The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Not very long, which is why I believe that people hold to moral absolutes.

Even if there are moral absolutes, it is clear from history and evolutionary evidence that morals evolved veryyyyyyy slowly. People held many different views of morals at many different points in time. Some societies were moral than others.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Even if there moral absolutes it is clear from history and evolutionary evidence that morals evolved veryyyyyyy slowly.

I've been through this with Sam Vimes. Evolution doesn't explain moral codes. It explains how we are biologically capable of adopting moral codes. Now from what I can tell from that statement, it doesn't say anything about whatever Moral Zeitgeist people may claim there is. That's a philosophical claim not a scientific one.

Malty_T wrote: »

This would indicate that people help many different views of morals at many different points in time. Some societies were moral than others.

To say that one society is more moral than another is to assume a universal standard for comparing those societies. If one was a moral relativist one would assume that they both had two different moral systems which were equally valid. This is where I find that it falls short logically.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

To say that one society is more moral than another is to assume a universal standard for comparing those societies..

Physicists refer to time as being relative and there is no absolute inertial reference frame for which all things can be compared.
Why can't other aspects of science claim the same?

philologos

That's an entirely different context. We're not discussing time, but rather moral standards. There's a difference. Different contexts, and talking about different things, of course will reflect difference.

There's no way that two people with opposing views on a certain ethical issue can both be right.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass,

Serious question : If God teaches you to live a moral life, then if I were to transport you in my time machine (WIP) back to the times of the OT. Would you carry out his orders such as killing the Caanites' children? As such killing is deemed moral, I'm sure you would have problem in obliging God. Or for that matter carrying out any of those laws in the OT that I deem repugnant, which luckily for you,Jesus's fulfillment of the prophecies makes null and void. If you were living back before Jesus would you have been willing to follow God?
I know, I wouldn't.

...like all war, at the time, it was a case of kill ... or be killed.
...the Cananites were implaccable mortal enemies of the Jewish race and religion ... and God gave the Israelites the authority to put an end to the grave threat they represented, once and for all.

...thankfully, as Christians, we are now living under God's grace ... and such difficult actions are no longer required from us.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

That's an entirely different context. We're not discussing time, but rather moral standards. There's a difference. Different contexts, and talking about different things, of course will reflect difference.

I know we're not discussing time but you have made the claim:

To say that one system is comparable to another is to assume a universal standard for comparing those systems.

Time is such a system that disagrees with this claim, so I think your logic is unsound.

philologos

Moral systems. The context is important, otherwise we are going to make other people say things that they never said before long.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Moral systems. The context is important, otherwise we are going to make other people say things that they never said before long.

Even though I agree with you on there existing absolute morals. I think you need to explain better why systems with comparable morals can only exist within a universal standard.

philologos

How is it possible to tell what is better from another if you do not have a standard to compare them to?

In my view it would be that something conforms more to the standard than the other. Although, I'd also note that this would be done subconciously.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So because you know of an atheist who is an evolutionist, evolution is wedded to atheism

How do you explain Kenneth Miller, the catholic from the Dover trial? Watch him here rubbish Michael Behe's claim that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM

...the only problem with the views expressed in this video, is that biochemical systems which REQUIRE a 'moustrap' for functionality within a particular cascade ... will NOT WORK AT ALL using a 'large paperclip' or 'spitball firer' ... because the cascade needs to 'catch mice' and not 'fire spit' or 'hold ties in place'!!!
...equally, retaining the 'hammer' on a 'large paperclip' as well as physically relocating it from the equivalent of a 'tie' to a 'mouse-hole' using non-intelligently directed mutations (and doing something useful at all points in-between) will also be an impossibility!!!

...like I have already said ...
... because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Not very long, which is why I'd speculate that people hold to moral absolutes even if they don't realise it. People usually outwardly condemn many things as being universally wrong.

What's your point? You can understand why a society that did not consider murder wrong would not survive very long but you can't see any way that the people in that society would reach the conclusion that murder is wrong without reference to a divine being I just don't get it.

Of course that is not to say that all morals are absolute but certain specific things are always wrong, not because god says so but because of the consequences of the action and the reasons for doing it. Killing is not always wrong, I'm sure we can all think of many cases where killing is not only moral but a moral obligation but the act of killing someone who is trying to kill your family is not the same as the act of killing someone so you can steal their shoes. The first is an act that contributes to society, it shows that people who try to kill others risk their own lives and decreases the chances of it happening again but the second is purely an act of selfishness, it is anti-social and is detrimental to society. It serves no useful purpose, there is no reason to do it other than the person's own gratification at someone else's expense and so it is wrong. That person is not treating people as he would like to be treated.

Why is it necessary to invoke a god in any of the above?

philologos

So hang on, you think that there are some moral absolutes at least?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the only problem with they views expressed in this video, is that biochemical systems that REQUIRE a 'moustrap' for functionality within a particular cascade ... will NOT WORK AT ALL using a 'large paperclip' or 'spitball firer' ... because the cascade needs to 'catch mice' and not 'fire spit' or 'hold ties in place'!!!

That's absolutely true. But that problem is solved by pointing out that those biochemical systems were not required in the early lifeforms that later evolved them and possibly came to depend on them

J C wrote: »

...equally, retaining the 'hammer' on a 'large paperclip' as well as physically relocating it from the equivalent of a 'tie' to a 'mouse-hole' using non-intelligently directed mutations (and doing something useful at all points in-between) will also be an impossibility!!!

...like I have already said ...
... because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

I think if you say it once more it might stop being nonsense

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

So hang on, you think that there are some moral absolutes at least?

I don't really want to answer that question because I don't know exactly what you mean by the term but I'll try anyway, cautiously:

There are certain acts that are have purely selfish motivations and that harm others. The person who commits these acts is a leech on society, hurting others for his own benefit. He is doing things to others that he would not like done to himself but he does them because he doesn't care about the welfare of others, only about his own.

These are the acts that are "absolutely" wrong and I see no reason why you have to invoke a god at any point of the above statement

philologos

I.E That there are some things that people can say are universally wrong, and there are some things that can be universally condemned. Things you can expect everyone to regard as wrong in some shape or form.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's absolutely true. But that problem is solved by pointing out that those biochemical systems were not required in the early lifeforms that later evolved them and possibly came to depend on them

...the problem for Spontaneous Evolution isn't solved at all ... the 'mousetrap' ... and a hundred other 'specific gizmos' are required simultaneously and in perfect working order for the cascade to have ANY functionality ... so the gradual build up of the 'mousetrap' doesn't even begin to describe the scale of the 'explanatory deficit' which Spontaneous Evolution has, in relation to biochemical cascades!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think if you say it once more it might stop being nonsense

Touché... but even saying it hundreds of times still won't validate Spontaneous Evolution and its ham-fisted 'first cousin' Spontaneous Mutation!!!!:D:):eek:

...and, in any event, you are looking up the 'exhaust pipe' of the problem ... because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity AT EACH POINT on the cascade!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I.E That there are some things that people can say are universally wrong, and there are some things that can be universally condemned. Things you can expect everyone to regard as wrong in some shape or form.

No not everyone but most reasonable people. People can be mentally ill or their judgement can be clouded for a plethora of reasons. I'm sure we've all seen people try to justify the unjustifiable such as priests who tried to downplay their wrongdoing in abusing all those children. Everyone in prison today has managed to justify their own actions to themselves if only through cognitive dissonance. You've heard me talk before about the incredible human ability to believe what it wants to believe. And it depends on the society, there are some things that are universally condemned in the west that are widely practised elsewhere, although it must be said that these things often have religious motivations which unfortunately override reason all too often. You can never hope to have everyone agree on something no matter how plainly true it is

What is your point?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the problem for Spontaneous Evolution isn't solved at all ... the 'mousetrap' ... and a hundred other 'specific gizmos' are required simultaneously and in perfect working order for the cascade to have ANY functionality ... so the gradual build up of the 'mousetrap' doesn't even begin to describe the scale of the 'explanatory deficit' which Spontaneous Evolution has, in relation to biochemical cascades!!!

