Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendius wrote:

I never learned how to swim in spaghetti lakes I'm afraid,

I grant precedence and full rights to those who have. I give them the benefit of the doubt and concede their wisdom on every point.

lol, again if you had trouble understanding something, just ask. For you to characterize my writings as spaghetti is completely hilarious and I thank you for the lols.

spendius wrote:

I assumed you are pro-choice at some point which I cannot see existing. If you don't wish to discuss justifications for cut off points I quite understand.

Uh-huh. You just got bored reading, didn't you? I am very much in favor of keeping abortions safe and easy within the first trimester, particularly the first two months. This is when the embryo is in the extremely early stages (zygote, blastocyst) up to being a smallish fetus. It very likely does not feel pain, or if it does it does not have a differentiated enough brain to do much of that "feeling". In fact, the huge majority of brain development occurs much later, in the third trimester. I'll note that the trimester system is somewhat arbitrary, but does provide useful points we can point at in development for these types of things. It is not a system arrived at through its use to science or medicine, but for the political and ethical issues surrounding this topic.

spendius wrote:

We will have to agree to disagree.

Sure thing, but if you keep saying silly things in your condescending manner, you'd better expect some criticism.

spendius wrote:

Please accept my apologies for putting you to so much trouble and inconvenience.

I don't know whether to trust this or not.

spendius wrote:

It was announced on our News yesterday that last year there were nearly 200,000 abortions in the UK. A spokesman in favour of that said that a kid was better off not being born than being born to a mother who was unfit in some way which he didn't bother specifying.

This ties into the utilitarian argument for allowing abortions. Considering the general bioethical status of a 5-week-old embryo, many would consider it to be worse that we had more unwanted children than the abortion of the embryo.

spendius wrote:

Could you explain why a senior medical man, and he is senior, would go on media with such utter drivel?

Because he's educated, hint hint.

spendius wrote:

How the hell does he know?

Simple: an aborted embryo/fetus is almost always unwanted.

spendius wrote:

A kid might equally be said to be better off not being born than having him being their Dad. I would have thought that.

Unless, of course, he actually wanted children. Then there's a strong argument for him being a better dad than someone who did not want the child: more prepared, more emotionally connected, etc.

spendius wrote:

If my Dad left me £50 million from a career doing abortions I would send the lot to as many ophanages as I could find to use it properly. Or something of a similar nature. And it's nothing to do with religion.

Then you're unlike every single pro-life person I've met. They mostly go on about statistics and complaining about early term abortions (~90% occur during the first trimester). None of the ones I've met and have asked had been making serious campaigns for orphanages or adoptions. In fact, when questioned, they either made a vague argument about the sanctity of life, including human zygotes (but not bear or pig zygotes for some reason), or quickly (and tellingly) began talking about sex.

And it has everything to do with religion, lol. If you really think you can defend that silly idea, actually address what I last wrote to you on it.

spendius wrote:

It's to do with dolls.

I don't get the reference nor am I going to attempt to do so.

0 Replies

Here, I'll help.

spendius wrote:

It is self-evidently "bad" if the kids will "suffer".

Duh. That's what he's saying. 'nuff said. If you can't wrap your mind around the idea that it's bad for kids to learn things which are incorrect and significantly damaging to their understanding of a modern, robust, economically and socially impactful field of knowledge, I think it's time that you sat back and did some more of that reading you like to criticize others for.

0 Replies

Sorry for the double post, no idea how that happened.

0 Replies

Look S. I can understand every word you write and even some whole phrases but how it fits together is beyond me.

It seems perfectly clear to you that what c.i. said means something for others but it doesn't to me. Your "damaging" is just the same.

But as I said before---you start where you finish with your own meanings. What comes in between is neither here nor there. You can put 50 paragraphs of " understanding of a modern, robust, economically and socially impactful field of knowledge" type of thing in the spaces and I'll notice the circle which goes around bad/damaging/suffer/shouldn't do.

We are not agreed on any of those words and we never will be while you rely upon them to make your points.

0 Replies

spendi, Look at it this way; most of us on a2k have difficulty understanding most of what you write. Do you seriously think all of us lack the ability to comprehend the English language, or is it the fault of your writing style?

On the flip side, you have difficulty understanding us, but most of the people who participate in the same threads that you participate in seems to communicate with each other very well.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

That's easy explained c.i. You're all in agreement about what "bad" means and "damaged" and all the other meaningless assertions you all make in lock-step.

You can't say something is "bad" and that therefore the kids will suffer and thus the "bad" thing should be banned without explaining why and how they will suffer and expect any educated person to think you have said anything other that that you think the bad thing is bad. And we all know what you think is bad from long experience and it is something other people think is good because beneficial to the kids.

