Clearance Items

  • Thomas Henry Huxley - an inspirational scientist and deeply moral person - is somone I admire.


    I am just curious (seriously so). In the past you have made it clear that you are an evolutionist, (not sure what kind, Darwinian, neo-Darwinism, or other)

    and an atheist,


    Yet, you state distinctly above, that "deeply moral" attribute is something you admire.


    My sincere question is... why do you admire "moral" conviction? Both atheism and evolutionary logic is that there is no "right or wrong", therefore there is no moral "law" or code that one should admire. Survival of the fittest is all that there is. Morals require a right or wrong and thus someone/something above humans to set what those morals are. (Otherwise, one simply has tribal tradition of what is right/wrong and it is completely arbitrary) Concerning Covid9, it is simply nature culling the old, the weak and unfit. If they die, so be it. It is no different than animals over populating and getting a herd disease in nature. Happens quite often.


    I find it most illogical that you would admire morals, as they have no basis in either science or your world view of atheism. Of course, some would argue that morals are needed to keep society in tact. Again, that is a tribal concept as ancient and modern civilizations all have had vastly different morals. I understand that a tribal code is required to help unite people, but that is simply tribalism. I.E. pride of being "American" or "a fan of a certain sports team" or yes, even of being of a "scientific mind".


    There are no morals in evolution or atheism.


    So why do you admire?


    Thank you.


    I am just curious.

    Thank you.

  • Both atheism and evolutionary logic is that there is no "right or wrong", therefore there is no moral "law" or code that one should admire.


    That is complete and utter bullshit. Ignorant religious people who know nothing about atheism or evolution sometimes say that sort of thing. It shows they have read nothing and know nothing. You should not discuss subjects you know nothing about. When you have not even bothered to read so much as a Wikipedia entry about something, you should just keep quiet about it.


    And no, you are not "just curious." If you were curious you would learn something about these subjects instead of spouting ignorant calumny.

  • Bob#2


    I think you are confusing morals and ethics. Religious people are not necessarily more moral than atheists. God has no monopoly on being a nice guy, or even a good guy. As for Darwinism being only a case of 'survival of the fittest' then you do not understand it at all. Evolutionary biologists have shown time and time again that altruistic behaviour where the strongest support the weakest is a pattern of behiour expressed in various ways in many many plants and animals. Strength lies in collectivism, not individualism, and Nature knows it. Ask an ant or a bee, they will tell you.

  • My sincere question is... why do you admire "moral" conviction? Both atheism and evolutionary logic is that there is no "right or wrong", therefore there is no moral "law" or code that one should admire. Survival of the fittest is all that there is.


    Altruism is the crown of evolution and the base of society. The brain structure covering this are the mirror neurons. May be you should start to get informed...


  • Autism looks like some type of damage. BTW, perhaps this lockdown if it continues (and children at a young age go unvaccinated for longer) we will have the first "vaccinated" vs "unvaccinated" groups for actual research at scale. You know the kind of research they don't want to do...because that would mean being antivaxxer.


    Anyway, I suggest the hard sciences figure out what an electron is, and then we can talk... The biggest problem in modern philosophy is that they got physics envy, and the physicists somehow got philosophy envy.

  • Bob#2


    I think you are confusing morals and ethics. Religious people are not necessarily more moral than atheists. God has no monopoly on being a nice guy, or even a good guy. As for Darwinism being only a case of 'survival of the fittest' then you do not understand it at all. Evolutionary biologists have shown time and time again that altruistic behaviour where the strongest support the weakest is a pattern of behiour expressed in various ways in many many plants and animals. Strength lies in collectivism, not individualism, and Nature knows it. Ask an ant or a bee, they will tell you.


    A reasoned and "emotionless" response. Thank you.

    However, as indicated below, you are assuming much, such as I am coming from a religious view and perhaps that I am not versed or studied (however not not expert) in biology, Paleontology, physics (as related to foundational laws,but was my major) or philosophy, Please see below.


    Yes, ethics is the "right or wrong" as determined by societal or some "outside" influence or force. Morals are normally considered more of a personal principal or determination. Yet, my point still stands...BOTH are a measurements of Right and Wrong. Not of support, weakness or altruism.


    You state that nature (Capital N? hmmm...) knows it. No nature does not "know" anything. It is not an intelligence nor moral, ethical, partial or compassionate.


    For every instance of social animal, I can probably provide one of individual determinism.

    Ranging from a male lion who becomes the new alpha, will immediately kill all cubs that are not his to female mantis' eating the recent copulated male.

    Actually the strong supporting the weak is relatively rare, usually a higher order mammalian trait. Your example of ants for example I do not believe is quite correct... very societal, very structured, very occupational BUT NOT protecting of the infirm, old or weak. Yes, soldiers protect eggs, etc. but it is not a compassionate act, such as an elephant heard helping an injured herd member. Compassion, a trait of morals, is actually not common in non-mammalian species.


    So I do not think "Nature" knows about morals nor right or wrong. Nature clearly states there IS NO right or wrong. Whether ethical or moral.

    But I appreciate your response, it was reasoned and not defensive, not personally attacking the debater but presenting your opinion. :thumbup:



    That is complete and utter bullshit. Ignorant religious people who know nothing about atheism or evolution sometimes say that sort of thing. It shows they have read nothing and know nothing. You should not discuss subjects you know nothing about. When you have not even bothered to read so much as a Wikipedia entry about something, you should just keep quiet about it.


    And no, you are not "just curious." If you were curious you would learn something about these subjects instead of spouting ignorant calumny.



    Jed's great ego has risen again! You know absolutely nothing about me, my stance on this, my education nor my "religious" beliefs. Your statement has come from purely ignorant prejudice against an imagined philosophy held by someone who challenged your world view. As you often do, you resort to personal insult and emotional discharge! (Unlike Alan's response) You absolutely do not know my motives and simply are reacting to your emotions.


    (Wikipedia? Sure, when it supports YOUR position... how about Wikipedia and LENR? :huh: Ha! )


    I have studied much about this subject over years and just as importantly, am not one who is lead by the nose from what he reads. Just as I know nothing about you nor your qualifications, you know absolutely zero about me, other than I posted a question to someone else that certainly pricked a nerve with you! Quite interesting.....


    Atheism, a religion itself, is the domain of philosophy and not science. It is conjecture and belief (faith) in a set of world views no different than any other religion. You cannot prove atheism no more than R. Bryant can prove Christianity. You say I know nothing about atheism, but that shows your own ignorance. Jed does not hold the last word on atheism, it's "doctrine" or rules. Jed has only his concepts and prejudiced views of a philosophy that his ego cannot let go. Just as every other religion...atheism's followers all vary widely on beliefs.


    As for calling me a "ignorant religious person"... well, again you are wrong. At least in assuming that I am some bible toting (perhaps Quran toting?) zealot. I am not at all. My view comes from my studies, my experience and my observations. Both in philosophy (atheism) and evolution (science).


    Your "bullshit" claim is your standard retort to anyone who posts something that strikes a nerve... often indicating a point of insecurity. I do not see Alan or even THH reacting such as I assume that they are not that worried about what some "unknown" poster says. Just like I am not that concerned with what Jed says!


    So there you have it..... atheism is a religion just like any other, to deny it is ignorant. And yes, that philosophy of atheism has many inherent logical tenants. If there is nothing but this minuscule time on earth, nothing really matters. (Which I agree with) I do not know your age, but I assume you will be gone within 25 years. Once Jed has "bit the bullet", his thoughts, his opinions, his very being is irrelevant. No one will remember him within a few years, and even if they did, so what..... Jed is gone. Look at giants such as Jonas Saulk, who literally helped millions avoid severe, physical malady. I bet 90% (or more) of the world's population do not even know who he is and if they do, they do not think about him ever. So what Jed thinks (or me as well) does not amount to anything but "bull shit" in the scope of things!


    Your mistaken assumptions about my thoughts on evolution are the same. Evolution is almost more philosophy than science. For someone who "preaches" science all the time, you should know better. Evolution does not meet much basic scientific criteria and would be not taken nearly as seriously, if it were anything else.


    (a) Substantiated - To some extent yes. We see evidence that there are changes in life over large periods of time. (inter-breeding, etc. is not evolution) However, this evidence is not compulsory nor without significant criticism or question. While we see that there is change, that change does not substantiate that "evolution" caused it. Like LENR, we see heat, but we do not know what caused it... it may not be "nuclear" at all. We do not KNOW that evolution is an inherent force.


    (b) explanatory - Evolution attempts to explain what we observe, but it cannot and does not explain causation. Why does life even exist? Why does life strive to continue? Why does change in life become more complex. Evolution seems only attributed to life, which is the more fundamental force. And then true, unbiased studies into the mathematical odds of possible RNA, DNA and other combinations are astronomical. (Major extinction events removed much of the "millions of years" to evolve meme) But this argument is quite deep and more than can be covered here.


    (c) predictive - Makes no predictions


    d) testable - is not testable.


    Evolution has sincere questions on two qualifications and completely fails on the remaining two. Most theories presenting themselves similarly would not be taken seriously by Jed or others.


    Do not get me wrong, I am saying NOTHING about other theories. The earth has been here millions of years. There have been millions of species before man ever arrived on this planet. Unless "life" is somehow discovered and proven to be a fundamental force such as space/time (and it may be at some point), evolution is still just a theory, and a weak one at that. And yes, I have studied it, both from biology, genetics, paleontology and somewhat a mathematical view point. I do not consider myself an expert and do not decry "bullshit" when others have a different opinion. But I will state that it is a theory and one cannot prove otherwise. There are very large disagreements even in the evolutionary circle, such as Dawkins, Gould, Haldane and Kauffman. All (who as I) believe that life certainly has changed over time, have very different views as to how and why.


    So in this case, evolution seems to be much like LENR.... many believe "LENR" happens, but none can really prove how, why or when and the various theories vary dramatically. And it IS POSSIBLE, that LENR is not even real and the evidence we attribute to LENR may very well be some other causation, i.e. not nuclear. But then Jed would state THH is full of bull shit as well! :rolleyes:


    So to the point of my original question ... (made to THH I might add, as I expected a reasoned answer from him)


    There is no "right" nor "wrong".... "good" or "evil" and morals DO relate directly to that. Does Jed judge the ancient Vikings immoral? They pillaged and killed.

    Does Alan judge ancient Druids immoral? They evidently did human sacrifices.


    No, the societal "winner" or powers in control most often determine the personal morals that get introduced by societal pressure, not whether they are right or wrong. Millions of Germans supported Hitler... were they immoral? We say today yes... BUT if Germany had won, it is likely that a large portion of the population would now say no... Hitler was a valued leader. To Alan's point, morals are not the same as ethics, but the most often originate from the same source... societal upbringing and teaching.... as exampled by Japan's view of the Chinese during WWIi.


    Do not believe me?

    George Washington, highly respected and admired had 300+ slaves. Was he moral?

    Today, calls to tear his statue down and rename the capital are being made.

    Morals are not in nature... they are a human creation that change by the season.


    Have a good day.

  • (b) explanatory - Evolution attempts to explain what we observe, but it cannot and does not explain causation. Why does life even exist? Why does life strive to continue? Why does change in life become more complex. Evolution seems only attributed to life, which is the more fundamental force. And then true, unbiased studies into the mathematical odds of possible RNA, DNA and other combinations are astronomical. (Major extinction events removed much of the "millions of years" to evolve meme) But this argument is quite deep and more than can be covered here.


    Thought experiment:

    Put a pile of rocks, a rubber tree, and a barrel of oil in close proximity. How many years until you have a Tesla car? Never. Are you more complex than a Tesla vehicle?


    It is by design. We even have the mathematics to prove it. Specified complexity.

  • After observing the results of genetic optimizations in computers I am quite certain that the main driver is Genetics and a fight for resources

    and there is no purpose. In the basic setup. However I note that if there is an overall intelligence that communicate with species more or less then

    it can interfere in the selection process somewhat steer the development just like humans have shaped horses and dogs and whatnot. The thing is

    there is no proof of an intelligence and all could be just nature. I have no problems with any of those scenarios, but live life as we are just a product of nature.

  • Bob#2: I suggest you contact a moral philosopher - any moral philosopher, even a mediocre one - and ask about your ideas about right and wrong. He/she will unquestionably tell you that you are utterly full of shit and ignorant. But I suspect you would rather revel in your smug ignorance. So never mind.

  • Pilot,

    Com's open

    calcilate [earths] orbit to the sun 5222020

    prepare- ~calcilate force

    compensate ricochet

    close doors

    recalcilate GLZ ajustment.

    missing mass rotation wobble correction xxxxxxxxxx

    11:11 drop

    delay time

    prepare for runaway

    drill the crack

    countermeasures

    Welcome to the show~

    Irrelevant question.


    pointless attenpting to get them out of the way

    Do what you can to help them


    no one will get out of the way just becouse you ask them.


    High mag

    prepare Emergency countermeasures

    UODFAuthorized


    Warning

    Spawn point open

    lvl 4 storm..


    Access denied