Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Atheism and Morals
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  09:51:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox
*blinking*
This is off-topic, but I wanted to ask if there were some smiley that could convey that stunned look that goes with reading some of the logic-defying comments that are sometimes posted here. You sit there for a minute sort of stupefied and think "is this guy serious" and I wish I had an emoticon for that. I have used "" sometimes, but that's really a different expression.

OK, back on topic.
Go to Top of Page

Fripp
SFN Regular

USA
727 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  10:49:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Fripp a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jerome,

Don't think that I didn't notice how you conveniently ignored my post about the real "ten commandments".

"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"

"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?"
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  11:06:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by marfknox
*blinking*
This is off-topic, but I wanted to ask if there were some smiley that could convey that stunned look that goes with reading some of the logic-defying comments that are sometimes posted here. You sit there for a minute sort of stupefied and think "is this guy serious" and I wish I had an emoticon for that. I have used "" sometimes, but that's really a different expression.
Just need to figure out whether is public domain or not, 'cause it's perfect.
OK, back on topic.
Aw...

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  12:32:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Adultery prohibition. It once meant sex outside of marriage. The definition has changed.
JEROME, it was you who claimed "I look to the actual meanings of the words." The actual meaning of adultery for males is "sex with another married woman".

The Meaning of Adultery

Unlike the meaning of the verb "to murder / kill" in the 7th Commandment, there is no linguistic problems in the 8th Commandment. The Hebrew verb na'ap unambiguously means to commit adultery. It:
  • can have a man or woman as its subject

  • is distinguished from other verbs:

    • skb to sleep with

    • znh to commit harlotry/prostitution

The command relates to specifically to adultery, which in the Old Testament is clearly in a different category than fornication (= sex between two unmarried / unbetrothed people).
  • eg. punishment for adultery was death (Deut 22:22); whereas the penalty for seduction of a virgin was a requirement to marry the woman or pay an appropriate monetary sum.

There was a double standard in the definition of adultery in Patriarchal Israel
  • for men, adultery meant sex with another married woman

  • for women, adultery meant sex with any other man

Therefore, a prohibition on adultery would not deter in the slightest a single male from raping a 12 year-old girl, unless it is you who have changed the definition of the word "adultery" to mean something which it does not.

If that is so, then your claim of "look[ing] to the actual meanings of the words" is pretty much crap, isn't it?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/21/2007 12:36:27
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  13:40:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
That is an example of survival of the fittest. Not a change in the genetics of the bacteria.


*blinking*

What the hell do you think survival of the fittest means? It means that members of the species who happen to possess certain genetic advantages given the present environmental circumstances will survive, pass on those genes, and therefore those advantageous characteristics (which are caused by genes) will become more common and exaggerated.


Jerome has taken yet another page from the Creationist play book. If this is his original thought, then he is soaring to new lows.

The way the argument is typically stated is that those resistant bacteria were always there. There were just too few of them for us to find, and so we didn't know they existed. Then, when the bacteria which weren't resistant started dying off, the ones that had the resistance grew in percentage, and we then noticed them.

The thing about this argument is that it can be used to discredit any mutation. So you ask for evidence for a new mutation, then discredit every single possible example with the possibility that it may not have been a new mutation after all.

Typical Creationist hogwash.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Edited by - Ricky on 06/21/2007 13:43:19
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  19:18:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Rickey said "Jerome has taken yet another page from the Creationist play book. If this is his original thought, then he is soaring to new lows."

It is a fault of yours if you can not imagine thought could come from thinking and not from others telling.


So, has the scientific method been used with these genetically "new" bacteria?



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  19:19:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Fripp

Jerome,

Don't think that I didn't notice how you conveniently ignored my post about the real "ten commandments".


The exponding of the law after the first tablets were broken are not the rules I follow.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  19:22:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by H. Humbert

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Adultery prohibition. It once meant sex outside of marriage. The definition has changed.
JEROME, it was you who claimed "I look to the actual meanings of the words." The actual meaning of adultery for males is "sex with another married woman".

The Meaning of Adultery

Unlike the meaning of the verb "to murder / kill" in the 7th Commandment, there is no linguistic problems in the 8th Commandment. The Hebrew verb na'ap unambiguously means to commit adultery. It:
  • can have a man or woman as its subject

  • is distinguished from other verbs:

    • skb to sleep with

    • znh to commit harlotry/prostitution

The command relates to specifically to adultery, which in the Old Testament is clearly in a different category than fornication (= sex between two unmarried / unbetrothed people).
  • eg. punishment for adultery was death (Deut 22:22); whereas the penalty for seduction of a virgin was a requirement to marry the woman or pay an appropriate monetary sum.

There was a double standard in the definition of adultery in Patriarchal Israel
  • for men, adultery meant sex with another married woman

  • for women, adultery meant sex with any other man

Therefore, a prohibition on adultery would not deter in the slightest a single male from raping a 12 year-old girl, unless it is you who have changed the definition of the word "adultery" to mean something which it does not.

If that is so, then your claim of "look[ing] to the actual meanings of the words" is pretty much crap, isn't it?





You seem to have a sick attachment to speaking about sex with children.

As this and your avatar bother me, I will no longer respond to you.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  19:31:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You seem to have a sick attachment to speaking about sex with children.

As this and your avatar bother me, I will no longer respond to you.


When speaking about morals, one often must use unsavory examples. Your inability to rationally address my points is duly noted, troll.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  19:34:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Jerome wrote:
That is an example of survival of the fittest. Not a change in the genetics of the bacteria.


*blinking*

What the hell do you think survival of the fittest means? It means that members of the species who happen to possess certain genetic advantages given the present environmental circumstances will survive, pass on those genes, and therefore those advantageous characteristics (which are caused by genes) will become more common and exaggerated.

What do you not get about the idea that the moral instinct is an evolutionarily beneficial adaptation in humans? Members of a highly intelligent and social species (such as, say, humans) who have a sense of right and wrong behavior which aids in their survival (y'know, like the urge to protect children and other vulnerable people, particular if they are related to you, or doing favors which result in advantageous alliances) are going to produce more offspring and their inherited sense of conscience will be passed on to their descendants and will become more common and exaggerated.



Survival of the fittest is not the creation of new genes. It is the exposing of the favored genes.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4955 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  19:38:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by H. Humbert

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You seem to have a sick attachment to speaking about sex with children.

As this and your avatar bother me, I will no longer respond to you.


When speaking about morals, one often must use unsavory examples. Your inability to rationally address my points is duly noted, troll.


HH, I think that this is twice that, after having been shown wrong in a debate, the person refuses to talk you you because of your avatar!! I'm not sure if that's more satisfying than having them move goalposts or not.
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/21/2007 19:40:21
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  19:52:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Rickey said "Jerome has taken yet another page from the Creationist play book. If this is his original thought, then he is soaring to new lows."

It is a fault of yours if you can not imagine thought could come from thinking and not from others telling.


So, has the scientific method been used with these genetically "new" bacteria?


Jerome, it isn't my fault if you argue the exact talking points of Creationists. And I obviously can image that it was your original thought, otherwise I wouldn't have also wrote: "If this is his original thought, then he is soaring to new lows."

So what do you mean by your question?

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  20:26:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Originally posted by H. Humbert

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You seem to have a sick attachment to speaking about sex with children.

As this and your avatar bother me, I will no longer respond to you.


When speaking about morals, one often must use unsavory examples. Your inability to rationally address my points is duly noted, troll.


HH, I think that this is twice that, after having been shown wrong in a debate, the person refuses to talk you you because of your avatar!! I'm not sure if that's more satisfying than having them move goalposts or not.



No, its the references to child sex that I object to. The avatar in conjunction to these references show this person as having major problems which I chose not to involve myself with. You may choose to speak to a person of such low morality and low self esteem; I choose against.

This is the kid in middle school that talked tough, got a bloody nose; while doing no damage to the other, and then bragged about how tough he is because he got a bloody nose. Silly mind of a child.



What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  20:27:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Rickey said "Jerome has taken yet another page from the Creationist play book. If this is his original thought, then he is soaring to new lows."

It is a fault of yours if you can not imagine thought could come from thinking and not from others telling.


So, has the scientific method been used with these genetically "new" bacteria?


Jerome, it isn't my fault if you argue the exact talking points of Creationists. And I obviously can image that it was your original thought, otherwise I wouldn't have also wrote: "If this is his original thought, then he is soaring to new lows."

So what do you mean by your question?



Just what I asked; has science shown a new genetic creature created.


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 06/21/2007 :  20:31:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Talk Origins:

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.14 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000