| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:18 am 
tahruh: you will not agree with this but it does a better job of summing up my views than I can express myself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD0bJ1g7REQ |
|
|
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 | Posts: 258 |
|
|
  |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:07 am
i am teaching an AIG study for my sunday school class this summer. it's called Demolishing Strongholds. It's good stuff. I have had AIG in my signature here for a long time. I don't agree with all their stuff, but I like their mission _________________ Wil's excellent description of me. wilsmith wrote: You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing... Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube |
|
|
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:20 am
tungsten wrote: And I suppose we should define evolution before we go further?
when you promote evolution, do you mean the changes in genetic variation within species over time or do you mean the rise of new species from existing ones? Evolution can be both. There is Macro Evolution, Micro Evolution, Uni-linear Evolution and Multi-linear evolution. It's all part and parcel the same thing on different scales. Technically the human embryo goes through stages of evolution as it grows in the womb, from an organism with few cells, to primitive amphibian organism to small primate. The theoretical concept is scientifically redundant, since all it is is change and progress applied to biological development. One of the downfalls of positivism is the proliferation of common concepts with a label slapped on it to create a false paradigm intended to supplant philosophical exploration of the meaning of life, which it in no way addresses whatsoever. A Theory was a ticket to a career in academia, but ultimately it's the marketing of a label, and the novelty of the ideas is all in the packaging and all. Very much smoke and mirrors and bad rhetoric. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB           
 = personal fave  = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:44 am
tungsten wrote: tahruh: you will not agree with this but it does a better job of summing up my views than I can express myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD0bJ1g7REQ _________________ Albert Camus wrote: Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth. |
|
|
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:04 am
What an interesting discussion! Somehow it shifted from Texas politics to abortion to evolution. Here's my two-cents on some of the issues that have been raised. ABORTION: It's evident to me that the central issue in the abortion debate is not "a woman's right to choose." A woman does have control over her own body, but she does not have control over the bodies of other people. IF a fetus is human, then its mother has no right to terminate it, even if it is dependent on her. After all, mothers don't have the right to kill their newborn children, who are dependent on them (at what point did dependency become the basis for determining whether or not someone has the right to live?). If you believe that a fetus is NOT HUMAN, then you encounter two issues: First, you have to ignore all the evidence that indicates a fetus is nothing less than a living, human being. Some pro-choice advocates claim that a fetus is not human, that it's just a piece of tissue. If that were the case, though, then the fetus's genetic code would match the mother's (like a tumor or cyst). Every fetus, however, possesses its own unique genetic code. This code also happens to be a HUMAN genetic code, so what else could be growing inside the woman's womb besides a human? A zebra? A banana? Pro-choice advocates also like to claim that a fetus is not living, but this is disproved by the fact that the fetus is growing, developing features, and taking in nourishment. By six weeks, we can detect the fetus's brainwaves. Legally, the absence of brainwaves is considered proof of death in adults. Why, then, does the law not recognize the presence of brainwaves in a fetus as a sign of life? The second problem you encounter if you believe a fetus is not human is the difficulty of explaining when a living, growing organism with its own unique genetic human code becomes a human being. Right before birth? After birth? When we reject the idea that life begins at conception, there is no reliable or objective standard for determining when somebody is a human being. Our definition of "human rights," therefore, will be based on power and privilege. Those with the power can determine who counts as human and who does not. See Nazi Germany. EVOLUTION: I'm baffled by the notion that people think evolution is a scientific fact. My understanding was that scientific facts are formed from the observation and analysis of observable, repeatable, quantifiable phenomena. Nobody has ever observed a (macro) evolutionary event. As the video that "Tungsten" posted shows, scientists have never seen a species acquire new genetic material or living organisms generated from non-living organisms, two events that are essential aspects of evolution. If scientists have never observed these events, then how can we claim that evolution is a "fact"? Apparently for some of you, a "fact" is determined by the number of prestigious people who agree with you. In my book, though, a fact is a statement that corresponds to reality. Even if the THEORY of evolution is true, however, it does not eliminate the possibility of intelligent design. Tungsten made a good point about Richard Dawkins, who is probably the most prominent proponent of evolutionary theory in the world. Yet, Dawkins finds the origin of life so difficult to account for that he suggests it could have been created by intelligent beings from another planet. What is that, if not intelligent design? However, Dawkins' version of intelligent design opens up the problem of infinite regress - if life on planet earth is so complex that aliens had to create it, where did the life on the alien planet come from? Were the aliens made by other aliens? See Prometheus.
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Jul 2013 | Posts: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:10 am
Welcome to the Laughing City, or welcome back if that's a new username for one of the old lost accounts. Your skepticism is welcome & greatly appreciated. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB
= personal fave = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:16 am
Painaporo wrote: I would say the question is not whether or not the fetus in a woman's body is a separate individual, the question is whether or not the government should have any control over what's going on inside a woman's body. I would argue that what goes on inside of a woman's body is outside of the jurisdiction of government. If we give government the power to control what a woman does with her own body, then how long until the government starts to make other decisions for pregnant women like what foods they can eat, or liquids they can drink, or how and when they travel? Ask yourself, how much control do you want government to have over your body?
