The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Valmont wrote: »

If I may become slightly pedantic, no sentient being has free will in this world. We have the illusion of free will. Looking at any behaviour, movement, decision, etc, it can be inferred that there is a cause whether we look at our neurons firing or our overt interaction with the environment. Technically speaking, free will, in it's purest form, presupposes that we are outside the realm of causality, which we aren't because everything is caused by something.

I would, however, agree that the differences between humans and other species aren't as prevalent as one may be inclined to believe.

How refreshing to see a materialist follow the logic of their argument.

You will find most here duck and weave to avoid materialism's logical conclusions. They hold their morality as if it were an absolute, outside the realm of causality; almost like the Christians do.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

2 + 2 = 5

Now don't be introducing evolution into it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Our wickedness comes from our spiritual nature, not from our physical makeup.

Then how come the amount of harm or malice someone desires to do can be controlled physically.

For example stroke victims who suffer brain damage can become violent, quick to temper and aggressive, even to close family members. Equally mood altering drugs can stop people with violence tendencies from losing control and attacking people.

How come links have been shown between people with parents prone to violence and them themselves being violent, even if they were not raised by those parents. A whole host of mental illness has been linked to genes.

All evidence indicates that our emotional desire to be good or bad, to help or to harm, to love or to hate, come from the physical properties of the brain, how it has developed and how it is functioning at that moment.

There is no evidence that our "spiritual" nature even exists, let alone is responsible for our emotions.

And even if our spiritual nature exists it clear comes a distant second to our physical nature.

Again this is God of the gaps nonsense. You are just making stuff up to suit a particular theological out look on life, with nothing to back any of it up.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Our nature comes from Adam. His was perfect but free to choose to sin and did so. Then it became corrupt like ours.

How?

Firstly detail how Adam changed his own spiritual make up (what ever that is), then how we inherit spiritual make up from one another, then how spiritual make up can effect the brain and emotions.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the evolution model covers both animal and human morality. So does the creation model.

You don't have a model. You have an unsupported assertion. "God did it, but we don't know what he did or how he did it" is not a "model"

wolfsbane wrote: »

Animals have a spirit too, they are not just flesh and blood. God gives them appropriate instincts and responses, and they too degenerated in the Fall.

Back up there a minute.

We get our wickedness from Adam because we inherit it from him correct?

Now leaving aside the fact that no one has ever explained how Adam actually had the ability to alter his spiritual make up, nor how one inherits a spiritual make up from their parents, where the heck did the animals get their wicked nature from?

Did they inherit it from Adam also? Was Adam producing off spring with sheep and wolves and bears?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Our morality comes from our spirit, not our body.

All evidence suggests otherwise, but keep saying that over and over and some people may believe you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Fall degraded our DNA, but did not scramble it - so no need for re-design.

First of all "The Fall" was either an action by Adam to eat a piece of fruit, or an action by God to punish Adam for eating a piece of fruit. The Fall itself isn't a thing, it isn't an agent, is a name of an event involving 2 entities.

"The Fall" didn't do anything, any more than the "World Cup" creates jobs, or "China" persecutes Christians. It is the people in those events that actually do things.

So which agent (God or Adam) "degraded" human DNA. If it was Adam please explain how Adam, a human, was able to resequence his own DNA. If it was God please explain why God decided it was a good idea to mess with his creation and make us wicked?

And you will notice I asked for the process that managed to resequence our DNA without simply scrambling it? How did what ever was doing the resequencing know how the order to rearrange our DNA so that Adam's first born son wasn't a mass of bloody foetal tissue.

You say it was "degraded". What do you mean? DNA is sequences of molecules. You either have a sequence or you don't. You can't have a slighly blurry unclear sequence, like a degraded photograph. If you start simply rubbing out bits of DNA you end up with a dead cell.

So the DNA sequence must have been rearranged. By who, and how did they make sure that the rearrangement of the DNA still produced something that was human?

wolfsbane wrote: »

As above - the animal world was degraded by the Fall.

