Thread: Newton + Einstein were wrong!

> You might be surprised that I don't agree with the religious zealouts of the current day regarding this debate.

C'mon, Bubba. Give me a little more credit than that. I'd be pretty surprised if you did agree with them.

> After reading those links you might realize that the guy proves this by simply using a circular argument and attempting to redefine evolution giving it a much grander scope

Could you give an example?

> In fact if we could prove Creation then a whole lot of things have to change. If you accept Creation then you must accept there is a God. Since creation is written in the Bible and you accept creation as true, then you must accept the Bible as true or at least the part about creation.

This only applies if you prove Biblical creation is true. What if any of the other multitudes of creation stories were proven true? What if we found out the Viking creation story was the real way it happened?

> I'm also intelligent enough to understand that it cannot be taught, presented, or argued as a science. Ever.

Please go to the various schoolboards around the country that are talking about teaching Intelligent Design as a viable scientific theory and tell them that please

but then why must we coxist? at some time the question must be answered "Why should we live the way we do"

Evolution helped fashion ethics because coexisting benefits us as individuals, i didn't built the flat i live in or farm the food i eat, society is usefull.

Essentially what you are saying is that we make standards of ethics based on how we actually act not on how we should?

Well i was saying that whilst people appeal to different theroretical frameworks, core ethics are not really reasoned out, they are ingrained through biological functionality and social upbringing, we only start thinking about the principles of ethics afterwards.

but why not take measures to protect those who have amorals from the moral? there must be a reason why we choose a set system of ethics so consistantly. Again the example of the schizophrenia is the same. Why must they be isolated from us because of their morals (or lack thereof) while we get to happily prance along with ours? There is a sense of hidden justice or right and wrong that seems to be in play.

Well the reason we protect non-schizophrenics from schizophrenics is because its the non-schizophrenics who need protecting.

To put it another way those who have a concept of ethics deem harming people wrong, ergo they try to prevent it by putting schizophrenics into mental institutes.

What I am saying is this: You could just as easily say that the non-scchizophrenics are the one harming the schizophrenics. Why not put them away? There does not seem to be a logical reason to put one group of people away vs. another based on that idea.

moreso, If two groups of people are brought up with to completely contradictory social upbringings. which one then is correct or which one would we adhere to as the predominate "moral code"

Please go to the various schoolboards around the country that are talking about teaching Intelligent Design as a viable scientific theory and tell them that please

I wish I could. They wouldn't listen to me though. There are well-meaning radical zealots out there that simply are acting out of ignorance. A lot, and I mean a lot, of people in the church are very uneducated about what they believe or even what their denomination believes. Theology is hardly ever touched upon and so they resort to this radical hyped up bologna they call spirituality which is more akin to acting like a moron - which only hurts the church more and more and drives more and more people away from it. So many people in even my own church just tell me to accept whatever is said and 'forget' about my education. Sorry, charlie, I paid a lot of money for it and the stuff they taught me has helped me understand a great deal. I don't agree with about 80% of what I see on the TV concerning religion simply because most of it is pure hype...not even backed up by anything save for their charisma. My theo profs taught against this kind of absent minded radicalism and for good reason.

In fact my profs even warned, cautioned, and basically told us to stay away from the creationism movement. Not because we don't believe in creation but because we know according to the laws of science it cannot be studied as a science and therefore should not be presented in a scientific format.

There were also several theories brought up at my school concerning creation which most churches do not accept. The basic premise is that the word used for day in the actual Greek does not mean 'day' in our sense of the word. It truly means an undefined amount of time which could be a minute, an hour, or ten million years. So for me to attempt to prove God created the earth in six literal days flies in the face of Genesis itself - and then to be so arrogant as to calim to have found scientific proof of it when there is none is just utterly insane. In essence and according to hermenuetics of scripture I would be pulling something out of the passage that truly was not there - basically reading my own meaning into the passage with no thought or concern about the context of the passage, the context of the verses surrounding the passage, the historical setting of the book, the time in which the book was written, the people or audience that the book was written to, the personality traits of the author of the book, the nationality of the author of the book, etc., etc. A lot of study must be done in order to correctly interpret the meaning of a passage. And while some believe it cannot be done there truly is a science behind interpreting a passage. Of course none of us are the same two people so two different men might throw a different spin on the passage - but its core meaning should not change. It's kind of like C++. None of us use the same exact algorithms to get a certain task done. But we both end up solving the problem one way or another - so the core task or the core goal of our code is the same even though our code is not identical. We each throw our own little spin into how we arrive at the end result. That cannot be avoided with any author, much less biblical authors.

