RIP Christopher Hitchens

[JoltinJoe]

So then there's no genuine purpose to any of this?

Nothing more than to enjoy your life and make the best of it.

But that can mean two different things to two different persons. You take it to mean enjoy the company of friends and family, and help out those who are less fortunate, while someone else might take it to mean to amass power and wealth at the expense of others. In an extreme case you get Stalin or Hitler. At best you can say they were bad persons, but I can add that they were wrong because I have resort to an objective standard for right and wrong.

You can point to people who had religious backgrounds who have done bad things, but I have an objective means to say that what they did was wrong.

If someone says the purpose of life is to enjoy life and make the best of it, don't be surprised when you see where that can take them. Their conception of what that means can be very different from yours.

On a political note, what did Jefferson mean when he said that "we hold these truths to be self-evident?"

[JoltinJoe]

I'm not saying life is sunshine and rainbows, but existence is a good thing, no?

Why is it a good thing? From your perspective, isn't existence neither good nor bad, so just make the best of it?

And given your outlook, how can anything be objectively good or bad? Based on what standard is it good?

Most essentially, given your outlook, how is existence good for some child in the third world who is starving to death?

Also, at those times when life is not sunshine and rainbows, why is existence still good?

[kalm]

So then there's no genuine purpose to any of this?

On a political note, what did Jefferson mean when he said that "we hold these truths to be self-evident?"

[/quote]

I think he meant 'Don't be a dick'.

Self deception happens to all of us but a Stalin or Hitler take it to a level beyond evil. They think they're acting out of self interest but in reality selfishness makes no one happy. If you would like to call that God, so be it.

"My one true religion is kindness".

- The Dalai Lama

(Big hitter, the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald...striking!)

[JoltinJoe]

I think he meant 'Don't be a dick'.

Self deception happens to all of us but a Stalin or Hitler take it to a level beyond evil. They think they're acting out of self interest but in reality selfishness makes no one happy. If you would like to call that God, so be it.

"My one true religion is kindness".

- The Dalai Lama

(Big hitter, the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald...striking!)

Figures you'd look up to the Lama, a notorious cheapskate who doesn't tip his caddies.

[D1B]

Nothing from the Discovery Institute is credible in any way. Sorry.

It is not an article. It is a listing of scientists who agree that Darwinian Evolution is not complete enough and needs more review.

[andy7171]

I think he meant 'Don't be a dick'.

Self deception happens to all of us but a Stalin or Hitler take it to a level beyond evil. They think they're acting out of self interest but in reality selfishness makes no one happy. If you would like to call that God, so be it.

"My one true religion is kindness".

- The Dalai Lama

(Big hitter, the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald...striking!)

Figures you'd look up to the Lama, a notorious cheapskate who doesn't tip his caddies.

Hold up. He's getting total consciousness!

[D1B]

Nothing more than to enjoy your life and make the best of it.

But that can mean two different things to two different persons. You take it to mean enjoy the company of friends and family, and help out those who are less fortunate, while someone else might take it to mean to amass power and wealth at the expense of others. In an extreme case you get Stalin or Hitler. At best you can say they were bad persons, but I can add that they were wrong because I have resort to an objective standard for right and wrong.

You can point to people who had religious backgrounds who have done bad things, but I have an objective means to say that what they did was wrong.

If someone says the purpose of life is to enjoy life and make the best of it, don't be surprised when you see where that can take them. Their conception of what that means can be very different from yours.

On a political note, what did Jefferson mean when he said that "we hold these truths to be self-evident?"

What a dolt. Catholic whackjob.

[D1B]

Joltin Joe thinks some fuckwad ghost with a criminal record that includes genocide, infanticide, adultery, rape and murder is dishing out cookies and paddles to primates for good and bad behavior.

[Vidav]

Please don't mention the Discovery Institute, it only makes you look foolish.

Yeah, nevermind the over 600 scientists that have signed the document. Something tells me you don't have the brain power, and neither do I, to match wits with 95% of those listed in regards to Darwinian Evolution. This isn't the HuffPo you know!

I admit I had been drinking when I posted that.

Anyway, you can find plenty of scientists who also believe in a religion of some sort. That doesn't immediately give the religion more credibility.

[Skjellyfetti]

It is a listing of scientists who agree that Darwinian Evolution is not complete enough and needs more review.

EVERY scientific theory is not complete and needs more review. Getting a scientist to sign a statement like that isn't surprising.

Basic laws of physics that have been standard for hundreds of years are having to be reworked at the subatomic level. All theories should be open to scientific inquiry or skepticism. Even evolution.