LOL

That point is exactly what was addressed in the video. Basically what you've done here is:

Ken Miller: Creationist claim A is countered by B

You: The problem with B is C

Me: The problem of C is countered by D

You: The problem with D is A

And around the merry-go-round we go

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

I.E That there are some things that people can say are universally wrong, and there are some things that can be universally condemned. Things you can expect everyone to regard as wrong in some shape or form.

...in the world of the moral relativist ... 'anything goes' ... and 'nothing is acceptable' ... depending on which side of the bed they drag themselves out of on a particular morning!!!!

...when a society starts down this insane road ... the most horrific moral outrages will be permitted ... and killing a flower could be a capital offense!!!!:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...in the world of the moral relativist ... 'anything goes' ... and 'nothing is acceptable' ... depending on which side of the bed they drag themselves out of on a particular morning!!!!

...when society starts down this insane road ... the most horrific moral outrages will be permitted ... and killing a flower could be a capital offense!!!!:eek:

Which of course explains your fanatical unwillingness to accept reality. It doesn't matter how strong the evidence for evolution is if you think people will be murdering each other in the streets if it's true

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

the most horrific moral outrages will be permitted ... and killing a flower could be a capital offense!!!!

You forgot...
failure to use the comma!!.:eek::)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

LOL

That point is exactly what was addressed in the video. Basically what you've done here is:

Ken Miller: Creationist claim A is countered by B

You: The problem with B is C

Me: The problem of C is countered by D

You: The problem with D is A

And around the merry-go-round we go

...no merry go round ... just plain talking ... and a complete demolition of Ken Miller's case.

...to repeat...

...the problem for Spontaneous Evolution isn't solved at all by Ken Miller's arguments ... the 'mousetrap' ... and a hundred other 'specific gizmos' are required simultaneously and in perfect working order for the cascade to have ANY functionality ... so the gradual build up of the 'mousetrap' doesn't even begin to describe the scale of the 'explanatory deficit' which Spontaneous Evolution has, in relation to biochemical cascades!!!

...even examining the problem one point on the cascade at a time, biochemical systems which REQUIRE a 'moustrap' for functionality within a particular cascade ... will NOT WORK AT ALL using a 'large paperclip' or 'spitball firer' ... because 'mice need to be caught' at this point on the cascade ... and 'firing spit' or 'holding ties in place' are completely useless activities ... when you NEED to catch mice!!!
...equally, retaining the 'hammer' on a 'large paperclip' as well as physically relocating it from the equivalent of a 'tie' to a 'mouse-hole' using non-intelligently directed mutations (and doing something useful at all points in-between) will also be an impossibility!!!

...like I have already said ...
... because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

NO BALONEY - NO MERRY GO ROUND - JUST A STRAIGHT DEMOLITION of Ken Miller's argument!!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which of course explains your fanatical unwillingness to accept reality. It doesn't matter how strong the evidence for evolution is if you think people will be murdering each other in the streets if it's true

...the two are separate issues ... the evidence for evolution stands (or in actual fact falls) on its own merits ... completely independently of whether New Testament Standards of moral behaviour are accepted or not by society!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

You forgot...
failure to use the comma!!.:eek::)

...could result in a substantial fine in a society dominated by grammatical control freaks!!!:D:eek:

...indeed I seem to remember calls for me to be sanctioned on this thread for using Capital letters for emphasis ... and there is still the occasional 'shot across the bows' for my use of smileys!!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...no merry go round ... just plain talking ... and a complete demolition of Ken Miller's case.

No it's a circular argument. Your final "rebuttal" is not actually a rebuttal at all, it's simply a repetition of the first point he rebutted.

J C wrote: »

...the two are separate issues

Sure they are

Sam Vimes

To be specific:

J C wrote: »

...the problem for Spontaneous Evolution isn't solved at all by Ken Miller's arguments ... the 'mousetrap' ... and a hundred other 'specific gizmos' are required simultaneously and in perfect working order for the cascade to have ANY functionality ... so the gradual build up of the 'mousetrap' doesn't even begin to describe the scale of the 'explanatory deficit' which Spontaneous Evolution has, in relation to biochemical cascades!!!

Michael Behe says that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, ie that all components must be in place for it to have any functionality. But Miller points out that if you remove two of the parts from the mousetrap it can function as a tie clip or a catapult. Is this not functionality?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it's a circular argument. Your final "rebuttal" is not actually a rebuttal at all, it's simply a repetition of the first point he rebutted.

...
it isn't a circular argument ... it is a substantial rebuttal to which you have not responded in any substantial manner ...

...to repeat...

...the problem for Spontaneous Evolution isn't solved at all by Ken Miller's arguments ... the 'mousetrap' ... and a hundred other 'specific gizmos' are required simultaneously and in perfect working order for the cascade to have ANY functionality ... so the gradual build up of the 'mousetrap' doesn't even begin to describe the scale of the 'explanatory deficit' which Spontaneous Evolution has, in relation to biochemical cascades!!!

...even examining the problem one point on the cascade at a time, biochemical systems which REQUIRE a 'moustrap' for functionality within a particular cascade ... will NOT WORK AT ALL using a 'large paperclip' or 'spitball firer' ... because 'mice need to be caught' at this point on the cascade ... and 'firing spit' or 'holding ties in place' are completely useless activities ... when you NEED to catch mice!!!
...equally, retaining the 'hammer' on a 'large paperclip' as well as physically relocating it from the equivalent of a 'tie' to a 'mouse-hole' using non-intelligently directed mutations (and doing something useful at all points in-between) will also be an impossibility!!!

...like I have already said ...
... because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...the two are separate issues

Sam Vimes
Sure they are

...maybe they aren't ... so are you saying that Evolutionists are so mixed up that they have no moral compass whatever ... and they are capable of introducing capital punishment for killing a flower?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To be specific:

Michael Behe says that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, ie that all components must be in place for it to have any functionality. But Miller points out that if you remove two of the parts from the mousetrap it can function as a tie clip or a catapult. Is this not functionality?

...but it's no use if the cascade NEEDS a 'moustrap'!!!!
...and therefore the cascade has NO FUNCTIONALITY until a 'musetrap' is produced!!!
...and it's the origins of the functionality of the cascade that is at issue!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...
it isn't a circular arguments ... it is a substantial rebuttal to which you have not responded in any substantial manner ...

...to repeat...

...the problem for Spontaneous Evolution isn't solved at all by Ken Miller's arguments ... the 'mousetrap' ... and a hundred other 'specific gizmos' are required simultaneously and in perfect working order for the cascade to have ANY functionality ... so the gradual build up of the 'mousetrap' doesn't even begin to describe the scale of the 'explanatory deficit' which Spontaneous Evolution has, in relation to biochemical cascades!!!

...even examining the problem one point on the cascade at a time, biochemical systems which REQUIRE a 'moustrap' for functionality within a particular cascade ... will NOT WORK AT ALL using a 'large paperclip' or 'spitball firer' ... because 'mice need to be caught' at this point on the cascade ... and 'firing spit' or 'holding ties in place' are completely useless activities ... when you NEED to catch mice!!!
...equally, retaining the 'hammer' on a 'large paperclip' as well as physically relocating it from the equivalent of a 'tie' to a 'mouse-hole' using non-intelligently directed mutations (and doing something useful at all points in-between) will also be an impossibility!!!

...like I have already said ...
... because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale.

Could you write this on a web page or something and just link to it every ten minutes instead of repeating yourself over and over?

J C wrote: »

...maybe they are ... so are you saying that Evolutionists are so mixed up that they have no moral compass whatever ... and they are capable of introducing capital punishment for killing a flower?

No I am not saying that. I don't see how it's even possible for you to have derived the above from "sure they are".

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...but it's no use if the cascade NEEDS a 'moustrap'!!!!
...and therefore the cascade has NO FUNCTIONALITY!!!
...and it's the origins of the functionality of the cascade that is at issue!!!:D

But what if the cascade doesn't need a mousetrap? What if it needs a tie clip or a catapult and it's only later on that the part that was formerly used as a tie clip becomes incorporated into the new functionality of the mousetrap?