I see far too many times uneducated people attempting to teach and preach out of scripture when they truly have no clue about how to go about doing it. The end result is usually a lesson or message with about 50% truth in it, and 50% personal spin. Creationism is one of these areas for sure. So many people have put their own spin on it and have tried to use other passages to support their pre-suppositions.....but they all have failed miserably. Even in the church we do not agree in how many days or how long it took to create all of what we see and don't see so attempting to prove one aspect of that to the world using science even though the issue itself does not lend itself to scientific analysis is totally beyond comprehension. It's...well....stupid.

The more you study churches and religion in general the more common grounds you begin to find. On the surface you have all of these different sects and spinoffs and it can become quite confusing - but if you dig deep enough into the fundamentals you will begin to see a common thread and you will also begin to see those that deviate considerably from that common thread. I would call it a form of syncretism in that 50% of it looks really good and can be found in a passage, but the other 50% is way out in left field and can't be found anywhere except inside of the inventor's head. This is not a healthy way to present topics and issues found in the Bible and it certainly is not healthy presenting creation as a science. It's not healthy for the church nor is it healthy for people in general. It immediately gives the wrong impression to a great many people, some whom are extremely educated, and therefore nullifies all future arguments or claims.

Makes me mad really.

Even though you and I probably disagree about a great many things on a fundamental level, we can still discuss the issue at hand. I'm not offended by any of it and I don't wear my 'religion' on my shoulder so to say. I know what I believe and why I believe and I don't get mad when someone challenges that. In fact it is quite healthy I think. Some of my fellow church members however seem to get mad when they cannot find a good answer to a question that probably shakes their very belief system. It's simpy because way down deep.........they don't know what they believe. I really can't explain it any different than that. In C++ and programming in general I need proof of everything and every algo. Solid 100% empirical evidence that something works and I must know why. However when it comes to my faith this is simply not the case - after all if I had empirical evidence I really couldn't call it a faith anymore could I? And what would be special about my belief in something I had empirical evidence for - that's not faith - that's something that computes like mathematics or physics. We can all do that. It doesn't require belief, it just requires logic. But faith is one of those areas where logic fails and empirical evidence is just not the norm. It's just faith. If religious faith could be attained by mental assent and by proving this or that we would all be people of religous faith because all of us here on this board only believe something if it can be proven. If not then we don't accept it which is part of our very nature and which makes us unique. I know that if it all made sense we would all believe....but it does not make sense. A belief in something you cannot see, taste, feel, hear, or prove exists is definitely a faith.

So teaching creation is impossible without teaching faith. And since I do not feel that a school should be responsible for teaching faith I shudder at all of this nonsense about teaching creation as a science. It's ridiculous.

EDIT: And oops I forgot to show you evidence of the circular argument. Gimme some time and I'll re-read the information you presented and then give you my reasons for saying that. It's just circular because it is. j/k LOL.

And here I am cheez debating with you so eloquently reaching back into the dark cob-webbed recesses of my mind pulling out all my old college classes and lectures........and you can't even add to my rep? HAH. This debate is over. I'm not gonna do all this work for nothing....it feels too much like school.

What I am saying is this: You could just as easily say that the non-scchizophrenics are the one harming the schizophrenics. Why not put them away? There does not seem to be a logical reason to put one group of people away vs. another based on that idea.

Treating the schizophrenics in a special manner results in the least amount of suffering/harm. The non-schizophrenics buy into to this idea (or other ideas like justice/ something else) and out number the schizophrenics so thats what happens.

moreso, If two groups of people are brought up with to completely contradictory social upbringings. which one then is correct or which one would we adhere to as the predominate "moral code"

Well which one we would adhere to depends on which group we were part of.

When there are differences then i think people do fall back on the theoretical arguments they use to justify their ethics. The consistency and basis of the theoretical arguments used can be analysed, factual beliefs may play a part and can in principle be pointed out as rational or irrational (no, killing a child every month will not make it rain).

what I was geting at was this, suppose that there are an equal amount of each side. schizophrenics vs non-schizophrenics, assuming that it is not possible to live cherently together, who then has the right to subdue the other.

...I will post again in a while, I was just interupted and must go.

Basically you can say that my arguement comes down to this. What is justice and where does it come form. Why do we adhere to it so strongly and what makes us think that one thing is neccesarily better than another.

I see people every day drawing on some unseen code of justice that they expect everyone to not only know, but folow. I see it evident in government and all their citizens. We have social rights and wrongs, where then do these come from and what gives them power.

