Originally posted by KellyJayWas looking for a reply from the posts made on page 9, this is an old point we have already argued. No need to re-answer.
I do not think you will ever find anyone without bias on a hotly
discussed topic, myself or you included. I also do not worry about if
you think I no litttle about evolution, since many times over what that
means if I do not agree with your view I do not understand it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayJust because two things have some similarities, it in no way means they can be considered as equally analogous to the other in all situations.
Really, you cannot see the comparison between machines and life?
The start stop mechanisms with in both do not suggest they are in any
way similar? The fact that energy drives both, that the vast array of
other odds and ends do not do anything for you?
Kelly
For example: a balloon is similar to the sun in some characteristics, its similar shape, contains a gas, and has energy....... just because of these similar traits does it mean a balloon is analogous to the sun for all situations?
By your logic it would seem so…..? but could a balloon light a solar system? Could a balloon give life to plants? Could a balloon warm planet earth? You see an analogy has to be appropriate KJ, a common trait between 2 things does not automatically qualify your analogy.
To repeat for the 3rd.... 4th hell it’s probably many more times, your analogy is not logical because:
Machines are not alive.
Machines cannot reproduce.
Machines do not have a code that replicates, mutates or recombines.
Machines subcomponents do NOT have a natural affinity to each other.
Machines cannot grow.
Machines cannot maintain homeostasis.
.........and there are probably many more reasons that people could add to show why machines are NOT analogous to life.
A pointless point, and a response you always seem to side step.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you are going to skirt the issue then?
I said that if we were going to discuss the movie for its content you
should see it first! What is claimed about it, the sites you go to for
your information may not be correct, they may be too, in which case I
have to agree with you, the movie would have some major issues on
its face. We may find one or two issues with the movie, if that is the
case,
enough to dismiss the movie would that same standard for the sites
you go to as well?
Kelly
They won't release that movie here, for the simple reason there is no market for it here, in Japan. I cannot watch it, unless you can provide a source for me. [edit: btw, it was the "New estimate on the probability of intelligent life" thread that you refused to read an article, yet still had the audacity to comment upon the subject.]
I have, however, researched the movie, and responded to several claims made in the movie posted by Whodey. If my research were flawed I wouldn't be able to do that.
So, stop running away from the issue. Debate the points or concede defeat, the choice is yours.
Originally posted by timebombtedYet, interestingly, machines do evolve, albeit in an artificial selection type manner. I have pointed this out to Kelly in the past. Strangely, he didn't agree with my analogy then. Seems he does now.
Just because two things have some similarities, it in no way means they can be considered as equally analogous to the other in all situations.
For example: a balloon is similar to the sun in some characteristics, its similar shape, contains a gas, and has energy....... just because of these similar traits does it mean a balloon is analogous to the sun ...[text shortened]... es are NOT analogous to life.
A pointless point, and a response you always seem to side step.
(Actually, when discussing competition between competing technologies or systems, to say it is a form of natural selection would not, in my opinion, be overstating the matter)
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzObviously the word "evolve" has many contexts, the context in each case is very different in my opinion.
Yet, interestingly, machines do evolve, albeit in an artificial selection type manner. I have pointed this out to Kelly in the past. Strangely, he didn't agree with my analogy then. Seems he does now.
(Actually, when discussing competition between competing technologies or systems, to say it is a form of natural selection would not, in my opinion, be overstating the matter)
I do not believe life forming /evolving and machines being made / redesigned are analogous.
This analogy would also suggest that evolution is driving life with ever increasing benefits, which is probably the case with humans designing machines. Whereas life evolves to be adequately adapted to the current environment, life doesn't have to be perfect, it only needs to be good enough to survive to reproductive age. Evolution does not drive change in ever increasingly beneficial directions, it has no direction, plan or design.
I do however agree, if we are using the term loosely, that technology evolves in the same way as ideas and concepts evolve.
Originally posted by timebombtedAgreed.
Obviously the word "evolve" has many contexts, the context in each case is very different in my opinion.
I do not believe life forming /evolving and machines being made / redesigned are analogous.
This analogy would also suggest that evolution is driving life with ever increasing benefits, which is probably the case with humans designing machines. ...[text shortened]... using the term loosely, that technology evolves in the same way as ideas and concepts evolve.
5 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzScotty how goes it? I hope nothing I say gets lost in translation while you are currently living in Japan 😛
Actually, whodey, if you actually find out about the people involved, none of them had their careers terminated as a result of their beliefs.
The Smithsonian guy actually had his position extended, but he didn't show up for 3 years. His paper was not accepted as "good science" by any sort of unbiased peer review process, rather it was railroaded thr the defense against dodgy journalism.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Anyhew, I will now jump back into the frey.
It is often hard to ascertain what the truth about these matters actually is. I did read the web site you gave me but the nagging questions in the back of my mind were are these facts being provided true? For example, were the articles accurate that they provided or if they were accurate were the sources that printed those articles being on the level? One thing that was alarming in the article you provided was the contention that the movie made the statement that Darwinian evolution ALWAYS leads one to eugenics. As I recall, Ben said that this is not necessarily the case for all people but it is evident that it had for some. It is fine if you don't want to blame the teachings of Darwin as being their motivator for such evil acts but the fact remains that the Nazi victims were nothing more than lab rats. It was a case of science gone awry while living in a seemingly moral vacuum. As you see, science does have a dark side in human history just as religion has in the past. Does this make science evil? No. However, neither does it make religion evil as Dawkins seems to imply.
Although I have my doubts about the article you provided I also have my doubts about the movie as well. Movies like this often misrepresent facts in order to sensationalize issues just as we have seen Michal Moore do in the past. Having said that, all in all I thought the movie was very entertaining and I thought Ben did a fine job in the movie. His charm of course is that he is so layed back and analytical about the whole affair. An example is when he was interviewing Dawkins and Dawkins laid science aside in order to bash the Judeo-Christian God by saying that the God of the Bible was a jealous and murdering and contemptuous etc etc. all the while Ben just sat there not blinking an eye and letting him finish every last word. Then Ben simply told him that that was fine if he wanted to think this but what about those who thinks that he is a God of love? Ben asked him if there was any harm in people thinking he as a loving God? Dawkins I think was taken aback and had nothing really to say to that.
As for aliens being a natural phenomenon and not God, does Jesus qualify as a natural phenonmenon I wonder?
BTW: What the @*@*@ are you doing in Japan!!!!?????
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyHi Whodey,
Scotty how goes it? I hope nothing I say gets lost in translation while you are currently living in Japan 😛
Anyhew, I will now jump back into the frey.
It is often hard to ascertain what the truth about these matters actually is. I did read the web site you gave me but the nagging questions in the back of my mind were are these facts being provide lify as a natural phenonmenon I wonder?
BTW: What the @*@*@ are you doing in Japan!!!!?????
I'm well, thanks for asking. And yourself? As for things getting lost in translation, well, all I can say is that this language is "totemo muzukashi"!! 😉 (apparently Japanese script doesn't work here)
Of course, we always have to look at the bias in any given system. It certainly seems that there is significant doubt on the claims in the documentary. If we assume that the National Centre for Science Education are not lying, then it seems like a great number of the claims behind the movie were fabricated. For example, the "sacked" professor, who was on a one year contract who was not renewed. "Sacked" would be stretching the word waaaaaay beyond breaking point.
Certainly, many people attribute the horrors of eugenics and the murder of millions of people in WW2 to evolution. However, this would be the equivalent of blaming the atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Einsten, as a logical progression of E=mc^2. In WW2, Hitler and the Nazi's did a great number of bad things. They believed eugenics to be possible, and they chose to try and follow that path. Indeed, eugenics could theoretically work, although it would not be a world one would want to live in, I feel. Let's remember that those things were a pervetion of science, although some good (technically rather than ethically) science was done in those times. How do you think we know so much about the medical effects of hypothermia, for example? This is the same way that war often drives forward technology that is often subsequently used in peacetime. The computer would be an excellent example.
As for the Stein - Dawkins interview, of course I haven't seen it. But, whilst the God of the old testament was pretty barbarous, and indeed, those punishments, like burning heretics at the stake were common well into the dark ages, andit was only the subsequent enlightenment which brought an end to those prcatices (and that piggy-backed upon the Islamic enlightenment, which was coming to an end at the time). What's wrong with people believing in a loving God? Well, in that case, what's wrong with them believing in a loving frog? Or a loving Flying Spaghetti Monster? Would you vote for a president who is an FSM supporter? But why should people cling to delusions? Why does the religious right feel the need to intrude into science classrooms? I ahve no problem with people believing whatever they want, inside the confines of their own head. Once it starts to affect other people, then I have problems with it.
As for me, well, I'm working as a scientist in a Tohoku University over here. I was working as an English teacher last year, as an interim thing whilst my funding was sorted out, but the company went bankrupt, and I went in cognito as you well know. So, here for 2 years, and then?? Well, we'll see!
Originally posted by scottishinnzFor me, this is one of the reasons religion is important. It petitions us to act in a moral fashion while engaged in all our endevours including science. In other words, just because something can be done in science does not mean it should be done. However, there will always be those in science who will try it simply because it can be done. Eugenics come to mind. You said that theorectically it could work. Does this mean you think we should try it or is it one of thoe things that should not be tried because it is "immoral".
[Certainly, many people attribute the horrors of eugenics and the murder of millions of people in WW2 to evolution. However, this would be the equivalent of blaming the atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Einsten, as a logical progression of E=mc^2. In WW2, Hitler and the Nazi's did a great number of bad things. They believed eugenics to be possi ...[text shortened]... hnology that is often subsequently used in peacetime. The computer would be an excellent example.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhy cling to the immaterial that you call my delusion? Is that your question? Well, for me, my religion says that God is love. God and love have much in common. For example, love is immaterial in that it cannot be proven to exist empiracally yet it remains the single greatest driving force in our lives. Is'nt it funny that the greatest driving force in our lives does not really exist in and of itself? In fact, religion would have very little practicle significance to humanity if God was not viewed in this way. I think that is what Ben was trying to convey in the interview with Dawkins, but I doubt he had any inclination to this type of thinking.
Hi Whodey,
As for the Stein - Dawkins interview, of course I haven't seen it. But, whilst the God of the old testament was pretty barbarous, and indeed, those punishments, like burning heretics at the stake were common well into the dark ages, andit was only the subsequent enlightenment which brought an end to those prcatices (and that piggy-backed ...[text shortened]... ent in cognito as you well know. So, here for 2 years, and then?? Well, we'll see!
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell I hope you enjoy your stay there and if nothing else at least you get to see a little of the world to boot.
As for me, well, I'm working as a scientist in a Tohoku University over here. I was working as an English teacher last year, as an interim thing whilst my funding was sorted out, but the company went bankrupt, and I went in cognito as you well know. So, here for 2 years, and then?? Well, we'll see![/b]
Originally posted by whodeyThat's where I disagree. The existence of morality isn't dependent on religion.
For me, this is one of the reasons religion is important. It petitions us to act in a moral fashion while engaged in all our endevours including science. In other words, just because something can be done in science does not mean it should be done. However, there will always be those in science who will try it simply because it can be done. Eugenics come ...[text shortened]... we should try it or is it one of thoe things that should not be tried because it is "immoral".
Scientists don't need religion to be moral and it's not the absence of religion that caused the nazis to do what they did, it was the absence of morality.
I find it somewhat offensive when people suggest that you need religion for morality because it suggests that I, as someone who does not have a religion, am somehow immoral not because of something I've done or said, but just because I don't believe in god.
Originally posted by whodeyAs psychopawn points out, and has been noted in many, many evolution books, morality can evolve, based on the simple idiom that if I am a bad monkey, other monkies will remember and not help me.
For me, this is one of the reasons religion is important. It petitions us to act in a moral fashion while engaged in all our endevours including science. In other words, just because something can be done in science does not mean it should be done. However, there will always be those in science who will try it simply because it can be done. Eugenics come ...[text shortened]... we should try it or is it one of thoe things that should not be tried because it is "immoral".
In fact, you got it whole flipside the wrong way round. Religion got its morals from evolution!!
Originally posted by whodeyReligion has no practical (positive) significance to me whatsoever.
Why cling to the immaterial that you call my delusion? Is that your question? Well, for me, my religion says that God is love. God and love have much in common. For example, love is immaterial in that it cannot be proven to exist empiracally yet it remains the single greatest driving force in our lives. Is'nt it funny that the greatest driving force in o ...[text shortened]... vey in the interview with Dawkins, but I doubt he had any inclination to this type of thinking.
Love has a physical, and a genetic, basis. It isn't magical.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat love feels like it has a magical sense about it is biological itself. It serves a social purpose.
Love has a physical, and a genetic, basis. It isn't magical.
This magical sense compels people to act upon it love, leading to sex and thus perpetuating the
species.
Nemesio