How?

Are you saying that not only was human DNA resequenced, and Adam's spirit altered, but this mystery entity also resequenced all DNA of all life on Earth and also re-jiggered the make up of their spirits as well?

Why? And how?

And where is the evidence for this? Where are the models of how this works?

Valmont

wolfsbane wrote: »

How refreshing to see a materialist follow the logic of their argument.

You will find most here duck and weave to avoid materialism's logical conclusions. They hold their morality as if it were an absolute, outside the realm of causality; almost like the Christians do.

Argh, it's impossible to post in these forums without being labelled an -ist of some description!:P

AtomicHorror

Valmont wrote: »

If I may become slightly pedantic, no sentient being has free will in this world. We have the illusion of free will. Looking at any behaviour, movement, decision, etc, it can be inferred that there is a cause whether we look at our neurons firing or our overt interaction with the environment. Technically speaking, free will, in it's purest form, presupposes that we are outside the realm of causality, which we aren't because everything is caused by something.

This may well be true, but I wouldn't say free will can be as neatly dismissed as all that. We appear to have free will, we haven't really determined whether decision making is actually something we can model any better than say, quantum level phenomena, so it's rather a moot point. Even when we try to model the behaviour of individual cells in our bodies, we must invariably rely on probabilistic modelling. Human and animal decision making is orders of magnitude more complex, and deterministic modelling may never be possible. Ask physicists about this and they'll often tell you that the universe is actually non-deterministic. That the best we'll be able to do is this sort of stochastic modelling- as is done in quantum theory.

I suppose it's a bit like questioning whether the universe exists outside of ones own mind. It sure looks like it, so unless we have evidence to the contrary we might as well act like it.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

How refreshing to see a materialist follow the logic of their argument.

You will find most here duck and weave to avoid materialism's logical conclusions. They hold their morality as if it were an absolute, outside the realm of causality; almost like the Christians do.

Actually what we materialists will say is "we don't know". You don't know either, you just haven't accepted that.

J C

espinolman wrote: »

1. Yes
2, No
3. I believe man was created elsewhere in the universe as a slave to fight wars for an extraterrestrial civilisation and when they were finished with man they dumped him on this planet .
4.Man was created as a slave to fight wars , and basically he is still fighting on earth and not realizing it is no longer necessary , he still creates the weapons he used long ago on other planets and does'nt recognize it's no longer necessary , because that was long ago and we are in a different situation here.

(i did not fully understand question 4)

....like I have told you all before, ID Proponents come in all 'shapes and sizes' ... including 'the-Aliens-Created-us-and-Dumped-us-here' ID Proponents!!:):D:eek:

....and they have many Evolutionists within their ranks - even Prof Dawkins has indicated that he is open to the idea of a bit of 'Alien Seeding' .... provided it wasn't God who did the 'Seeding'!!!!:eek:

....the FACT is that we WERE Created by an Extraterrestrial (and Extradimensional God) approximately 6,000 years ago ... He loves us and wants to Save us ... from ourselves!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Flamed Diving
2 + 2 = 5

wolfsbane
Now don't be introducing evolution into it.

...Evolutionists are NOT good at maths, Wolfsbane.....

....and that is why they believe that the spontaneous production of the sequence for a specific simple protein is a 'dead cert'....even though the odds against it's production are 10^130 to one ... and there are only 10^82 electrons in the supposed 'Big Bang Universe'!!!!!

...and all of their other equally fantastic claims are equally 'mathematically challenged'!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Flamed Diving

J C wrote: »

...Evolutionists are NOT good at maths, Wolfsbane.....

....and that is why they believe that the spontaneous production of the sequence for a specific simple protein is a 'dead cert'....even though the odds against it's production are 10^130 to one ... and there are only 10^82 electrons in the supposed 'Big Bang Universe'!!!!!

...and all of their other equally fantastic claims are equally 'mathematically challenged'!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Poor JC, just got the pwning of a lifetime from Robin.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

....the FACT is that we WERE Created by an Extraterrestrial (and Extradimensional God) approximately 6,000 years ago ... He loves us and wants to Save us ... from ourselves!!!:D

You mean Dr Who CREATED US?!??!?!?!? I DONT KNOW WHY I DIDNT REALISE THIS BEFORE, IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE!!!!!!:eek::D:eek:

See how excessive amounts of excalamation marks and random smilies add gravitas to my post.:P

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Scientists who are creationists disagree with you on this.

I'm sure they do - but they don't have any evidence to support their argument. I like how you said 'scientists who are creationists'

wolfsbane wrote: »

Check the sites I gave and try to keep an open mind. But I'll highlight a few for you from time to time.

I have checked every link you posted. I keep looking with an open mind. Please continue to highlight the best of what you can find.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....and they have many Evolutionists within their ranks - even Prof Dawkins has indicated that he is open to the idea of a bit of 'Alien Seeding' !!!!:eek:

What, because he doesn't claim things are "impossible" with no backup?

J C wrote: »

....the FACT is that we WERE Created by an Extraterrestrial (and Extradimensional God) approximately 6,000 years ago ... He loves us and wants to Save us ... from ourselves!!!:D

How, specifically, did He do it?

J C wrote: »

...Evolutionists are NOT good at maths, Wolfsbane.....

....and that is why they believe that the spontaneous production of the sequence for a specific simple protein is a 'dead cert'....even though the odds against it's production are 10^130 to one ... and there are only 10^82 electrons in the supposed 'Big Bang Universe'!!!!!

...and all of their other equally fantastic claims are equally 'mathematically challenged'!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Oh, this is rich. You don't understand probability J C- that much is painfully obvious. I notice that back in the day you used to assert that evolution was impossible based on the probability of the human genome coming into existence spontaneously. A meaningless assertion since nobody has ever claimed it did so. And now you use some "specific simple protein" as if that has anything to do with evolution or abiogenesis.

I'll try to explain it in simple terms:

1. The probability of any specified sequence coming into existence incrementally is always higher than the probability of it coming into existence in a single step. So if we assume that specified sequences are relevant to abiogenesis or evolution, your calculations are immediately incorrect. Your probabilities are automatically an over-estimation.

2. Abiogenesis and evolution are non-teleological. Function follows form. Therefore, considering the probability of existence of specified sequences is nonsensical. Instead you have to look at non-specified sequences of a given length or complexity. Again, you've failed to do this.

Please address posts #14769, #14748 and #14707. These are my 15 questions (which you need to comment on again due to my responses), your own 21 questions (which I've answered) and Robin's question about Ben Stein.

Please stop avoiding these, it looks very bad for you.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Thanks.

Given that you believe that Stein was being thoroughly honest, how do feel about a quote from Descent of Man:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stein
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated (deleted text). We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick (deleted text). Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. (deleted text) Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Quote:
What Darwin Actually Wrote
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.
It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.


It's quite clear from what Darwin wrote, that he differentiated between animals and humans -- in fact, Darwin said that sympathy was "the noblest part of our nature". Rather than reflect this, Stein chose to delete words until the bits he had left made it look like Darwin viewed humans as animals.

Do you feel that Stein's actions are honorable and honest in choosing to reverse Darwin's opinions?

....I don't think that Stein did ACTUALLY reverse the ultimate logic of Darwininsm at all.
It is well known and accepted that Darwin was horrified at the practical implications, IF his Theory was true.

Although Darwin did conclude that intentionally neglecting "the weak and helpless" would be evil....the clear import of the above statement indicates that he believed that these creatures should not be allowed to reproduce ... and he is silent on whether "the weak and helpless" could be euthaneased ... always presuming that it would be motivated by 'sympathy' ... a virtue that Darwin calls "the noblest part of our nature".

Fully RESPECTING all Human Beings is ACTUALLY the ONLY antidote to the Hitler's of this World!!!!!