Your arguement about similar ethics through diversity of ethical groundworks points more towards absolute morals than evolved (to me anyway). and the idea of ethics as a conduct for existing with others falls short when the issue at hand does not relate to existance and do not in any way help us (such as putting ourselves in certain danger to help some else we do not know). It falls even shorter when we try and explain actions that go against our natural insticts. It would not help us to survive to save the old man, who you did not know and perhaps is dead already, who is floating face-down in a river that has very strong currents and a high fatality rate.

What would posses us to do something "honorable" if honor did not exist? what would be the point in serving justice if there were no justice? Why do we exalt such actions if and when we dicredit them?

What I see in a lot of people is that they do no hold themselves to the ethical world they believe in. We cannot say justice if there is no justice, we cannot say wrong if there is no right. If we claim that our actions are only moral if they better society (or not harm it) than all actions that better society should be good, and all actions that don't, not. This does not seem to be. If I kill a known serial killer who has terrized several cities I will be arrested for it. If I attempt to euthanize our elderly (because of social ramifications that would benift society) I am branded a horible person. How can that be if ethics are truly for the betterment of society?

Instead I would argue that because of the nature in how we act there is a definate absolute moral standard by which we behave or ought t behave, That we each seem to understand this standard and hold others to it.

Well, there is no doubt that a number of principles that people regard as being just are shared in common in some form or another. But even so, there are many principles in which people either a) have slightly different, but effective the same, views on, or b) have completely different views on. Such is clearly evident if you listen to argument regarding the laws that should or should not be passed by the government. There are (usually) at least two sides, with people on each. You cannot say that they have identical principles; clearly, they differ.

Well, there is no doubt that a number of principles that people regard as being just are shared in common in some form or another. But even so, there are many principles in which people either a) have slightly different, but effective the same, views on, or b) have completely different views on. Such is clearly evident if you listen to argument regarding the laws that should or should not be passed by the government. There are (usually) at least two sides, with people on each. You cannot say that they have identical principles; clearly, they differ.

laws are clearly different than morals. I don't think anyone would disagree with me on that. you would be hard pressed to find someone who said it was ethically correct to compulsively lie, and yet you cannot be arrested for merely lying (unless that lie involves something more than just the lie itself) there is no law against lying. There is no law about how we ought to live only how we cannot live. It does not say, you must be a good person, but it does say, you cannot murder someone.

what I was geting at was this, suppose that there are an equal amount of each side. schizophrenics vs non-schizophrenics, assuming that it is not possible to live cherently together, who then has the right to subdue the other.

As written this question seems to only makes sense if we first assume there is an absolute system of ethics that is somehow etched into the very fabric of the universe, but that view appears contrary to what we have learned about ourselves, the way we interact and the reason we interact through the physical sciences.

I would thus answer as i did before that the only people who have a concept of "right" would be the non-schizophrenics and thus they consider themselves "right" to do so. I also consider them "right" because i think the least amount of total harm occurs that way.

Basically you can say that my arguement comes down to this. What is justice and where does it come form. Why do we adhere to it so strongly and what makes us think that one thing is neccesarily better than another.

I personally don't buy into justice in the "an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth" sense.

However that concept is fairly common and i would answer that it stems from both social and biological evolution, it emerges out of our ability to feel compassion for those who suffer, but also anger at others who cause us harm, or (through empathy) cause others harm, since society needs laws to function and the concept of justice is one that can be used to justify those laws, it was/is used in that mannor and hence its psychological/neurological basis is reinforced through social imprinting.

Your arguement about similar ethics through diversity of ethical groundworks points more towards absolute morals than evolved (to me anyway).

Well it could be that evolution fashioned us with a universal system of ethics, so in a sense the two are not necessarily incompatable, but infact it is clear as Zach points out, that, that is not the case, whilst (as i mentioned before) there are similarities in core principles there are also variations, resulting in great debate over ethics, abortion, euthanasia, animal research, the degree of punishment a particular crime warrants, etc. etc.

and the idea of ethics as a conduct for existing with others falls short when the issue at hand does not relate to existance and do not in any way help us (such as putting ourselves in certain danger to help some else we do not know).

Well evolutionary psychology is able to provide various hypothesise explaining why altruism in the form you suggest exists, but there is undoubtedly a social/cultural component, evolution of memes rather than genes. Pulling together the exact evolutionary history of a set of genes is to all extenses and purposes impossible, doing the same for memes is even harder (there is argument over whether the term "memes" is really suitable, but whether or not Darwinian ideas can be applied, clearly cultural behaviour does change and in a mannor that is not straight forward).

