Spider Mastermind
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > Evolution vs Creationism
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:09. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Clonehunter
Forum Staple


Posts: 3866
Registered: 03-10


Lets just accept whatever Islam teaches before they kill us infidels.

Old Post 04-24-14 04:53 #
Clonehunter is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
Zed
Forum Regular


Posts: 963
Registered: 10-11



FireFish said:
No matter from what side you look at it, science, forms of creationism, any type of divine interception, it all comes down to a paradoxal infinite loop. There is no end on either side, and the hunt will continue forever.


From a "scientific" point of view, this is actually a good thing, given that science doesn't rely on "absolute" knowledge, but instead understands that we don't know everything (and we'll never know it), so it instead relies on what can be proven, e.g., evolution.


FireFish said:
-> God created us (or some advanced creator).
Who created god, and who created the god of god, and so on...

-> science.
How can something come to be in nothing. if there is nothing then there could by all logical means never be anything to bring particles and atoms and dust to existence. eventually science will come to this point where they get stuck on this. the first content which ever existed in what we call the universe, or the infinite black void... how could it ever come to be from absolutely nothing.

edit : to make the science loop clear.
thus if science discovers the first ever particle or form of existing, then that first ever form could not be the first as it has to have something which made it come to existence to. our human reasoning and logic can not yet fathom this. everything needs something to be able to exist, the only logic we now know.



This is simply not true.

While creationists try to back their claims with his own beliefs or ideas, in science is imperative to bring up evidence, otherwise you'll not be taken seriously, and your point of view is not likely to stand up for long. I say this because in science it doesn't matter if we can explain it all, we just rely on the existing evidence to explain the world. It doesn't matter if we were wrong. It does matter if we are wrong and insist on the same thing again, and again, and again. Like creationists.

Old Post 04-24-14 05:01 #
Zed is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
FireFish
Member


Posts: 601
Registered: 04-13


The hunt will continue forever.
---
once one point is proven science will find another point which needs proof.(or hide the proof if money is involved... sadly.)
---

i wanted to show that everything needs a beginning.
it is easy to claim 'a creator' made us and go full tilt on writings based around that concept. But they NEVER question where that creator could have come from. how irrelevant would it be in means of understanding the universe and everything in existence, if the only thing known would be 'ok, an alien made us'. from that point on science would not differ from religion. it is not purely about us humans and animals, it is about everything. A true scientist would study beyond that one tiny problem which says 'human origins'.

---
also reconsider 'claiming' falsehood on the infinite loop i described,
unless you know how to make something out of absolutely nothing.

Old Post 04-24-14 05:23 #
FireFish is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7779
Registered: 07-00



FireFish said:

also reconsider 'claiming' falsehood on the infinite loop i described,
unless you know how to make something out of absolutely nothing.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ast...g.html#firstlaw

Old Post 04-24-14 05:53 #
fraggle is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
Zed
Forum Regular


Posts: 963
Registered: 10-11



FireFish said:
i wanted to show that everything needs a beginning.


No, not really.


FireFish said:
it is easy to claim 'a creator' made us and go full tilt on writings based around that concept. But they NEVER question where that creator could have come from. how irrelevant would it be in means of understanding the universe and everything in existence, if the only thing known would be 'ok, an alien made us'. from that point on science would not differ from religion. it is not purely about us humans and animals, it is about everything. A true scientist would study beyond that one tiny problem which says 'human origins'.


Sorry, but you insist on comparing science with religion when they are obviously two different methods of understanding "what's going on" with the universe. Religion is based on "what you want to believe". Science is based on evidence. Science doesn't try to prove God/creationism/Barney aren't true concepts. It works with what it has, explains the world as good as it can be explained based on current evidence, and if proven wrong, it will reconsider/fix its theories (which, contrary to popular belief, are not absolute).


FireFish said:
also reconsider 'claiming' falsehood on the infinite loop i described,
unless you know how to make something out of absolutely nothing. [/B]


I don't understand what you are saying here, could someone explain this?

EDIT: Oh, I get it. Thanks fraggle.

Old Post 04-24-14 05:59 #
Zed is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
Captain Red
Pants


Posts: 5429
Registered: 06-01


maybe the truth is in the middle you guys

Old Post 04-24-14 06:18 #
Captain Red is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
GreyGhost
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 8840
Registered: 01-08


Maybe God's an evolutionist who's spent the last 3.8 billion years or so making experimental changes to lifeforms in order to see what works and what doesn't. At the end of the experiment he/she will sum up their findings in a report for their science teacher - who's running a larger experiment that involves the entire galaxy.

geekmarine said:
Let's say this was not about something so controversial. What if the debate were about whether or not the world is round. Now, if I provide evidence to support the claim that the world is round, but start yelling and insulting anyone who disagrees with me, calling them all a bunch of c-words, does that somehow invalidate my evidence? I mean sure, it makes me a jerk, but me being a jerk has nothing to do with whether the evidence supports my argument.
While I may well be swayed by the evidence or the logic of your argument, I'm still reserving the right to kick your butt for being a jerk. :P

Old Post 04-24-14 06:36 #
GreyGhost is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
FireFish
Member


Posts: 601
Registered: 04-13



Zed said:

Sorry, but you insist on comparing science with religion when they are obviously two different methods of understanding "what's going on" with the universe...




-> I doubt you even remotely read my post.
---
A - "it is easy to claim 'a creator' made us and go full tilt on writings based around that concept. But they NEVER question where that creator could have come from."

this clearly means they only follow one thought and would never investigate or think further.
a single minded track. The easy way out, no proof needed for them.

B - "how irrelevant would it be in means of understanding the universe and everything in existence, if the only thing known would be 'ok, an alien made us'. from that point on science would not differ from religion."

this clearly states the difference between science and religion.
science keeps looking further and further, if they would stop at one
hypothetical discovery and abandon all further research then they would be not more than your 'hated' creationism level.

C "it is not purely about us humans and animals, it is about everything. A true scientist would study beyond that one tiny problem which says 'human origins'."

science go's beyond the human factor, a true scientist will not end
at the egotistical humanity as everything can be researched.
---

here is the flaw in the concept 'nothing' @fragle :
"vacuum fluctuations" <- this is something, and not nothing. where do they come from, what makes them happen, what are they made off... all part of 'something'. endless loop.

---

it irritates me to see people put shame on science by clear saturated hate... i am out of this topic.

Old Post 04-24-14 07:10 #
FireFish is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
Zed
Forum Regular


Posts: 963
Registered: 10-11


Once again I misunderstand a post. I can just barely express how disappointed I am with myself.

And what's the deal with those "vacuum fluctuations"? If I get it right, this means that, like the article linked by fraggle stated, photons, positrons, etc., can come out of nowhere, but maybe the question here is "what are you talking about when you say 'nowhere'?".

If I understand correctly, the notion of "place/location" is irrelevant outside of what we call "The Universe", because outside of that universe (whatever that means, if it indeed means something), there's nothing that we can describe as "being there" (I mean, there can't be nothing besides the universe: by definition, the universe is everything). But even then, I think that everything has to come from somewhere else, even if that means taking into account other universes. Which in turn make it even less likely for creationism to be true.

Old Post 04-24-14 07:59 #
Zed is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
FireFish
Member


Posts: 601
Registered: 04-13


further down the article they go into the theories a bit more.

they all come down to the fact that something else existed to make our plane of existence happen. from spacetime expanding itself, to a theory about dimensions expanding. and eventually the known theory where this all creates the big bang.



to be very blunt :
there is no theory which says 'nothing' makes 'something'.

Old Post 04-24-14 08:53 #
FireFish is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
geekmarine
Senior Member


Posts: 1865
Registered: 05-00



GreyGhost said:
While I may well be swayed by the evidence or the logic of your argument, I'm still reserving the right to kick your butt for being a jerk. :P

That is precisely my point. Feel free to kick my ass for being a jerk, but that has nothing to do with whether I'm right or wrong. 2+2=4, and even if I'm kicking you in the balls while telling you that 2+2=4, it doesn't make it any less true. Creationists, on the other hand, try to claim that 2+2=5, and then say their argument must be true simply because people weren't nice about it and laughed at them for claiming 2+2=5. They were mean, therefore they must be wrong. It's like people want the truths of the Cosmos to be tied to emotion, but that's just not how the universe works.

Oh, and to clarify things real quick, remember there is a difference between "The Universe" and the observable universe. There may well be stuff beyond what we can see from where we are - other universes, parallel dimensions, what have you. You can say it's all meaningless speculation, since it's all beyond what we can observe, but it doesn't mean it's not out there, and there's always the possibility that we may increase our powers of observation, maybe figure out ways to detect things we couldn't see before, thus expanding the definition of the observable universe.

Old Post 04-24-14 13:44 #
geekmarine is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
Clonehunter
Forum Staple


Posts: 3866
Registered: 03-10



FireFish said:

to be very blunt :
there is no theory which says 'nothing' makes 'something'.



Isn't that what that Big Bang Theory mumbo jumbo tries to explain? The show I mean.

Old Post 04-24-14 14:39 #
Clonehunter is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
Jimi
Senior Member


Posts: 1527
Registered: 06-04


Maybe some day humans invent equipment that can observe and record stuff outside this universe.

Old Post 04-24-14 15:27 #
Jimi is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
Looper
Member


Posts: 551
Registered: 07-09



FireFish said:

to be very blunt :
there is no theory which says 'nothing' makes 'something'.



First, there was {}, then there was {, {}} and {, {, {}}}.

Old Post 04-24-14 16:13 #
Looper is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7779
Registered: 07-00



FireFish said:


here is the flaw in the concept 'nothing' @fragle :
"vacuum fluctuations" <- this is something, and not nothing. where do they come from, what makes them happen, what are they made off... all part of 'something'. endless loop.

It seems you're confused about what a vacuum is.


to be very blunt :
there is no theory which says 'nothing' makes 'something'.


Actually there is. I've linked you to it above; vacuum energy is exactly what "something from nothing" is. You just seem to be redefining words to suit your purposes: ie. moving the goalposts.

I grant it's difficult to understand that something can come from nothing. But the fact is, that's exactly what happens at very small scales. Our brains are designed to understand the macroscopic world that we encounter on a daily basis. But the same rules of "everyday" physics don't apply when you get to the scale of particle physics: the double slit experiment is another good example.

Old Post 04-24-14 16:20 #
fraggle is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
FreddBoy
Junior Member


Posts: 102
Registered: 02-14


Well, I consider myself not an atheist, but not a Christian either. I'm just not fully sold on the idea of a divine creator, and since there is no evidence to dispute a "God" from existing, I'm firmly in the middle ground until each party is on equal footing, then I'll make my choice. I might be in the ground for a VERY long time until this happens but hey.
What I'm trying to say is that religion is ok, until it ends up trying to mess about with the rights people and countries have. An example I've heard of is some fundamentalist Christian group in the UK was saying if they get elected to power, they would remove the "satanic" red Dragon from my countries national flag. Really?

Old Post 04-24-14 17:11 #
FreddBoy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
flubbernugget
Member


Posts: 357
Registered: 06-09



fraggle said:
It seems you're confused about what a vacuum is.


I think the point of his argument is that the vacuum still is.

Old Post 04-24-14 18:02 #
flubbernugget is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
geekmarine
Senior Member


Posts: 1865
Registered: 05-00


I believe he was referring to the whole business of zero-point energy. Even nothing is something. The universe is a confusing place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum

Old Post 04-24-14 18:27 #
geekmarine is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2655
Registered: 07-10



FireFish said:

to be very blunt :
there is no theory which says 'nothing' makes 'something'.



define boundary between nothing and something

Old Post 04-24-14 19:09 #
j4rio is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7779
Registered: 07-00



FreddBoy said:
Well, I consider myself not an atheist, but not a Christian either. I'm just not fully sold on the idea of a divine creator, and since there is no evidence to dispute a "God" from existing
You can't prove a negative. What evidence would convince you that no god exists?

This is kind of the point, really. Scientific concepts have to be falsifiable - for example, if a form of life was discovered that was fundamentally different to every other in its construction, that would potentially disprove evolution. By contrast, religious concepts are not falsifiable: you can never prove that a god does not exist, because a being with the powers of a god could always carefully arrange the evidence to hide its existence.

Old Post 04-24-14 19:34 #
fraggle is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
FreddBoy
Junior Member


Posts: 102
Registered: 02-14



fraggle said:
You can't prove a negative. What evidence would convince you that no god exists?

This is kind of the point, really. Scientific concepts have to be falsifiable - for example, if a form of life was discovered that was fundamentally different to every other in its construction, that would potentially disprove evolution. By contrast, religious concepts are not falsifiable: you can never prove that a god does not exist, because a being with the powers of a god could always carefully arrange the evidence to hide its existence.


You are absolutely correct in what you are saying, as I work in a laboratory and read the history of science, both chemistry based and biology based. The problem I am having is that up to the age of 8-9 I attended a church Sunday school, which thought me the better sides of Christianity, such as helping others, and being tolerant. That's why I feel torn and dare I say it, confused. I know that people don't need religion to be tolerant and helpful, but on the flipside, some people might require it to be tolerant and helpful.
Like you said fraggle, you can't prove a negative, and absalute proof, to me anyways, would be God himself manifesting himself/herself/itself and appearing on earth. And doing the impossible feats, in a controlled environment, to remove any possibility of a fluke etc. Such as a medically checked blind man since birth gets healed, abd sees, all under the scrutiny of scientists. That way, all sides could be contented.
I'm not sure if that last wall of text made sense, but I hope that it did.

Old Post 04-24-14 19:51 #
FreddBoy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
baronofheck82
Member


Posts: 349
Registered: 02-10



It's somewhat unrelated but I thought I'd throw in some humor.

Old Post 04-24-14 21:22 #
baronofheck82 is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
40oz
Forum Spammer


Posts: 6976
Registered: 08-07



geekmarine said:
sticks their fingers in their ears and goes, "La la la I'm not listening!"


Don't get me wrong, if I had to pick between both black and white choices -- creationism and evolution, I would pick evolution. But what you're describing sounds a lot more like what you are doing than what Wendy White is doing. I'm not entirely convinced that you even watched the video after that statement, which is ironic considering the side that you're on.

They were both jerks, Richard Dawkins with his condescending questions, and Wendy White laughing in his face when he makes his statements. That's irrelevant, though. I'm seriously impressed that neither of them raised their voices and kept it civil for that long.

Until yesterday, I've always thought of creationists as looney cross bearing weirdos waving their arms in the air, shouting "I'm no monkey I'm no monkey!!" who then proceed to throw poop at everyone. But White has made some seriously compelling arguments.

White said quite a few things that really made me think, versus Dawkins who really didn't say much I didn't already know.

What exactly is the motive of Dawkins approaching White at her work place(?) to dispute her beliefs? (Whatever it was, it certainly seemed like an uncomfortable and impromptu place to have a debate.) What if White had simply said "you're right, I'm wrong" right from the start? What would Dawkins have to gain from that? The biggest no-no in Christianity and jehovahs witness and what have you (for me) is the insistence of conversion. Why would such a big role model for evolution be doing the same thing? She can't seriously be hurting science with her beliefs.

I also find it strange how highly he speaks of critical thinking, when instead of seeking the evidence she demands to accept it as factual information that would speak for itself, he confronts White in person in an attempt to silence the opposition. A contrarian stance is nothing short of beneficial for serious critical thinking. It seems hypocritical to me.

I agree that fundamentally their differences stem from White having a faith that is clarified and unraveled by science, and Dawkins viewing everything as nothing until explained by science. This makes a discussion pretty combustible when explaining the origin of anything. Who is right or wrong in that regard is nobody's business.

Personally, for me, I find it pretty respectable for White to stand confident in her faith, versus someone (with a vast majority of support, mind you) who depends on evidence to believe in anything at all, in the same way that I respect a space marine who fights alone against endless hordes of monsters who unanimously believe he needs to die.

Old Post 04-24-14 21:31 #
40oz is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7779
Registered: 07-00



40oz said:

Personally, for me, I find it pretty respectable for White to stand confident in her faith, versus someone (with a vast majority of support, mind you) who depends on evidence to believe in anything at all, in the same way that I respect a space marine who fights alone against endless hordes of monsters who unanimously believe he needs to die.

I don't understand your analogy but I'm curious about this sentence. What is wrong (or even unreasonable) about insisting that beliefs be substantiated by evidence?

Or, put another way: in what situation would you want to believe something for which there was no evidence to support it?

Old Post 04-24-14 21:47 #
fraggle is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
40oz
Forum Spammer


Posts: 6976
Registered: 08-07


I didn't mean to imply that there is something wrong or unreasonable about it. But people's beliefs are exactly that, beliefs. They are a part of what gives people their individual character traits, and give the world diversity.

If everyones beliefs were entirely fueled by evidence, there wouldn't be any radically different political groups or philosophies or anything (edit: save for those who are uninformed.) because they would all be formed from the same irrefutable statistics. Granted this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, except that the world would be in perfect neutrality. Which wouldn't make life very interesting.

Beliefs are the reason why you can explain a case to one person and the exact same case to another person and they each have different opinions about it.

Last edited by 40oz on 04-24-14 at 22:33

Old Post 04-24-14 22:22 #
40oz is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7779
Registered: 07-00



40oz said:
I didn't mean to imply that there is something wrong or unreasonable about it. But people's beliefs are exactly that, beliefs. They are a part of what gives people their individual character traits, and give the world diversity.

If everyones beliefs were entirely fueled by evidence, there wouldn't be any radically different political groups or philosophies or anything, because they would all be formed from the same irrefutable statistics. Granted this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, except that the world would be in perfect neutrality. Which wouldn't make life very interesting.

In general I think this would be a good idea and politically I'm in favor of this philosophy. It would probably be a good thing if we trusted experts rather than politicians to make the best decisions.

However, I disagree with your claim that this would lead to perfect neutrality. There are plenty of aspects of political discussion which are not (and cannot be) based purely on objective assessment of facts, but rather on subjective opinions. Simple examples are:
  • Country X is an evil dictatorship; should we invade it and topple the regime?
  • Should abortion be permitted or outlawed?
  • What should the penalty for murder be? Is the death sentence acceptable?
  • Should citizens be permitted to own guns, or is that freedom too much of a threat to public safety?

I can think of many more examples but you get the idea. These are matters of personal conscience or opinion. Sometimes they can be informed by scientific facts (at what age can a foetus feel pain?), but they will always differ from one person to the next.

To some extent modern politics already revolves around these kinds of issues, which is a good thing. But it's also still dominated in no small part by adherance to dogmatic philosophies, which is sad.

Old Post 04-24-14 22:47 #
fraggle is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
Aliotroph?
postCount++


Posts: 2678
Registered: 03-02



FreddBoy said:

You are absolutely correct in what you are saying, as I work in a laboratory and read the history of science, both chemistry based and biology based. The problem I am having is that up to the age of 8-9 I attended a church Sunday school, which thought me the better sides of Christianity, such as helping others, and being tolerant. That's why I feel torn and dare I say it, confused. I know that people don't need religion to be tolerant and helpful, but on the flipside, some people might require it to be tolerant and helpful.



Most religions teach you to be nice to other people (though often with exceptions). Do you think they're just as valid or do you have a specific reason the one you were raised with might be better? Better question: have you ever found any evidence that Christianity is correct? I haven't, and the other religions haven't fared any better.


FreddBoy said:

Like you said fraggle, you can't prove a negative, and absalute proof, to me anyways, would be God himself manifesting himself/herself/itself and appearing on earth. And doing the impossible feats, in a controlled environment, to remove any possibility of a fluke etc. Such as a medically checked blind man since birth gets healed, abd sees, all under the scrutiny of scientists. That way, all sides could be contented.



That wouldn't satisfy any scientist I know. Curing a blind man, or even a hundred blind men with different kinds of blindness, isn't proof of God; at best it's proof of a being that can cure blind people.

The god Christians believe in is ridiculous. How could he prove he is capable of willing an entire cosmos into existence without raising suspicion that he's just manipulating our minds? Manipulating the minds and instruments on a single planet is a far easier task, at least from an energy-budget standpoint. I honestly can't think of a way God could provide positive proof of his existence.

Old Post 04-25-14 05:31 #
Aliotroph? is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
FreddBoy
Junior Member


Posts: 102
Registered: 02-14


Oh no, I don't believe Christianity to be any more valid than say Buddhism. And like you say, all religions (to an extent) teach you to be nice to others. I used Christianity as that's the only religion I know more about, due to me being thought about it in Sunday school.
Hmm, I suppose you are right, but you said an entity that could cure blindness. As humans, we can only cure blindness with medicene and machinery. If an entity could do this without the aid of machinery and just it's hands, then surely, other tests would be devised, such as turning lead into gold, or turning water into wine or other such feats while not impossible themselves, would require massive energy requirements or similar things, that could not be simply hidden on the body or up a sleeve etc.

Old Post 04-25-14 06:35 #
FreddBoy is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
40oz
Forum Spammer


Posts: 6976
Registered: 08-07


I'm not so sure these issues would exist if the actions that caused them to be problems in the first place weren't sourced from personal and uninformed beliefs.

in regards to abortion, as I understand it, biology refers to sexual reproduction as a survival tactic. It is people's beliefs that have them consider it an expression of love, or that they believe they need to satisfy a desire for dominance or pleasure. Otherwise people would reproduce exclusively if they felt their species was in any danger.

Likewise with an evil dictatorship. A dictator would need some personal belief that he was given the responsibility to rule over other people. Naturally everyone would gravitate to a system (that may have not even been discovered yet) that is most efficient and successful, assuming success can be put in measurable quantities, like most healthy population, equal wealth distribution, etc.

again, this wouldn't be a problem, I'm just speaking from personal preference that I prefer to go through life on a bumpy road. My life in its current state feels almost too comfortable, which is in part why I feel this way.

Last edited by 40oz on 04-25-14 at 15:26

Old Post 04-25-14 15:16 #
40oz is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7779
Registered: 07-00



40oz said:
in regards to abortion, as I understand it, biology refers to sexual reproduction as a survival tactic. It is people's beliefs that have them consider it an expression of love, or that they believe they need to satisfy a desire for dominance or pleasure. Otherwise people would reproduce exclusively if they felt their species was in any danger.

Likewise with an evil dictatorship. A dictator would need some personal belief that he was given the responsibility to rule over other people. Naturally everyone would gravitate to a system (that may have not even been discovered yet) that is most efficient and successful, assuming success can be put in measurable quantities, like most healthy population, equal wealth distribution, etc.

My point was not to derail the debate into a discussion of these issues. I was simply responding to your assertion that "the world would be in perfect neutrality" if evidence-based policy was applied. What I'm saying is that you can broadly divide government policies into two different categories:
  • Policies that can be decided based on evidence and expert opinion; for example: "improving the education system" or "making the economy stronger". For issues like these it's actually pretty ludicrous to think that politicians, or indeed even the population electing them, would know what the best course of action is.
  • Policies that are based in whole or in part on matters of personal conscience. Abortion is one example: do the mother's rights trump the life of the baby? etc. While evidence can help inform these decisions, in the end there is no objective answer to these questions.

Obviously not everything fits exactly into one of these two buckets: many fit somewhere in between.

Old Post 04-25-14 15:58 #
fraggle is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:09. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > Evolution vs Creationism

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.