Most people (including Hitler ... who was an 'animal lover') would consider the intentional neglect of "a weak and helpless" animal to be evil (and illegal) ... but many would also accept that it's sterilisation ... or indeed it's euthanasation would be a perfectly moral option.

Let's analyse the following (full) quote from Darwin above:-
"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Here we have a statement which can easily be used to justify Eugenics.
The first half of the statement creates the (unfounded) 'scare' that degeneracy will rapidly set in if breeding is uncontrolled.
The clear import of the second half of the statement is that although hardly anybody would be so 'ignorant' as to allow their 'worst animals' to breed, they do remain 'ignorant' enough to allow the 'the worst' men (however defined) to breed!!!
....the statement in relation to animals is a fallacy ... very often the 'worst' animals do breed (despite the farmers best efforts) ... and sometimes the progeny have excellent other traits that may be of economic significance!!!!

...and the statement in relation to Man is an outrage!!!!

....the likelihood of most deleterious traits being passed on to the next generation is quite low, once there is sufficient genetic diversity still present in the population and the mating pair DON'T have the SAME genetic disorder!!!!

...actually the REALLY 'ignorant people' are those who have sterilised and euthanased people they considered to be 'unfit' using the completely unfounded 'scare' (alluded to by Darwin in the above quote) that degeneracy will rapidly set in if certain people aren't genetically ... or in some cases physically 'eliminated'!!!:(:(

....you have 'shot yourself in the foot' on this one, Robin!!!!:D:eek:

MatthewVII

J C wrote: »

....the likelihood of most deleterious traits being passed on to the next generation is quite low, once there is sufficient genetic diversity still present in the population and the mating pair DON'T have the SAME genetic disorder!!!!

And in one go, you reject autosomal dominant, x-linked and trinucleotide repeat mutations.

Oh dear.

......You really need..... to 'get back to basics' J C!!!:D:pac::eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Let's analyse the following (full) quote from Darwin above:-
"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Here we have a statement which can easily be used to justify Eugenics.

Except it doesn't justify eugenics as Darwin himself goes on to explain the very next sentence :rolleyes:

What you are doing is what many Christians give out about people doing with Jesus' quote about bringing a "sword", quoting only select sentences in order to convey a meaning that isn't present in the passages if taken as a whole.

Darwin understood that evolution does not justify eugenics, even back then when eugenics wasn't consider that bad an idea.

The reason you don't get this is that you don't understand evolution in the first place, so perhaps it isn't fair to expect you to understand what Darwin is saying.

J C wrote: »

The first half of the statement creates the (unfounded) 'scare' that degeneracy will rapidly set in if breeding is uncontrolled.

No it doesn't. :rolleyes:

Read it again, slower this time :rolleyes:

J C

MatthewVII wrote: »

And in one go, you reject autosomal dominant, x-linked and trinucleotide repeat mutations.

Oh dear.

......You really need..... to 'get back to basics' J C!!!:D:pac::eek:

...and voila you have a whole NEW set of people to target with Eugenics 'advice'!!!!

....trinucleotide repeat mutations are still not fully understood ... and therefore if I were unforyunate enough to be diagnosed with a PolyQ disease ... I wouldn't run away and have myself sterilised ....just yet!!!!:eek:

...and if some Darwinist with a white coat in one hand and a scalpel in the other where to come knocking on my door I wouldn't bother opening it ... and if he persisted, I would call the Police!!!!:eek:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...and voila you have a whole NEW set of people to target with Eugenics 'advice'!!!!

....the interactions are still not fully understood ... and therefore if I were diagnosed with a PolyQ disease ... I wouldn't run away and have myself sterilised ....just yet!!!!

The only person suggesting it is Ben Stein, and by your acceptance of his hatchet job on Darwin's rejection of the concept, you.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Let's analyse the following (full) quote from Darwin above:-
"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Here we have a statement which can easily be used to justify Eugenics.
The first half of the statement creates the (unfounded) 'scare' that degeneracy will rapidly set in if breeding is uncontrolled.
The clear import of the second half of the statement is that although hardly anybody would be so 'ignorant' as to allow their 'worst animals' to breed, they do remain 'ignorant' enough to allow the 'the worst' men (however defined) to breed!!!


Wicknight
Except it doesn't justify eugenics as Darwin himself goes on to explain the very next sentence :rolleyes:

Although Darwin did conclude in the next sentence that intentionally neglecting "the weak and helpless" would be evil....it is clear that he believed that "the weak and helpless" should not be allowed to reproduce ... and he is silent on whether "the weak and helpless" could be euthaneased ... always presuming that it would be motivated by 'sympathy' ... a virtue that Darwin calls "the noblest part of our nature".

Fully RESPECTING all Human Beings is ACTUALLY the ONLY antidote to the Hitler's of this World!!!!!

Most people (including Hitler ... who was an 'animal lover') would consider the intentional neglect of "a weak and helpless" animal to be evil (and illegal) ... but many would also accept that it's sterilisation ... or indeed it's euthanasation would be a perfectly moral option.

....the statement in relation to animals is a fallacy ... very often the 'worst' animals do breed (despite the farmers best efforts) ... and sometimes the progeny have excellent other traits that may be of economic significance!!!!

...and the statement in relation to Man is an outrage!!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
The first half of the statement creates the (unfounded) 'scare' that degeneracy will rapidly set in if breeding is uncontrolled.

Wicknight
No it doesn't. :rolleyes:

Read it again, slower this time :rolleyes:

Here is the statement:-

"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race;"

"It is surprising how soon" .... means that it is SURPRISINGLY RAPID ....i.e. even more rapid that one would expect ... a SCARE STORY if ever I saw one!!!
"a want of care, or care wrongly directed" .....introduces the concept of 'false' care ... or indeed 'ignorant' counter-productive care!!!
"leads to the degeneration of a domestic race" ... means exactly that!!!

...so I was CORRECT in my conclusion that the first half of the statement creates the (unfounded) 'scare' that degeneracy will rapidly set in if breeding is uncontrolled!!!!
....the breeding bit was confirmed in the second half of the statement (see the full quote above in the 'quote box')

AtomicHorror

I think we're rather getting away from the point. Which is that Stein's version of that statement has a markedly different meaning to the original. That's dishonest any way you cut it. It would still be dishonest if it made Darwin look good.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The only person suggesting it is Ben Stein, and by your acceptance of his hatchet job on Darwin's rejection of the concept, you.

...WHERE EXACTLY DID Darwin reject Eugenics in the (full) statement provided by Robin???

....Darwin's statement is actually a fulsome ENDORSEMENT for controlled animal and Human breeding!!!!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think we're rather getting away from the point. Which is that Stein's version of that statement has a markedly different meaning to the original. That's dishonest any way you cut it. It would still be dishonest if it made Darwin look good.

...Darwin looks EQUALLY 'bad' in BOTH Robin's full quote and Ben Stein's abridged quote!!!!!:(:eek:

...and the meaning is NOT significantly altered by the abridgement!!!!

.....like I have said, Robin 'shot himself in the foot' on this one!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...WHERE EXACTLY DID Darwin reject Eugenics in the (full) statement provided by Robin???

When he says "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."

J C wrote: »

...Darwin looks EQUALLY 'bad' in BOTH Robin's full quote and Ben Stein's abridged quote!!!!!:(:eek:

...and the meaning is NOT significantly altered by the abridgement!!!!

He omits an entire paragraph justifying the evolutionary origin and worth of sympathy and altruism, a rejection of "hard reason" in reference to humans. What remains reads as a direct call for eugenics. The worst one could say of the original is that it is ambiguous. The meaning is changed J C, and you have revealed yourself less than honest once again.

J C wrote: »

.....like I have said Robin 'shot himself in the foot' on this one!!!

On the contrary, Robin has allowed you to demonstrate the extent to which you will tolerate the misleading tactics of those who happen to share your views and worse, adopt them yourself.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...WHERE EXACTLY DID Darwin reject Eugenics in the (full) statement provided by Robin???


AtomicHorror
When he says "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."

....MOST Eugenecists justify Eugenics as being the best and most sympathetic way of dealing with people with genetic problems!!!

....Darwin expressed agreement with sympathy being shown to the 'weak and helpless' allright .... but he didn't specify how that sympathy should manifest itself ... but his statement that "excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed" ... would indicate that his sympathy DIDN'T extend to allowing the 'worst men' (however defined) to breed!!! :eek:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...Darwin looks EQUALLY 'bad' in BOTH Robin's full quote and Ben Stein's abridged quote!!!!!

...and the meaning is NOT significantly altered by the abridgement!!!!

AtomicHorror
He omits an entire paragraph justifying the evolutionary origin and worth of sympathy and altruism, a rejection of "hard reason" in reference to humans. What remains reads as a direct call for eugenics. The worst one could say of the original is that it is ambiguous. The meaning is changed J C, and you have revealed yourself less than honest once again.

....it IS a direct call for Eugenics with NO ambiguity about it!!!!!
The reference to 'sympathy' is ONLY in the context of not 'intentionally neglecting' the 'weak and helpless' .... and for somebody who believes, like Darwin did, that only the 'ignorant' would allow the worst animals to breed .... 'intentional neglect' WOULD include allowing the 'weak and helpless' to breed!!!!!!
...indeed it seems as if he considered it "an overwhelming present evil" to do so!!!!

I am perfectly honest and logical in my assessment of Darwin's statement ....and it is YOU who are the one that is not facing up to the full import of Darwin's statement!!!!:D

...the 'clincher' on whether I am correct, is Darwin's statement that modern medicine and hospital care allows the so-called 'weak' to survive and he expresses the following ultra-Eugenic opinion on this out-turn:-
"Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." ... so his 'sympathy' logically DOES NOT extend to encouraging, possibly even allowing, "the weak members of civilized societies (to) propagate their kind"!!!!

...and BTW the first rule when you are in a hole ... is to stop digging!!!!!

....but so far, the clay is furiously eminating in copious quantities, from your direction!!!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....MOST Eugenecists justify Eugenics as being the best and most sympathetic way of dealing with people with genetic problems!!!

....Darwin expressed agreement with sympathy being shown to the 'weak and helpless' allright .... but he didn't specify how that sympathy should manifest itself ... but his statement that "excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed" ... would indicate that his sympathy DIDN'T extend to allowing the 'worst men' (however defined) to breed!!! :eek:

No, that doesn't make sense. If "sympathy" refers to eugenics then why does Darwin say it cannot be allowed to be countered by "hard reason"? Clearly he is saying that our sympathy for the weak, the vaccinations and poor laws which he refers to before, cannot be dismissed on the basis of "hard reason" which would be the eugenic extension of evolution.

I mean, are you seriously suggesting that "sympathy" means eugenics and the "hard reason" means human kindness? Come on.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

it is clear that he believed that "the weak and helpless" should not be allowed to reproduce

Except it isn't, you are just making that up.

You keep quoting sentences and then giving your assessment of what Darwin was saying that has nothing to do with the sentence you just quoted

You are like an over eager atheists just arrived on the Christianity forum misquoting Jesus

J C wrote: »

... and he is silent on whether "the weak and helpless" could be euthaneased

In the same way Jesus is silent on whether the weak and helpless should be euthaneased, ie not at all. :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

"It is surprising how soon" .... means that it is SURPRISINGLY RAPID ....i.e. even more rapid that one would expect ... a SCARE STORY if ever I saw one!!!

"Surprisingly" doesn't mean "surprisingly rapid" If you are going to start inserting words into what Darwin said why bother at all, why don't you just change the whole paragraph to mean what you want it to mean.

J C wrote: »

"a want of care, or care wrongly directed" .....introduces the concept of 'false' care ... or indeed 'ignorant' counter-productive care!!!
"leads to the degeneration of a domestic race" ... means exactly that!!!

It seems pretty clear that this is the part you don't understand, so saying it means "exactly that" is rather pointless, since you clearly don't understand what "that" is :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

...so I was CORRECT in my conclusion that the first half of the statement creates the (unfounded) 'scare' that degeneracy will rapidly set in if breeding is uncontrolled!!!!

Like so many times before JC you were anything but correct. The exact opposite in fact. What is the word I'm looking for ... oh yes ... you were wrong. Again. But thanks for trying :rolleyes:

MatthewVII

J C wrote: »

...and voila you have a whole NEW set of people to target with Eugenics 'advice'!!!!

Just because we know about the existence of mutations doesn't mean we become rabid butchers out for blood. As for "eugenics advice", in most hospitals it is called "genetic counselling" and is a vital part of dealing with families who are struggling to cope with genetic illnesses

J C wrote:

....trinucleotide repeat mutations are still not fully understood ... and therefore if I were unforyunate enough to be diagnosed with a PolyQ disease ... I wouldn't run away and have myself sterilised ....just yet!!!!:eek:

They are not fully understood in that we don't know exactly what's at the root cause, but we know how they behave and can predict their behaviour over generations. So we understand them in a practical sense, not in an all-encompassing sense.

J C wrote:

...and if some Darwinist with a white coat in one hand and a scalpel in the other where to come knocking on my door I wouldn't bother opening it ... and if he persisted, I would call the Police!!!!:eek:

What are you even trying to say here? Is it meant to mean something?

Galvasean

MatthewVII wrote: »

What are you even trying to say here? Is it meant to mean something?

It means he's talking crap... again.

AtomicHorror

More than that, he's now arguing that in Darwinspeak, "sympathy" means eugenics and "hard reason" means sympathy. J C has dropped the pretence and crossed the line into arguing that white is black.

postcynical

Darjeeling, Wicknight, Atomic Horror: Would it be fair to summarize (simplify) your viewpoint about human morals thus:

Humans are a distinct species from other animals. They are not objectively special. That we belong to this species means we have great empathy for other humans, as other species have empathy for their kin. Our moral system evolved because it was to our species' advantage, both in survival terms and in terms of pleasure; humans being social animals. People follow this moral system irrationally through habitual behaviour but also rationally as people can see that these systems are for their benefit in the long run.

If this is fair, where does individual choice enter? For me morality is about constantly making choices. The choice is usually to follow God's way (which is often hazy to me) or another way. Sometimes the right thing also obviously overlaps with what I think will be best for me, but frequently these are at odds. How can an evolved model of morality capture the abruptness and subtlety of making the choice to follow an objective goodness?

AtomicHorror

postcynical wrote: »

Darjeeling, Wicknight, Atomic Horror: Would it be fair to summarize (simplify) your viewpoint about human morals thus:

Humans are a distinct species from other animals. They are not objectively special. That we belong to this species means we have great empathy for other humans, as other species have empathy for their kin. Our moral system evolved because it was to our species' advantage, both in survival terms and in terms of pleasure; humans being social animals. People follow this moral system irrationally through habitual behaviour but also rationally as people can see that these systems are for their benefit in the long run.

If this is fair, where does individual choice enter? For me morality is about constantly making choices. The choice is usually to follow God's way (which is often hazy to me) or another way. Sometimes the right thing also obviously overlaps with what I think will be best for me, but frequently these are at odds. How can an evolved model of morality capture the abruptness and subtlety of making the choice to follow an objective goodness?

I don't want to speak for the others but my take on it is as follows. Our model says that there is no objective goodness, just a (relatively) common value system as selected by evolution, normalised by society and made relevant to us by emotion. In decision-making, there is satisfying our values (which are perceived emotionally) or failing to. The decision making process is complex as we are capable of weighing up short- and long-term consequences. As to the the nature of that decision itself and the nature of free will, I mentioned my view on these a few posts ago. We don't understand free will and our modelling of it may end up being non-deterministic. It's an open question in science at this time.