I should point out that the question you seem to be asking, is a factual question, a question that can only be answered through rational means, through examination of the evidence, putting forward ideas and testing those ideas, ie. through science.

It falls even shorter when we try and explain actions that go against our natural insticts. It would not help us to survive to save the old man, who you did not know and perhaps is dead already, who is floating face-down in a river that has very strong currents and a high fatality rate.

But you see evolution is not so simple, undoubtedly there is no "save the old man" gene, so then question is: What kind of genes are there? What kind of behaviour can we attribute to genes? The answer would seem to be more on the "generic" rather than the "specific" side, furthermore in terms of behaviour genes do not seem to be determinstic but rather they provide a bias one way or the other (to greater or lesser extremes)

Genes that will bias us towards avoiding harming ourselves are easy to understand, so what about genes that will bias us towards helping others? Well as i said earlier one can explain these genes in terms of the benefit of cooperating.

Who we are is determined not only by our genes but also by the sum of our environmental interactions, if as an individual is brought up it is constantly stressed to him/her that we should always strive to help others you would expect that individual would have his bias towards altruisitic behaviour increased, likewise the reverse is also true.

Our final actions will obviously be dependent on who we are but will also invariable involve a large throw of the dice.

What would posses us to do something "honorable" if honor did not exist? what would be the point in serving justice if there were no justice? Why do we exalt such actions if and when we dicredit them?

Well i think I have provided some of the reasoning involved in answering that question, but i think your line of reasoning is self-defeating anyway, what would possess us to do something "honourable" if "honour" did exist? What does is actually mean to say "honour" "exists", anyway?

Given that our behaviour appears to be governed by the physical makeup of our brain, by neurones built from a DNA template and connected to each other based on that template and numerous environmental interactions how is an absolute code that somehow "exists" of itself going to be involved?

What I see in a lot of people is that they do no hold themselves to the ethical world they believe in. We cannot say justice if there is no justice, we cannot say wrong if there is no right. If we claim that our actions are only moral if they better society (or not harm it) than all actions that better society should be good, and all actions that don't, not. This does not seem to be. If I kill a known serial killer who has terrized several cities I will be arrested for it. If I attempt to euthanize our elderly (because of social ramifications that would benift society) I am branded a horible person. How can that be if ethics are truly for the betterment of society?

The fundamental neurology that allows ethics to exist may have evolved because it benefits the individual to exist within a society (notice thats quite different to the "benefit of society") but it does not follow that everything that we reason out as a benefit to social cohesion is necessarily ethical. Evolution is slow:

Evolution fashioned us with a liking for sugary foods, because 10,000 years ago they were rare and nutrionally very usefull, but for quite a few people today that is a disadvantage it now means that in environments where sugar is plentiful populations are becoming obese and their health suffering: Liking sugar evolved to benefit us, and yet now it harms us, and STILL we like sugar.

We haven't stopped liking sugar, our ability to reason out that it harms us makes no difference.

Likewise evolution may have fashioned us with a neurology that underlies ethics because doing so benefits us through enhanced social cohesion but that doesn't mean that if we reason out that X enhances social cohesion, it will necessarily feel ethical.

On the hand it must be stressed that ethics is not _just_ genes, there is our cultural environment enhancing or reducing certain aspects of our ethics, and there is a theoretical side which (as mentioned before) i don't think forms the real basis for the "core" of ethics but undoubtedly it becomes important when new situations arise, or when more complex issues are involved (e.g. abortion, animal experimentation, etc.)

Originally Posted by Dissata

laws are clearly different than morals. I don't think anyone would disagree with me on that. you would be hard pressed to find someone who said it was ethically correct to compulsively lie, and yet you cannot be arrested for merely lying (unless that lie involves something more than just the lie itself) there is no law against lying. There is no law about how we ought to live only how we cannot live. It does not say, you must be a good person, but it does say, you cannot murder someone.

You appear to have slightly missed the point of my post. I won't go into too much depth because Clyde has already done so, but I will state the following:

(Many) Laws are an applied example of morals. Laws come about because someone thinks that something is right (though generally when something is thought to be wrong, laws are created), and these laws express someone's sense of morality. Note, however, that the example of laws was in no way central to the point I was making, but a mere example.

Your example is a bit flawed too. There is no law regarding whether or not one is allowed to compulsively lie. That is, the law does not pass judegement on anyone for such behavior, either positively or negatively, and that judgement is therefore left to those who are affected by that person.

It is unfortunately only a myth that we use only a small percentage of our brain.

I think that post proves it depends on the person.