And they are into circularities as well. It's an is/isn't/is/isn't etc for as long as you care to bray at each other. It's white noise.

And in Lousiana there's 90% against you and, if push comes to shove, it will be more than that right across the nation when the social consequences of your side winning are properly examined. Something AIDsers have shied away from doing consistently all along the thread.

I understand you very well. It's a piece of cake. It's well documented that if somebody says something is bad/good in the US it becomes a fact that it is bad/good on the evidence that it had been said to be.

Pub time. Totty nite.

0 Replies

spendi, On the topic of creationism, it has no relationship to science. If schools are prone to abide by their religious' beliefs to teach their children science, they will fail to understand what science is. It's that simple; it's bad for the kids, because they confuse religion with science.

0 Replies

CI - Don't you know that Christianity is the father of Science? LOL!

The religious zealots will try to equate science as a religion from now until they've mustered enough force for another holy war. Then they'll just start burning witches again. Until then, it's not about proving their claims right, it's about confounding the rules of the universe in attempt to put them on an equal playing field.

T
K
O

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

spendi, On the topic of creationism, it has no relationship to science. If schools are prone to abide by their religious' beliefs to teach their children science, they will fail to understand what science is. It's that simple; it's bad for the kids, because they confuse religion with science.

You're at it again c.i. You can't get yourself out of it can you?

You're a whirling Dervish.

Can you not see that what you said there is a meaning vacuum outside of your own head? If it had a meaning there would be no need for philosophy departments in high academic circles.

Can you imagine that c.i.?

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

spendi, Look at it this way; most of us on a2k have difficulty understanding most of what you write. Do you seriously think all of us lack the ability to comprehend the English language, or is it the fault of your writing style?

There used to be an advert on our screens for something or other in which two middle-aged ladies of the Windowlene set (Airfresh division) were engaged in a conversation which consisted of them repeatedly agreeing what a very nice man this chap was and what a really very very nice man he was (all short words notice) and the chap in question was a complete sold out wimpsole manifesting many aspects of the physiognomy of the brow-beaten, defeated and dejected.

And we all laughed at the joke about what is good for some and bad for others and the relativity problem. And that the ladies in the ad were engaged in a sort of chattering. At a higher level than that of monkeys which are, as you know, our nearest ancestors in the mighty tree of evolution which our Almighty Father set in motion just to see what might happen. I'd bet money He never thought my pub would be one of the happenings to result. He can't be that good.

And what this wimpsole did for these ladies was obviously classed as "good" by them, subjectively so to speak, and his toleration of it presumably meant that he agreed but it certainly didn't look like it from the point of view of those of us who laughed. Which was most of us within the milieux I mix in which I am the first to admit is not one of the higher grades. He looked like they had him by the short-hairs. He was acting it up of course. It was an ad.

Not only do I not understand the writing style of people who think they can just say something is bad and that it then becomes bad on the strength of them having said so but I also cannot understand how anybody else could understand such a writing style either. Perhaps people who use such a writing style cannot understand other writing styles so maybe there's nothing unusual in your not understanding mine. Which, of course, doesn't mean that nobody does. People don't read in the same way.

There's a great deal of the technique of the style of discourse demonstrated by the two ladies all along this thread; which would have petered out in short order had I not stumbled into the write-room full of presbyterian pillocks sagely agreeing with each other about how bad certain things are for kids or for America, and hence the NATO alliance to say nothing of the Special Relationship and the Coalition, and they haven't the faintest idea about the matter. They even seem unaware that polarisation gets you nowhere in politics except under extreme conditions and "bad" is a pole position. (The pole position in GP racing is "good". In fact it is really, very very good without exaggeration. If there's a crash it can be "bad" as well. But with minor injuries and being bandaged up by the nurse of your dreams it would be "good". In the short run at least. In the long run it might be "bad". Not necessarily though. It all depends. Consequences flow from consequences. "Across a crowded room". )

Ask them to explain why these things are bad and they scurry off into their boltholes calling me names or find a fresh, not novel, version of the same old 72rpm gramaphone recital to have another go at the bad/damaging/suffering/idiocy stuff with chaff tossed out to confuse old fashioned radar kits.

Somebody said the other day that your health costs are harming the nation. That's bad.

0 Replies

spendi, What's harming the nation is not just "health costs." You in the British Isles probably haven't noticed it yet, but it's the higher cost of fuel and food. We can skip seeing the doctor for what we consider minor illness, but try doing withing food or fuel for a few days. For those who must drive their cars to work has no choice but to feed their car with fuel.

Your story about the ladies has absolutely no bearing on our discussion; it's neither here nor there, although I enjoyed your introduction of the "pub" as the scene for your non-story.

Most stories are based on the good and bad; happy or sad - and almost everything in between.

There are as many "writing styles" as there are humans able to write. The language we use may constrain some of the meanings by cultural conditioning, but we can usually understand the jest of what is being said.

You are an exception to that general rule.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

There are as many "writing styles" as there are humans able to write. The language we use may constrain some of the meanings by cultural conditioning, but we can usually understand the jest of what is being said.

Why is it that I can't help the feeling that I understand almost all of what Spendi says?

I cannot imagine it is because of his writing impairment, so it has to be related to my own cultural conditioning.

But then, I'm really perplexed, I don't go to pubs! Shocked

0 Replies

Francis, There's a very simple explanation; if none of us understood spendi, we wouldn't be able to respond to what he's trying to communicate. It's just that he leaves out any foundation to his beliefs and opinions that are outside the sphere of reality.

0 Replies

There you go again c.i.

If you can't see it then it proves it isn't there to see eh? That's the dumbing down tool par exellance.

The foundations of my knowledge, I don't do beliefs and opinions, rest on my observations of reality and they can be detected in nearly every post I write.

But I do know that asserting that I'm outside the sphere of reality implies that you are in it by way of the logic of the invidious inverse assertion.

Had you practiced your table-tennis strokes as much as you've practiced those you would surely be on the podium.

It looks as if a Frenchman is better at English than an American.

It isn't scientific to say that if Mr Jindal allows the bill to pass it will be "bad" for the kids or American science. It is highly probable that Mr Jindal knows better than you what is best for Louisiana.

I should certainly hope so.

0 Replies

spendi wrote (and it's his personal opinion):
It isn't scientific to say that if Mr Jindal allows the bill to pass it will be "bad" for the kids or American science. It is highly probable that Mr Jindal knows better than you what is best for Louisiana.

Your inability to see your own ignorance is overwhelming to the point of exhaustion.

0 Replies

Quote:

Philadelphia Set to Honor Darwin and Evolution

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
Philadelphia Set to Honor Darwin and Evolution

That would be a fun talk. I wish I could be there to hear it. I wonder if it's being recorded for YouTube or anything?

0 Replies

Quote:

Mr. Ham, who also leads Answers in Genesis, a nonprofit group promoting a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story, defined the clash of ideas as "Christianity versus the relative morality of secular humanism" and said they were "two fundamentally different worldviews.

I don't believe this is correct when "Christianity" is viewed in a broad sense. I think Mr. Ham is correct only if he treats Christianity as synonymous with Creationist Christianity.

Quote:

He rejected the possibility that Christians could believe in evolution. "If you take Genesis as literal history, then of course the two are exclusive," he said. "Christians who believe in evolution are being inconsistent."

Mr. Ham is attempting to brand all Christians as Creationists. As far as I know, "Christians" are not required to take Genesis as literal history.

Quote:

"We will try to find ways of persuading people that it's not in conflict with their faith," Dr. Brown said.

I think it's important for everyone to understand the difference between a Christian and a Creationist.

The difference between Christians and Creationists is that Christians aren't necessarily delusional.

0 Replies

True; there are many scientists who are christians.

0 Replies

Farik Zakaradi wrote in the Sunday Times-

Quote:

"When we meet American officials they talk and we listen--we rarely disagree or speak frankly because they simply can't take it in. They simply (sic) repeat the American position, like the tourist who thinks he needs to speak louder and slower and then we will understand," a senior foreign policy adviser in a European government told me. To foreigners, US officials seem clueless about the world they are supposed to be running.

"There are two sets of conversations, one with Americans in the room and one without," says Kishore Mahbubani, formerly Singapore's UN ambassador.

A view expressed by Mr Churchill and Mr Eden only more forcefully and significantly so by the latter.

Viewers might remember that the "we talk and they listen" method of discussion was recommended by fm on this very thread but a few days ago.

And, as if proof were needed, up steps c.i. to write-

Quote:

Your inability to see your own ignorance is overwhelming to the point of exhaustion.

Which is, of course, quite without meaning and, when spoken, a mere noise emanating from the vocal chords.

All we need now is for ros to remind us for the umpteenth time that only fools think the earth is flat implying, obviously, that he is not a fool because he knows it's round. Having been told of course.

And for toppers off over to c.i. again-

Quote:

there are many scientists who are christians.

for which piece of information we are all grateful and all the moreso for him having given his time and effort to go on an international Science forum to pass it on to us all.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know