Stem Cells
- Started
- Last post
- 325 Responses
- Mimio0
Of course it evolved.
I think the current scientific accouting on the nature of the universe rules out a 6,000 birthday. To think otherwise is to ignore the last 150 years of research in Cosmology, Physics etc.
- mrdobolina0
Was curious because it blows my mind when someone agrees with war and not with abortion or stem cells. I mean it's all death isn't it?
- flagellum0
Mimio: I agree. Overall. However there are compelling examples from all of those fields which demonstrate the opposite.
- uberdesigner_0
I agree with the war in Iraq, but I do think that it was ill-timed. They went in knowing that they'd be dealing with. I don't see why the gov should be honest about certain actions. This is why we have a strong commander in chief. Everybody wanted to shell the ME after 911 and this is the best we could do. So accept it.
- flagellum0
mrdobs: I don't know. Some would argue that murderous suicidal evil people who are bent on killing the innocent should be removed for the overall benefit of others. I don't think it's a cut and dry issue. I don't think you are comparing apples to apples.
And I still think that your atheistic position is inconsistent with a strong position or principled stance on any issue. Who cares? I mean, if you are just molecules in motion and the result of a process that didn't have you in mind.
- mrdobolina0
so I can't have a stance on anything because I am not religious?
- Mimio0
//Haven't you heard? Atheists are amoral.
come on
- flagellum0
Mimio: Nobody on this earth rejects "evolution" in some form or degree. But we need to define terms. I am careful to use the term "Darwinist" because I mean something very specific. I mean the neoDarwinian synthesis which claims that all of life's diversity and complexity can be attributed to Natural Selection driving random fortuitous mutations. I believe the evidence does not support this kind of "evolution". I believe that this is a leftover from 19th century fads and is based on old data. Darwin thought the cell was a useless blob of protoplasm. He was wrong. Anyway, I believe that intelligent saltational "evolution" occured. And this is what we see in the fossil record: novel phyla unfolding per the coded instructions of the program which drives all of life. Think of it as front-loaded evolution. This is where the evidence points. It also happens to be consistent with the speciation events which many YEC's hold to. What the evidence does not support is the gradualistic model of Darwinism.
- TheBlueOne0
So you thihnk religions have a lock on ethics and morality? That without a belief in a god Ethics or an ethical, principaled life is not possible?
- PonyBoy0
*tempted to chime in
*tempted to smoke a bowl too
*chooses option B
- flagellum0
No, you SHOULDN'T have a stance on anything in PRINCIPLE because matter in motion doesn't matter. Now, you may choose to in a pragmatic sense, to give you a sense of purpose. But in principle it demonstrates a discontinuity with your philosophical (read theological) position.
- PonyBoy0
baby killers.
- flagellum0
The issue you are faced with mrdobs is to establish a convincing reason for why you take an absolute position on anything when there is no absolute standard with which to juxtapose your position, by your philosophy. IOW, you are not being consistent with your belief system. You should just be trying to survive at any cost to anyone else.
- TheBlueOne0
Wow dude. You think ethics are unreachable to an athiest or agnostic? That's all I am saying. I think you need to stop reading the bible and read maybe some other stuff form the Greeks and Romans who were rather quite ethical and laid down the other half of ethic and morality for Western culture..you could start with the Stoics.
Oh well, I gave up on these threeads a long time ago for the sheer faux intellectual mediocrity and repitition that you project.
I'm out, just slightly more afraid of you than before..
Toodles...
- Mimio0
I think you confuse Atheism with Nihlism. But for arguments sake, there isn't anything placing moral value on life(or anything for that matter) that isn't human in origin.
- Momentum20
i think he is trying to say what is ethics to a bunch of molecules and cells that by a freak of nature made man... where would right and wrong come from? If i would slap you in the face what gives you the emotion and right to get angry....
haha but i could be wrong
- flagellum0
Tick: I think that ethics are ultimately worthless, in principle, if there is not an absolute standard to measure them against. Otherwise we are left with Marx esque state rule approach which i believe goes against the core of every human being. Your greek philosophers recognized this as they also recognized the relationship to qualia in this regard. Kant would bring this truth to the forefront later, as well.
I don't think you find me intellectually mediocre, but rather intellectually intimidating. Oh i could be wrong however.
- flagellum0
That's somewhat on target, momentum. In a nutshell, I should be able to do and say anything i want and not be accountable for it because it may be perfectly in line with my subjective moral code.
- flagellum0
Must run. Been fun, folks.
- uberdesigner_0
It's threads like this that make Jewish hippies convert to Budhism. They know they polluted the world with the Old Testament so the guilt from their mothers forces them to jump ship.