Doktor S wrote:I don't have a faith.
I do not think everybody is god, or anyone for that matter.
However, certain empowered individuals might, through focused introspection, become their own.
I'm guessing you never did well with archery.
Are you not 'anyone'? I thought you were.
Are you saying I am wrong?
And as I asked previously (but you dodged so well. Kudos!) :
Is it wrong to you only, or do you think that everyone should recognize that it's wrong?
Right and wrong, in terms of ethics and beliefs, are subjective concepts. They exist only insofar as we manufacture them for ourselves.
What you are doing, blatantly lying and creating strawmen in some futile attempt to win readership isn't 'wrong', nor do I think 'everyone' or anyone should think so. I do think however the discerning reader should sort the wheat from the chafe for himself.
How can you accuse anyone of lying? Isn't that a moral judgement? If one were to lie, why would that be considered wrong, if there is no right and wrong?
Saying that someone lies is not making a moral judgment, it is just making an observation, and an observation pertinent to whether or not any credence should be given to what the individual in question has to say.
Setanta once again displays his pedantic, anti-poetic strain.
A word means what the vast majority take it to mean and that includes the tones of sensibility it has picked up over its lifetime. There is no doubt that the word "lying" has a pejoritive meaning included with the technical side of what Mr Armstrong called "being uneconomical with the truth". Truth is a word which carries, in most circumstances, an approval rating.
Thus I think "lying" carries a distinct moral tone and judgement to anyone who has even glimpsed into the scientific aspects of language which is an area of study scientists, and their lickspittals and lackeys, ought to have some knowledge of in view of the fact that they use language in their publications.
I suppose that at some point scientists will produce a language which is stripped of poetic tone, as they almost have in mathematics and they are straining to do in the social sciences, and then only scientists will know what they are talking about, as with Latin in a previous era, and, as science must have pre-eminence in education, they will become an elite which cannot be questioned and the rest of us will have to be content to gawp and work the treadmills.
It might even be that it is the beautiful poetry of the Bible which annoys them so much because they cannot understand that beauty and can only appraise it pedantically applying a similar approach Setanta bring to the word "lying".
The word is in Roget under "falsehood" and these are a few of its closest companions in the text: "deceitfullness", "perjury", "bad faith", "treachery","faking" and "forgery".
There is a strong judgemental tone in all of these. To think there is no such thing is a route to granting oneself permission to employ the procedures they represent which will presumably be conveyed to students in classrooms who absorb such ideas.
Saying that someone is lying may entail a moral judgment, but it does not axiomatically mean that. Typically, Spurious needs several paragraphs to make a disingenuous statement, largely for the purpose of injecting himself into a conversation toward which he has nothing to contribute.
Dok takes the point of view, which he has expressed many, many times, including quite recently in this thread, that "right" and "wrong" are subjective judgments. I have no reason to think that i've done any violence to his understanding of "to lie" in expressing myself as i have.
Already you have switched from the fleshinness on the word "lying" to the more abstract concept of "to lie" as if we are now studying English rather than whether someone was lying.
I never said you had done any violence to anything. I was merely taking the opportunity to expose a little more of the inner workings of the anti-ID mindset so that people might see what the future will look like if it goes on unhindered.
The readers will choose properly between the camps of Religion and Science when they can see into the fog a little better. The temptations of science are irresistable but temptation is a sign of danger as with chocolate and alcohol and many other things.
A little of what you fancy does you good.
And Religion concedes science a great deal of what it fancies but it will not concede it materialism in the shape of Evolution theory. It has to die for science to be conceded that as it has died in the minds of individual scientists and their hangers-on.
I think those pushing on Evolution are the awkward squad.
Could you interpret "hangers-on" pedantically or would you sooner examine "to hang-on"?
I wrote,
Quote:
What you are doing, blatantly lying and creating strawmen in some futile attempt to win readership isn't 'wrong',
To which 'real life' replied:
Quote:
If one were to lie, why would that be considered wrong, if there is no right and wrong?
Which leads me to assume he just isn't paying attention. Read slower next time, 'real life'
Setanta wrote:Saying that someone lies is not making a moral judgment, it is just making an observation, and an observation pertinent to whether or not any credence should be given to what the individual in question has to say.
Hammer, meet nail.
That's exactly the position I take here.
Setanta wrote:Saying that someone lies is not making a moral judgment, it is just making an observation, and an observation pertinent to whether or not any credence should be given to what the individual in question has to say.
Not exactly an observation. More likely an opinion. Unless, of course, there is documented proof of said lie. A difference of opinion does not a prevaricator make.
Dok asserted that "real life" had lied about the nature of Dok's beliefs. In any dispute which Intrepid is please to call "a difference of opinion" about what someone believes, i personally will consider the word of the person in question to represent the final statement of authority.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Mindonfire wrote:Setanta wrote:The Bible as Science . . .
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
. . . ah me . . . thanks, that made my day . . .
Keep laughing. He who laughs last laughs best. LOL
He who laughs last is because he didn't understand the joke.
hmm..... would it not be "biblical" to say that "he who laughs last laughs first?"
Interesting article.
Quote:
Jonathan Leake and Tom Baird
THE remains of a fossilised stone age pygmy, hailed as a new species of human when it was found two years ago, probably belonged to a disabled but otherwise normal caveman, researchers have claimed.
The discovery of the 18,000-year-old "homo floresiensis" on the Indonesian island of Flores was thought to be a major development in tracing human evolution when it was announced in 2004.
However, a new analysis of the 3ft skeleton, nicknamed the "hobbit", along with other remains found at the site, has indicated they probably belonged to an early human suffering from microcephaly, a condition that causes an abnormally small head and other deformities.
"The skeletal remains do not represent a new species, but some of the ancestors of modern human pygmies who live on the island today," concludes a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, one of America's most respected scientific institutions. "The individual exhibits a combination of characteristics that are not primitive but instead regional and not unique but found in other modern human populations."
The controversy began in October 2004 when Nature, a leading British science journal, published what appeared to be a groundbreaking paper about a new species of human.
The original team, co-directed by Michael Morwood from the University of New England in Australia and Professor Radien Soejono of the Indonesian Research Centre for Archeology, made the discovery in the Liang Bua cave.
The creature was found with fossils of animals including a snake, frog, monkey, deer and pig. "Here we have a creature that is substantially different from modern humans, a totally new species of our genus, that lived almost into historical times. This has a number of startling implications," said Henry Gee, Nature's senior editor for biological science, at the time.
Nature has confirmed that it subjected the manuscript to the normal scientific review process in which it was scrutinised by outside experts who approved its contents.
The new study suggests, however, that the initial evaluation of the remains was flawed.
Robert Eckhardt, professor of developmental genetics and evolutionary morphology at Pennsylvania State University, who was part of the new team, criticises the original study for comparing the skeleton with those of homo sapiens primarily from Europe.
A more accurate understanding of the "hobbit", he says, emerges when comparing the bones against humans from the same region.
Some researchers had already expressed doubts over the original findings. Earlier this year Robert Martin, a primatologist at the Field museum in Chicago, said: "If you plot a graph of all of the data we have on brain sizes of hominids against time, [floresiensis] is the only one that falls right off the curve. It's an anomaly."
from
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2087-2320787%2C00.html
The question is, will this get the same type of 'front page' media coverage in magazines, newspapers and TV etc that the original story did , hailing it as 'a major discovery' and 'a significant confirmation of evolution' ?
Of course not.
And why not?
The scientific community, which was all too eager to run in front of the camera initially
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6346939/
http://media.uow.edu.au/news/2004/hobbit/
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/news/archive.asp?archive=101305
will not demand the same kind of coverage in reversing course.
If the goal was that the truth be disseminated to the public, why will this be
the case?
You're indulging one of those "have you stopped beating your wife?" type of rhetorical exercises. One has to agree with your silly premises in order to answer your question.
In the first place, three links does not the scientific community make. In the second place, editors determine what stories get printed or broadcast, not the scientific community--any allegations about "hobbits" would be "sexy" in terms of drawing an audience. The announcement of what is so normal to science--the revision of a thesis upon further investigation--is dull, dull, dull.
Scientists don't decide which stories get printed or broadcast. Once again, "real life," you're making **** up.
Imagine, it was probably a bunch of scientists who spent time studying the Hobbit and made the corrections. Self policing is what science mostly does best. Now its the guys at NYT like that a**hole Nick Wade who will have to retract their stories. If rl had read the Nature article about the Hobbit, hed have seen that the announcements were "preliminary" and needed much confirmation since (and the article even said this) that there could be other explanations. I was skeptical even when it was reported because it was only a single issue of a small head. (SOmetimes , in a fossil find they mix up bones from many individuals. Im glad we can understand that the basic reearch game is not a simple task as clipping URLs . It took almost 35 years for the Piltdown man was shown to be a fake and that was basewd upon advances in chemistry and flourine dating.
You just have to read past the headlines in newspapers RL or even try to go to a University Library where nature or Science is on the stacks. We know your system of belief doesnt allow for research because, for you, its all been written down precisely well before science started muddling about.
Nobody ever said that scientists dont make mistakes. The real work goes into correcting them in front of the world. Its like giving a speech with your fly open. As a scientist your expected to "know everything" but if you screw up , you know theres a price to pay for jumping the gun too quickly.
Thats why Ted Daeschler hasnt been publishing more stuff about Tiktaalik until they are really finished with everything, He knows how the press can make you look like a complete dork if it doesnt understand the detail involved in arreiving at conclusions.
Indeed, I rarely trust any news reports about scientific discoveries, because I know the media will hype it up. Whenever I debate, I tend to not go for the media articles and find the actual research articles. My search usually leads me to a page that states I must pay a ludicrous $30 for access of one article.
If you don't think it's ludicrous, consider that the majority of research articles I come across are no more than 10 A4 pages long.
They can stuff it at 30 quid Wolf. Good enough for 'em.
Probably the toilet paper of an elephant anyway still to be peer reviewed.
spendius wrote:They can stuff it at 30 quid Wolf. Good enough for 'em.
Probably the toilet paper of an elephant anyway still to be peer reviewed.
That fact that it's in the journals means its already been peer reviewed, Spendius. Then again, considering that these journals don't have much in the way of advertising, I guess they have to get their money from somewhere...
No really Wolf. I was only joking before.
It's by way of an entrance fee. If you pay enough you get to learn the language with the "oxy"s and the "phthal"s and the whole pile of wizardry and you get your foot in the door. It's the latest research you see and for £30 you know it first in your circle and using it and impressing people with it rewards you like Pavlov rewarded his dogs to get them to do simple mechanical routines.
spendius wrote:No really Wolf. I was only joking before.
It's by way of an entrance fee. If you pay enough you get to learn the language with the "oxy"s and the "phthal"s and the whole pile of wizardry and you get your foot in the door. It's the latest research you see and for £30 you know it first in your circle and using it and impressing people with it rewards you like Pavlov rewarded his dogs to get them to do simple mechanical routines.
Firstly, I said $30, which is nowhere near £30. Secondly, stop talking complete rubbish. Thirdly, assertion without proof.
