the checks and balances out of society and gave an example of consequences.  Then I made a very physical universe related scientific comment about relevence and perpective.  I am pressing for a quality thought process here not a foolish faith in science or religion.


Whether we like it or not the Rule of Law and the Scientific Method were both God-inspired concepts and processes that keep us civilized at least as much as we can be at the moment.

Good Science is a good thing, so is Good Religion or Spirituality.

P.S. I don't understand what that link was supposed to show me. Since you misread or misinerpretted my postin maybe you thought I was someone I am not. Marco, m8, please tell me how the link applied to me?

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-06-03 12:57:10)

Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6754|San Francisco

JaMDuDe wrote:

Marconius, creation isnt faith-based like the FSM. There is scientific evidence of it. Heres a crazy creationist website that offers a testable creation model.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog … mary.shtml
What. The. Hell.
There is no scientific evidence in that essay at all.  Do you even read what you copy-and-paste here?  I guess a better question is if you understand it, or do you just Google "scientific method in creationism" and post what you find?

Hugh Ross is a joke.  He has a PhD in Astronomy, and only authored/co-authored 5 papers dealing with relatively narrow subjects, otherwise he's a full-on evangelical christian.  The writing of creationism like this is utterly ridiculous.  He starts off ascertaining that they indeed do NOT have a testable process to back up their claims in the name of Science, and proceeds to list off what happens on Genesis.  He starts talking about some random statistics on large animal populations, in which he Never gives a source for his information (a BIG no-no when writing essays like this), and uses "Crude mathematical models" to determine that the only way for proper genetic mutations to occur is if a species has one quadrillion members prior to genetic advancement.

What's next?  Oh, god did it all.  Yes, he follows this up with a badly written model using big, scientific words to inevitably say that god had a hand in Everything whilst preparing for our "arrival."  Predictions are not a part of Darwinian Evolution, as he'd have you believe in his final paragraph.

Darwinian Evolution IS the prediction, it IS the hypothesis that is being tested.  GOD CANNOT BE TESTED FOR OR PROVEN therefore there is NO scientific theory to justify creationism as dictated by genesis.  Your ability to be able to believe in something such as a higher power does not give you any say or leeway when dealing with scientific issues, as you are still relying on untestable faith to explain yourself.

I'd just as much keep believing that the FSM made us all last week, but altered our minds to give us all memories.  In fact, I can, because it's written in a Holy Book containing the Gospel of the FSM, just like genesis.  Please read what you post, and if you do read it, make an effort to use some reading comprehension.

EDIT: @OpsChief - Sorry, that link was posted for the general public...the problem is that we have so many people like that woman in America today who represent the Extreme side of the "christian right" that are trying to remove science itself from schools.

The Scientific Method was not a god-inspired concept in the least.  It spawned from Egyptian and Greek processes that were used to define common sense and every-day phenomenons.  Move that up to Descartes, Galileo, and Pierce properly beginning to write out how thoughts should be organized, and how to properly define and explain something that can be proven later if the need be.  Wee bit of history on it here.

I apologize if I was harsh.  To "Godwin" a thread is to initiate Godwin's law, about how almost any online discussion will eventually have Hitler, Nazis, or the Holocaust brought up in it to varying degrees.  It just wsn't a very good way of bringing about your point of checks and balances in society.  I agree that checks and balances are needed, but not to the point where you start taking science out of a scienc classroom.
OpsChief
Member
+101|6736|Southern California
I guess it is important for science to define WHAT God is. Religion (people) has decided the many WHOs God is.

Where are your references for the scientific proof that God does not exist?

A scientists would not say "GOD CANNOT BE TESTED FOR OR PROVEN".
A scientists would say "GOD HAS NOT YET BEEN TESTED FOR OR PROVEN NOR HAVE WE ANY EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE GOD. WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE AND HYPOTHESIS TO POINT TO AN INITIATING FORCE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. KEEP LOOKING"

That Ghandi Quote is very powerful but often misunderstood  "The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives"  Mahatma Ghandi

Man commits atrocities in whatever name he can think of to justify his abhorrant behavior. That does not mean religion is to blame. And besides man uses science to commit the attrocities so now where are we? We can't blame science for atrocities either, even in magnitude.

Man can be a wrong as he can be right and that can change many times after the fact.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-06-03 13:18:37)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6831|PNW

JaMDuDe wrote:

YOU have a consciousness. Your not a super overly developed animal. You can think about how your own body is thinking.
I'm religious, but I am of the opinion that we are animals. So far, I have never been shown any proof that a non-human animal is unaware of itself. They react to emotional treatment and environment the same way, and perhaps with more maturity, than we do. If I was going to be pulled into an argument about the existence of souls, I would have to say that humans would not be the only ones with them.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-06-03 13:12:16)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard