Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Matt, Sloth opened the door and you walked right into that one. He is right, you cannot hold a view that there are inalienable rights without a higher power to maintain them in existence.[/quote]

Well, I was going to ignore the higher power bit…Just focusing on this ‘inalienable right’ deal. Something inherent to us, but can’t be measured/observed/falsified.

Which is why I take comfort in the fact that if we do manage to outlaw abortion, state recognized marriage, and–just for kicks in this thread–porn, there is at least one other world view which would say that no rights are being infringed upon.
[/quote]

If that happened you would get no argument from me. I would think my liberty to indulge was being impinged on certainly, and my freedom of choice, but not my rights per se. (If I lived in the society you describe). I lived in just such a society for many years.

As I keep telling my leeehburrhtarian friends, one can always leave if the conditions are insufferable to ones personal ethos.

322

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

The fact that they were made slaves is evidence to me that it is not in fact an inalienable right.[/quote]

It’s not evidence that inalienable rights are non existent, per it’s definition. Inalienable means they exist regardless of circumstance. They are inherent to the individual, not the present might of the authority.[/quote]

That’s the definition? If so, then I’m going to have to agree with Neuromancers statement of “Rights are things societies and their members agree to grant each other, and their existence is subject to those individuals and societies continuing to honour them.” as that is in the context that I was speaking.

323

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

The fact that they were made slaves is evidence to me that it is not in fact an inalienable right.[/quote]

It’s not evidence that inalienable rights are non existent, per it’s definition. Inalienable means they exist regardless of circumstance. They are inherent to the individual, not the present might of the authority.[/quote]

That’s the definition? If so, then I’m going to have to agree with Neuromancers statement of “Rights are things societies and their members agree to grant each other, and their existence is subject to those individuals and societies continuing to honour them.” as that is in the context that I was speaking.[/quote]

Which is why I take comfort in the fact that if we do manage to outlaw abortion, state recognized gay marriage, and–just for kicks in this thread–porn, there is at least one other world view which would say that no rights are being infringed upon.

324

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

If that happened you would get no argument from me. I would think my liberty to indulge was being impinged on certainly, and my freedom of choice, but not my rights per se. [/quote]

Excellent.

325

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

The fact that they were made slaves is evidence to me that it is not in fact an inalienable right.[/quote]

It’s not evidence that inalienable rights are non existent, per it’s definition. Inalienable means they exist regardless of circumstance. They are inherent to the individual, not the present might of the authority.[/quote]

That’s the definition? If so, then I’m going to have to agree with Neuromancers statement of “Rights are things societies and their members agree to grant each other, and their existence is subject to those individuals and societies continuing to honour them.” as that is in the context that I was speaking.[/quote]

Which is why I take comfort in the fact that if we do manage to outlaw abortion, state recognized gay marriage, and–just for kicks in this thread–porn, there is at least one other world view which would say that no rights are being infringed upon.
[/quote]

Does your opposition to abortion/porn/gay marriage stem from your religion?

326

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

The fact that they were made slaves is evidence to me that it is not in fact an inalienable right.[/quote]

It’s not evidence that inalienable rights are non existent, per it’s definition. Inalienable means they exist regardless of circumstance. They are inherent to the individual, not the present might of the authority.[/quote]

That’s the definition? If so, then I’m going to have to agree with Neuromancers statement of “Rights are things societies and their members agree to grant each other, and their existence is subject to those individuals and societies continuing to honour them.” as that is in the context that I was speaking.[/quote]

Which is why I take comfort in the fact that if we do manage to outlaw abortion, state recognized gay marriage, and–just for kicks in this thread–porn, there is at least one other world view which would say that no rights are being infringed upon.
[/quote]

Does your opposition to abortion/porn/gay marriage stem from your religion?[/quote]

My opposition stems from my religion. Any interface with legislation stems from faith and logic, in general.

For instance, porn is sinful. Yet, outside of some regulation, I wouldn’t outlaw it. I’d leave it to man and God. Abortion is sinful. Here, I would outlaw it. I know the embryo/fetus is factually an individual human life.

The embryo IS an individual organism, already traveling it’s own individual life cycle. Embryo=organism=life. Therefore, human embryo=human organism=human life. I believe we have the right to life, inherent to us, regardless of human opinion. Just like I believe the African was due his rights, not because whites mysteriously decided he could join the club, but because they were inherent to his very being all along. Just like I don’t believe they cease to exist, as if they never existed at all, because whites might decide emancipation was a bad idea.

I wouldn’t outlaw gay marriage, despite my religious views of homosexuality. 2, 3, 20 homosexual/bisexuals would be free to exchange rings and have an Elvis impersonator declare them…whatever and whatever (and whatever, and whatever, and whatever). I would outlaw the state recognizing it anymore than it recognizes a non-intimate friendship.

327

It’s good to see that you have some actual basis for your claims other than something along the lines of “God hates fags” or something like that. However, I would have to be opposed to people affecting laws based solely on religious beliefs as people being from different religions or being atheist may have conflicting beliefs or no beliefs at all wrt religion, and a consensus wouldn’t be possible or fair. I may be wrong on this, but I believe that is the reason for separation of church and state, although I have read there being different reasons for that statement.

328

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
It’s good to see that you have some actual basis for your claims other than something along the lines of “God hates fags” or something like that. However, I would have to be opposed to people affecting laws based solely on religious beliefs as people being from different religions or being atheist may have conflicting beliefs or no beliefs at all wrt religion, and a consensus wouldn’t be possible or fair. I may be wrong on this, but I believe that is the reason for separation of church and state, although I have read there being different reasons for that statement.[/quote]

I’m out, probably for the night, but I appreciate the civility shown through out (at least shown to me, can’t speak to everyone else’s feelings). An enjoyable conversation about this ‘stuff,’ for once. Neuro, same.

329

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
It’s good to see that you have some actual basis for your claims other than something along the lines of “God hates fags” or something like that. However, I would have to be opposed to people affecting laws based solely on religious beliefs as people being from different religions or being atheist may have conflicting beliefs or no beliefs at all wrt religion, and a consensus wouldn’t be possible or fair. I may be wrong on this, but I believe that is the reason for separation of church and state, although I have read there being different reasons for that statement.[/quote]

I’m out, probably for the night, but I appreciate the civility shown through out (at least shown to me, can’t speak to everyone else’s feelings). An enjoyable conversation about this ‘stuff,’ for once. Neuro, same.
[/quote]

Same here.

330

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:It’s good to see that you have some actual basis for your claims other than something along the lines of “God hates fags” or something like that. >>>[/quote]Just in case you may ever wonder, I view those types of people as reprehensible pharisees who know nothing of the very grace of God they claim to preach.

331

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

I think the real question is, what made it “alive”? Organic material alone, does not account for why it’s alive. But I do believe in evolution, but I don’t believe the ‘life force’ is merely a function of collected organic material. You can assemble all the organic material you want, you cannot make it live.[/quote]

To this I would look to chemistry/biochemistry and the reactions that take place.
To me the default position until something is reliably proven is “I don’t know yet”, not “God did it”. That’s a big leap to take, and I won’t do it.[/quote]

Why don’t those reaction occur today? We have all the ingrediants for life right so why hasn’t life spontaneously occurred?

It takes billions of years I assume will be the answer, but it’s been billions of years so why aren’t new cells forming still?
[/quote]

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that those reactions aren’t occurring?

Edit: To answer your question, I would say that the environmental requirements aren’t present as when the first cells appeared, there was no oxygen or limited oxygen in the atmosphere.[/quote]

Oxygen was poisonous to most early lifeforms. [/quote]

My guess would be that this is because they were incapable of performing photosynthesis at that point.[/quote]

Hope this hasn’t already been answered, but yes. It’s thought the first life forms were chemo-autotrophs that utilized sulfur instead of O2 gathering the sulfur from volcanic vents. That does puzzle me a little bit since it’s also thought that the enormous tides left ponds and large puddles rich in various chemicals that got more concentrated as they dried leaving good conditions for abiogenesis supposedly.

332

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Hope this hasn’t already been answered, but yes. It’s thought the first life forms were chemo-autotrophs that utilized sulfur instead of O2 gathering the sulfur from volcanic vents. That does puzzle me a little bit since it’s also thought that the enormous tides left ponds and large puddles rich in various chemicals that got more concentrated as they dried leaving good conditions for abiogenesis supposedly.[/quote]Now Fletch ya know what I’m gonna ask and here is the practical aspect of all that philosophical wrangling over epistemology, metaphysics etc. If nobody can demonstrate with certainly even that 2+2=4, and I hope you see that by now, how can we know that any of the methods used to suggest any of what you say here are certain either? And if they’re not then on their basis the flying spaghetti monster just may be our creator after all. Seriously.

333

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The tack this discussion has taken is evidence of how fundamental this topic is. The emotions, the vitriol, the regressing - or progressing if you will - to the tangent of morality and its origins, and such, etc.

The proponents of both sides inherently recognize how vital it really is. We all have faith in many different ways. It is especially evident when it comes to this subject.

The inexplicable aspect to the conversation is about those folks, e.g., Sloth, (feebly) trying to bridge the two diametrically opposed positions. It can’t be done if one wants to remain intellectually honest.[/quote]

Science in general relies on philosophy that at it’s core is based on fundamental axioms and tautologies so in a sense, evolution is based on faith. But not in the way I think your suggesting.

334

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Now Fletch ya know what I’m gonna ask and here is the practical aspect of all that philosophical wrangling over epistemology, metaphysics etc. If nobody can demonstrate with certainly even that 2+2=4, and I hope you see that by now, how can we know that any of the methods used to suggest any of what you say here are certain either? And if they’re not then on their basis the flying spaghetti monster just may be our creator after all. Seriously.
[/quote]

Jesus Christ Tiribulus, smh, go to 4:30. Math is math, not religion.

335

Didn’t see your post tirib. but I think my post to pushharder answers your question.

336

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The tack this discussion has taken is evidence of how fundamental this topic is. The emotions, the vitriol, the regressing - or progressing if you will - to the tangent of morality and its origins, and such, etc.

The proponents of both sides inherently recognize how vital it really is. We all have faith in many different ways. It is especially evident when it comes to this subject.

The inexplicable aspect to the conversation is about those folks, e.g., Sloth, (feebly) trying to bridge the two diametrically opposed positions. It can’t be done if one wants to remain intellectually honest.[/quote]

Science in general relies on philosophy that at it’s core is based on fundamental axioms and tautologies so in a sense, evolution is based on faith. But not in the way I think your suggesting.[/quote]

Evolution is not based on faith because there is (proper) evidence to support it.

If you want to believe in things that don’t have evidence to support them then there’s no reason for you to not believe in all the typical nonsense that is brought up, eg. Santa Claus, unicorns, tooth fairy etc, or to not believe in any other made up Gods.

337

Give this a read if you haven’t
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23254150/Michael-Shermer-How-to-Debate-a-Creationist

338

You do know that for science to operate, you have to have faith that existence has observable components and is rational, right?

339

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
You do know that for science to operate, you have to have faith that existence has observable components and is rational, right? [/quote]

Is there any other way to operate?

340

Since you gave me a link, I’ll you give you some. Start on any of them, they’re all pretty decent. And give you additional reading material if you want to really go into depth.