For better or worse, it is my opinion that the only person with jurisdiction over a fetus is the woman whose body it resides within. Do I hope that women will make the best decisions for their unborn children? Absolutely I do and I think government should give pregnant women every opportunity to make choices other than abortion, but at the end of the day it's still a woman's choice. The government controls what happens in people's bodies every day. If you steal food, it's still a crime if you eat the food. You're not granted immunity because it's now in your body. If you store heroin or cocaine in your rectum or vagina, the police are free to arrest you (and even seize it right out of there.) It's still against the law to smuggle illegal drugs even if it's happening within your body. The idea that a person should be granted immunity (assistance even) just because something is in their uterus is not a good argument. Why is the uterus the only part of the human body that should be free from all laws? Why should it be OK to terminate a unique human life just because it's inside of another body? And when has the "slippery slope" argument worked for conservatives lately? Does "What's next? People marrying their cats?" ring a bell? _________________ Scriptozoology, a screenwriting blog .. Facebook |
|
|
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
|
|
 |
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:21 am
Alright, so let's say that evolution is not a theory on the origin of life, merely a theory on the origin of the species. I still don't believe it is an accurate theory for describing the origin of the species (for reasons said in the video). And as far as mutations as an explanation of added genetic material, I recall (from college classes like Genetics and Microbiology) that mutations usually involve the corruption or loss of genetic material, not the addition of the amount of new genetic material necessary for a new species. Down syndrome is an example of a common mutation. Now, if you want to go out on a limb and say down syndrome people are a new species (Aha! Observable evolution!), be my guest. So, the belief I hold to, not only provides me with a reasonable (to me) answer for the origin of life but also the origin of the species. What is your theory for the origin of life then? (you've already specified that it's NOT EVOLUTION, cause that's NOT a theory for the origin of life). |
|
|
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 | Posts: 258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:28 am
I wonder how long this thread would go on if Crusso or Sebas, or both, suddenly reappeared to stir the coals? _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB
= personal fave = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:44 am
wilsmith wrote: Welcome to the Laughing City, or welcome back if that's a new username for one of the old lost accounts. Your skepticism is welcome & greatly appreciated. i was gonna say the same thing, hahaha _________________ Oneironaut http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand |
|
|
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:50 am
it would be a lot more volatile that's for sure. whenever i engage in a discussion with someone in regards to evolution vs creation, i try my best to not convince them one way or the other (as that gets you no where). what I tend to do is atleast try and get them to understand that believing in evolution takes just as much faith as believing in creation. and that evolution is a faith based system. they are not too keen on that either. usually. given all the "facts" they have that "prove" it. i think part of that comes from ignorance (i dont mean they are stupid) of some facts about evolution. things they think are true because they have been spoon fed it their whole lives. what's interesting is that sometimes i can use speak they would use to try and turn the tables. as an example. I have said that people that believe in evolution just do that because it's what they were taught their whole live. that just some guy is writing this stuff and they are just following it because they dont know better. most of they time come back and say that that is how they feel about christians. in this case, though not normally, this works in my favor. because I can say that this again proves evolution is faith based. _________________ Wil's excellent description of me. wilsmith wrote: You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing... Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube |
|
|
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:29 pm
mr pine wrote: it would be a lot more volatile that's for sure.
whenever i engage in a discussion with someone in regards to evolution vs creation, i try my best to not convince them one way or the other (as that gets you no where). what I tend to do is atleast try and get them to understand that believing in evolution takes just as much faith as believing in creation. and that evolution is a faith based system. they are not too keen on that either. usually. given all the "facts" they have that "prove" it. i think part of that comes from ignorance (i dont mean they are stupid) of some facts about evolution. things they think are true because they have been spoon fed it their whole lives. what's interesting is that sometimes i can use speak they would use to try and turn the tables. as an example. I have said that people that believe in evolution just do that because it's what they were taught their whole live. that just some guy is writing this stuff and they are just following it because they dont know better. most of they time come back and say that that is how they feel about christians. in this case, though not normally, this works in my favor. because I can say that this again proves evolution is faith based. i mean, this kind of goes into theory of knowledge. basically, truth is how we perceive it to be. how many things do we actually know for a fact? how to sw know it's true? most of us have never really researched things first hand. we trust that people aren't lying to us. _________________ Oneironaut http://www.facebook.com/ChengBand |
|
|
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 | Posts: 1156 | Location: Nashville
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:45 pm
This Theory of Knowledge sounds like Existentialism to me. Even that sounds like Philosophy 101, unattainable Platonic Ideals, the Allegorical Cave, Aristotle's dialectic form of argument/ truth being negotiated. Of course no one is aching to earn the title of sophist in this day and age. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB
= personal fave = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:20 pm
As an atheist, an abortion-rights activist, and in general a far leftist as well as an Eisley superfan, I do my best not to worry about or judge them on those differences. Plenty of artists hold political views or ideas that I disagree with and if I insisted on only listening to music by or reading books by artists with whom I agree on every single political issue I would find my life almost entirely devoid of beauty. As much as I wish all women -- all people really, but especially all women -- were pro choice and respected a woman's right to make medical decisions about her body, I think it is just as patriarchal and myopic to presume say that women should have certain views simply because they are women. Respecting people's choices means respecting their right to choose things that may in fact be harmful and restrictive to them. |
|
|
Joined: 23 Feb 2011 | Posts: 160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:40 am
MacRVA wrote: Respecting people's choices means respecting their right to choose things that may in fact be harmful and restrictive to them. Never a truer word has been spoken. And it's how I feel as well. That pretty much sums it up here folks. _________________ Wil's excellent description of me. wilsmith wrote: You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing... Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube |
|
|
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|