Just because a scientist says he thinks the theory of natural selection doesn't explain every intricacy of evolution or it isn't complete doesn't mean that they therefore believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Darwin doesn't explain everything. His theory should be open to tweaking... and new theories that are able to pass actual scientific muster should be looked into and accepted if valid.

[SeattleGriz]

Yeah, nevermind the over 600 scientists that have signed the document. Something tells me you don't have the brain power, and neither do I, to match wits with 95% of those listed in regards to Darwinian Evolution. This isn't the HuffPo you know!

I admit I had been drinking when I posted that.

Anyway, you can find plenty of scientists who also believe in a religion of some sort. That doesn't immediately give the religion more credibility.

Me too!

[SeattleGriz]

It is a listing of scientists who agree that Darwinian Evolution is not complete enough and needs more review.

EVERY scientific theory is not complete and needs more review. Getting a scientist to sign a statement like that isn't surprising.

Basic laws of physics that have been standard for hundreds of years are having to be reworked at the subatomic level. All theories should be open to scientific inquiry or skepticism. Even evolution.

Just because a scientist says he thinks the theory of natural selection doesn't explain every intricacy of evolution or it isn't complete doesn't mean that they therefore believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Darwin doesn't explain everything. His theory should be open to tweaking... and new theories that are able to pass actual scientific muster should be looked into and accepted if valid.

I agree with all you are saying. I wasn't trying to say a list of scientists that say they don't believe Darwinian Evolution is complete, was proof of ID. Just trying to point out the difference between Creationism and ID. ID does have scientists that are producing peer reviewed work and trying to gain a foothold in the evolutionary process with their work. Creationism is taking the Bible as your template for creation (6000 year old Earth stuff).

As I have always stated in this discussion, it seems ID's mode of attack is to discredit DE (Darwinian Evolution). But to tie it in with what you are saying, the Evolution field should welcome this scrutiny, for it would only strengthen DE.

This sort of scrutiny was not tolerated in the past at all and finally, with the elucidation of DNA functions, is that stranglehold loosening. ID is here to stay.

[D1B]

EVERY scientific theory is not complete and needs more review. Getting a scientist to sign a statement like that isn't surprising.

Basic laws of physics that have been standard for hundreds of years are having to be reworked at the subatomic level. All theories should be open to scientific inquiry or skepticism. Even evolution.

Just because a scientist says he thinks the theory of natural selection doesn't explain every intricacy of evolution or it isn't complete doesn't mean that they therefore believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Darwin doesn't explain everything. His theory should be open to tweaking... and new theories that are able to pass actual scientific muster should be looked into and accepted if valid.

I agree with all you are saying. I wasn't trying to say a list of scientists that say they don't believe Darwinian Evolution is complete, was proof of ID. Just trying to point out the difference between Creationism and ID. ID does have scientists that are producing peer reviewed work and trying to gain a foothold in the evolutionary process with their work. Creationism is taking the Bible as your template for creation (6000 year old Earth stuff).

As I have always stated in this discussion, it seems ID's mode of attack is to discredit DE (Darwinian Evolution). But to tie it in with what you are saying, the Evolution field should welcome this scrutiny, for it would only strengthen DE.

This sort of scrutiny was not tolerated in the past at all and finally, with the elucidation of DNA functions, is that stranglehold loosening. ID is here to stay.

[D1B]

I admit I had been drinking when I posted that.

Anyway, you can find plenty of scientists who also believe in a religion of some sort. That doesn't immediately give the religion more credibility.

Me too!

Yeah, but you were drinking Clorox, you fucking re' tard.

[youngterrier]

I'm not saying life is sunshine and rainbows, but existence is a good thing, no?

Why is it a good thing? From your perspective, isn't existence neither good nor bad, so just make the best of it?

And given your outlook, how can anything be objectively good or bad? Based on what standard is it good?

Most essentially, given your outlook, how is existence good for some child in the third world who is starving to death?

Also, at those times when life is not sunshine and rainbows, why is existence still good?

my own pleasure. I can't speak for the third world children. whenever you start applying philosophies in mass, problems ensue. See: Communism and Religion

[youngterrier]

If you take a a deck of 52 cards and you select 13 cards, you have a one in 160 BILLION chance of getting any specific order of cards. Could we attribute whatever order cards you select to chance, randomness, or something natural, or is there a diving dealer I need to be praying to on Tuesday Poker Nights? Just because it's improbable for things to be the way they are naturally does not refute the theory of evolution. I suck at biology, so I can't argue specifics, but it seems that ID is mounted in the whole "fine tuned" argument. You're entitled to believe in whatever you want, but it's not a viable scientific theory because it can't be tested.

[JoltinJoe]

There are actually two creation accounts in Genesis.

What's certainly worth discussing is that Genesis described the creation of the universe as the process by which God made "order" out of "chaos." Those are precisely the terms used by modern quantum physics to describe the process by which our universe formed.

Genesis, of course, claims that this order was the product of an intelligent creator. Some physicists assert that the creation of this order was random, an inevitable result of there being "multi-verses." Others are not as sure. Anyway, I find the fact that Genesis foresaw the language of modern quantum physics to be rather remarkable.

[D1B]

There are actually two creation accounts in Genesis.

What's certainly worth discussing is that Genesis described the creation of the universe as the process by which God made "order" out of "chaos." Those are precisely the terms used by modern quantum physics to describe the process by which our universe formed.

Genesis, of course, claims that this order was the product of an intelligent creator. Some physicists assert that the creation of this order was random, an inevitable result of there being "multi-verses." Others are not as sure. Anyway, I find the fact that Genesis foresaw the language of modern quantum physics to be rather remarkable.

What other shit did Genesis say?



Joe, you're making an ass out of yourself. YT is playing you like a flute.

[Skjellyfetti]

What's certainly worth discussing is that Genesis described the creation of the universe as the process by which God made "order" out of "chaos." Those are precisely the terms used by modern quantum physics to describe the process by which our universe formed.

And many Native American myths describe the world as covered in water in the beginning and the first creatures being water creatures, etc. Which is the way modern science understands the beginning of life. Just coincidental.

[SeattleGriz]

If you take a a deck of 52 cards and you select 13 cards, you have a one in 160 BILLION chance of getting any specific order of cards. Could we attribute whatever order cards you select to chance, randomness, or something natural, or is there a diving dealer I need to be praying to on Tuesday Poker Nights? Just because it's improbable for things to be the way they are naturally does not refute the theory of evolution. I suck at biology, so I can't argue specifics, but it seems that ID is mounted in the whole "fine tuned" argument. You're entitled to believe in whatever you want, but it's not a viable scientific theory because it can't be tested.

I don't think any in the field call it a theory, just for the exact reason you stated. What they are doing is trying to fill in the gaps where Evolution has failed, and it has. Darwinian Evolutions only empirical proof is the fossil record and that record actually contradicts the theory. If the fossil record were to support it, you would see a gradual change in the fossil record from the start to the end, but you don't...not even close. You also would have been able to find thousands upon thousands of transitional species, but as of today, there are very few.

As stated, ID doesn't say Evolution is wrong, just that natural selection and random mutations are not enough to have created what we have today from nothing.

[Vidav]

If you take a a deck of 52 cards and you select 13 cards, you have a one in 160 BILLION chance of getting any specific order of cards. Could we attribute whatever order cards you select to chance, randomness, or something natural, or is there a diving dealer I need to be praying to on Tuesday Poker Nights? Just because it's improbable for things to be the way they are naturally does not refute the theory of evolution. I suck at biology, so I can't argue specifics, but it seems that ID is mounted in the whole "fine tuned" argument. You're entitled to believe in whatever you want, but it's not a viable scientific theory because it can't be tested.

I don't think any in the field call it a theory, just for the exact reason you stated. What they are doing is trying to fill in the gaps where Evolution has failed, and it has. Darwinian Evolutions only empirical proof is the fossil record and that record actually contradicts the theory. If the fossil record were to support it, you would see a gradual change in the fossil record from the start to the end, but you don't...not even close. You also would have been able to find thousands upon thousands of transitional species, but as of today, there are very few.

As stated, ID doesn't say Evolution is wrong, just that natural selection and random mutations are not enough to have created what we have today from nothing.

There are a lot of transitional species. The problem is people who think a transitional species is a half duck half crocodile or something similar. They are not. It's small mutations.

[youngterrier]

If you take a a deck of 52 cards and you select 13 cards, you have a one in 160 BILLION chance of getting any specific order of cards. Could we attribute whatever order cards you select to chance, randomness, or something natural, or is there a diving dealer I need to be praying to on Tuesday Poker Nights? Just because it's improbable for things to be the way they are naturally does not refute the theory of evolution. I suck at biology, so I can't argue specifics, but it seems that ID is mounted in the whole "fine tuned" argument. You're entitled to believe in whatever you want, but it's not a viable scientific theory because it can't be tested.

I don't think any in the field call it a theory, just for the exact reason you stated. What they are doing is trying to fill in the gaps where Evolution has failed, and it has. Darwinian Evolutions only empirical proof is the fossil record and that record actually contradicts the theory. If the fossil record were to support it, you would see a gradual change in the fossil record from the start to the end, but you don't...not even close. You also would have been able to find thousands upon thousands of transitional species, but as of today, there are very few.

As stated, ID doesn't say Evolution is wrong, just that natural selection and random mutations are not enough to have created what we have today from nothing.

and that's debatable......
the problem is that philosophically it's like saying "we don't know everything, so fuck it, let's just say God did it and call it a day." It discourages further learning in my opinion. We haven't uncovered every fossil in this earth either....

this thread is too long

[SeattleGriz]

I don't think any in the field call it a theory, just for the exact reason you stated. What they are doing is trying to fill in the gaps where Evolution has failed, and it has. Darwinian Evolutions only empirical proof is the fossil record and that record actually contradicts the theory. If the fossil record were to support it, you would see a gradual change in the fossil record from the start to the end, but you don't...not even close. You also would have been able to find thousands upon thousands of transitional species, but as of today, there are very few.

As stated, ID doesn't say Evolution is wrong, just that natural selection and random mutations are not enough to have created what we have today from nothing.

There are a lot of transitional species. The problem is people who think a transitional species is a half duck half crocodile or something similar. They are not. It's small mutations.

That was my point. DE's theory is that small mutations and natural selection are what has driven the diversity. Although there are transitional species, the fossil record does not show the incremental changes that DE proposes. In fact, the fossil record flies in the face of DE.

For example, Darwin proposed that Bears came from Whales. Where are all the incremental transitional species showing this progression. There isn't. The fossil record pretty much shows the introduction of a brand new complete species 99% (my statement) of the time.

I meant to add this to my reply to youngterrier, but who's to say quantum mechanics won't provide us with the "intelligence" we need. Basic particles could just be naturally attracted and then the chain reaction starts and finishes with viable molecules that progress to species. Wouldn't that be a kicker?

[SeattleGriz]

I don't think any in the field call it a theory, just for the exact reason you stated. What they are doing is trying to fill in the gaps where Evolution has failed, and it has. Darwinian Evolutions only empirical proof is the fossil record and that record actually contradicts the theory. If the fossil record were to support it, you would see a gradual change in the fossil record from the start to the end, but you don't...not even close. You also would have been able to find thousands upon thousands of transitional species, but as of today, there are very few.

As stated, ID doesn't say Evolution is wrong, just that natural selection and random mutations are not enough to have created what we have today from nothing.

and that's debatable......
the problem is that philosophically it's like saying "we don't know everything, so fuck it, let's just say God did it and call it a day." It discourages further learning in my opinion. We haven't uncovered every fossil in this earth either....

this thread is too long

I say what the hell. We have been barking up the wrong tree for way too long, so why not start looking elsewhere? Evolution was proposed back when it was the only theory outside of God created everything (my statement). Recent advances in cell structure are showing it is way too complex for shit to just happen and luck out like DE proposes.

As stated to Vidav, who is to say this "intelligence" isn't something to do with quantum mechanics? Maybe shit at the very basic level just wants to form more complex structures and gets the ball rolling. You familiar with how a protein is made? It's like the cell creates a pearl necklace, but each pearl is an amino acid. Each amino acid obviously has different charges and shapes. The damn thing just folds up perfectly with positive portions seeking out negative with the shapes of the different amino acids causing interference (steric hindrance). Friggen thing then plugs along as an enzyme. Insanely amazing.

Lastly, do you really think if funding was pulled from some of these Darwin apologists, they would still bark up the same tree?

[D1B]

and that's debatable......
the problem is that philosophically it's like saying "we don't know everything, so fuck it, let's just say God did it and call it a day." It discourages further learning in my opinion. We haven't uncovered every fossil in this earth either....

this thread is too long

I say what the hell. We have been barking up the wrong tree for way too long, so why not start looking elsewhere? Evolution was proposed back when it was the only theory outside of God created everything (my statement). Recent advances in cell structure are showing it is way too complex for shit to just happen and luck out like DE proposes.

As stated to Vidav, who is to say this "intelligence" isn't something to do with quantum mechanics? Maybe shit at the very basic level just wants to form more complex structures and gets the ball rolling. You familiar with how a protein is made? It's like the cell creates a pearl necklace, but each pearl is an amino acid. Each amino acid obviously has different charges and shapes. The damn thing just folds up perfectly with positive portions seeking out negative with the shapes of the different amino acids causing interference (steric hindrance). Friggen thing then plugs along as an enzyme. Insanely amazing.

Lastly, do you really think if funding was pulled from some of these Darwin apologists, they would still bark up the same tree?

Seattlegriz = official cs.com christian dipshit