Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-12-2016, 11:34 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:27 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Michael Behe:

wikipedia

Quote:"Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."

"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

This is not a reputable source. This is a person lying for personal belief.

Clearly this guy never read or digested Turings paper on mathematical biological morphology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
16-12-2016, 11:36 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:32 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Repercussions? What repercussions are there for a christian?

Sin. And eternity in abusive dad basement as payment for so called sin.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
16-12-2016, 11:36 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:13 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 09:59 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Read Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution.

Michael Behe's credibility and academic standing was destroyed in Kitzmiller v Dover. He is a discredited laughing stock.

He was misquoted in a book as saying that phrenology was science when he actually said that is was once thought of as science.
His credibility still stands and being questioned in a court case cannot discount his entire body of work. Get real. You want him discredited because his conclusion cannot be denied.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:06 AM)ohio_drg Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 10:51 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  This is what really pisses me off. You said "who can so easily dismiss what science..." It has nothing to do with dismissing science. I do not dismiss science.
Darwinism is a theory that lacks scientific evidence. The science disproves Darwinism.
Microbiologist do not dismiss science and believe that Darwinism cannot explain life's diversity.

You also said, "without actually learning about it or you learned about it and didn't understand it." I have learned about it and I do understand the theory. I don't accept it logically.
One geneticists sad that there would have to be 50,000 structural changes to a cow for it to go into the ocean and become a whale. Cow to whale is stated as a proof of evolution. 50,000 structural changes would require so many genetic changes through beneficial mutations and randomly selected changes that it is not possible.



Peer reviewed scientific examples please.... What exactly is not possible other than the whole whales came from cows part?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_03

What is required to get a cow to live in he ocean? That is the question science has to ask. The question to be asked is not - Why not?
David Berlinski's Paradox.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:41 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:34 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 11:27 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Michael Behe:

wikipedia


This is not a reputable source. This is a person lying for personal belief.

Clearly this guy never read or digested Turings paper on mathematical biological morphology.

Turings was obviously lying so he could be right and have everyone think he was cool. That kind of argument does not work. Step up your game.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:41 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:36 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 11:13 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Michael Behe's credibility and academic standing was destroyed in Kitzmiller v Dover. He is a discredited laughing stock.

He was misquoted in a book as saying that phrenology was science when he actually said that is was once thought of as science.
His credibility still stands and being questioned in a court case cannot discount his entire body of work. Get real. You want him discredited because his conclusion cannot be denied.

No, I don't "want" him discredited; he is discredited.

His ideas have been looked at numerous times since the mid-1990s. In fact, for a while when I was just starting graduate school, there were dozens of PhD candidates who deliberately did papers on disproving some of Behe's claims by demonstrating pathways (that had not been explored, at the time) he claimed were impossible.

He has never been able to state a scientifically-useful concept of what exactly he means by Irreducibly Complex, even though he claims it's something science must demonstrate (and even though he ignores when science demonstrates the things he claims are IC are in fact not IC), and he has never even been able to state a scientifically useful concept of falsification of his ideas.

In the Kitzmiller case, he was pressed on that issue and admitted openly that the only way his ideas could be scientific is if the definition of science was expanded... and then admitted that if we used the very expansion he proposed, it would also bring astrology (etc) into the definition of "science".

But you knew all that already, right? Since you read the transcripts, and all. Dodgy

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-12-2016, 11:42 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 10:30 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I am not backtracking on anything I have said. If you show me where I will address it.

You were backtracking.

Fatbaldhobbit said:
(15-12-2016 08:41 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I asked you to prove that said morality had a basis.

If you cannot prove that your god exists, your morality has no validity.

and you replied

(15-12-2016 08:43 PM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Not true. The Bible exists. That is the basis for Christian morality and the source for all discourse concerning morality. I believe it was inspired by God but that is besides the point.

So you were saying discussing God's existence isn't necessary to validate Christian morality because the real basis is the Bible. Then you backtracked to say instead that you don't want to address the question of God's existence because it's beyond the scope of this thread.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:42 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:09 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Remember, it is not part of a Christian's moral code to lie.

Then why do so many of you do it?

(16-12-2016 11:09 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  It is ingrained in the atheist to lie because there are no repercussions.

Oh?

Well, let's take the obvious first.

You're wrong about repercussions because there are social and possibly legal repercussions for lying. The fact that some liars escape the repercussions does not change the fact that the repercussions do exist.

You're wrong about christians' suffering repercussions for lying for two reasons:
First, if the sinner confesses his sins then all is forgiven and no repercussions.
Second, there is no god, so there are no metaphysical repercussions for the sinner to fear.

(I may be over-simplifying a bit, but hey, you just called me a liar. Deal with it.)

So atheists are ingrained liars?
What about those of us that were christians? Were we not really True Christians TM? Bad seeds, wolfs-in-sheeps clothing, etc.?

(16-12-2016 11:09 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  For the atheist whatever is advantageous to the cause it is allowed.

Apparently that applies to you as well. You are shifting topics, dodging questions, casting aspersions and using discredited sources. All to prove your point.

"Whatever is advantageous to the cause..."

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-12-2016, 11:44 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:09 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 10:43 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Matthew 5:17King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Beyond the scope but here goes - Fulfilling the law means that Jesus lived his life without sin and won back the worked from Satan. This is way beyond the scope and a short incomplete answer. Have you got a couple of days?
OK, so let's go with the KJV then. It doesn't change my point. In fact, you agreed with me without realizing it. Your quoted verse says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law", so it supports my statement that the OT still applies and that Jesus himself said so. In addition, your description of Jesus fulfilling the law describes why he was the supposed savior - again agreeing with what I said about its real meaning. So fulfilling is not replacing the morality definitions from the OT.

The law has not been destroyed but the Christian is not under that law. Just like I am not under Sharia law. The law exists but I am not bound by it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:44 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:40 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  What is required to get a cow to live in he ocean? That is the question science has to ask. The question to be asked is not - Why not?
David Berlinski's Paradox.

[Image: 46719249.jpg]

It's not exactly a "problem" for science, there, bub.

We have lots and lots of examples of land animals that are "intermediate" between land-dwelling environments and fully aquatic lifestyles. Otters, sealions, walruses, hippoes... the list goes on.

Your question is a red herring.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: