"Evolution say rape not bad"

[Armoured]

I mean the thought itself, before it is expressed outwardly.

Well, even that is not exactly correct fMRI and ECG technology do allow us to see thoughts as they are generated. So far the definition of such things is very basic, we're a long way from mind reading yet. But we know an awful lot more about the inner workings of the brain than we did merely 20 years ago.

 

[Cearbhall]

You can explain the apparatus of the brain, but not the thoughts generated there. You can demonstrate that thoughts exist, but you cannot see them.

We can observe neurons firing. Are you suggesting that we need to be able to read minds if we want to take thoughts into consideration?

 

[Catherineanne]

I think I'm in the majority on that one.

Non standard use of the term 'majority'.

You are certainly consistent in your misuse of language.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We can observe neurons firing. Are you suggesting that we need to be able to read minds if we want to take thoughts into consideration?

All "neurons firing" tells you is that there is mental activity taking place, not what the activity is. Even with sleep/dream studies the subject has to reveal to the scientist what he/she was thinking/dreaming.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Non standard use of the term 'majority'.

You are certainly consistent in your misuse of language.

Are you saying that the majority of, read most, people do understand evolution?

 

[Cearbhall]

All "neurons firing" tells you is that there is mental activity taking place, not what the activity is. Even with sleep/dream studies the subject has to reveal to the scientist what he/she was thinking/dreaming.

Clearly I got lost somewhere along the way. What is the significance of whether or not we can prove what someone is thinking?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Clearly I got lost somewhere along the way. What is the significance of whether or not we can prove what someone is thinking?

That's the point where applying evolution theory becomes suspect.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Morality has to be aspirational otherwise there is no point having it. We set a high standard knowing full well we are unlikely ever to reach it, and then spend our whole lives trying. That is the whole point, isn't it?

My point is that we aren't trying. Those who codify moral codes mean them for others, not themselves. In 2015 even a cursory moral code is a 'will 'o' the wisp'.

 

[Catherineanne]

Are you saying that the majority of, read most, people do understand evolution?

Did I say that?

The clue is in the words. If I said it, then I said it. If I did not say it, then I might in future say it, or I might not, but I certainly have not yet said it.

 

[Catherineanne]

My point is that we aren't trying. Those who codify moral codes mean them for others, not themselves. In 2015 even a cursory moral code is a 'will 'o' the wisp'.

You may not be trying; that doesn't mean that nobody else is.

 

[Cearbhall]

That's the point where applying evolution theory becomes suspect.

Applying it to what?

Are you saying that the majority of, read most, people do understand evolution?

Of the general US public? No, sadly. The majority of people under a certain age, however, yes, now that the people who went through school at a time where it generally wasn't taught are dying out. The percentage of people who have attended higher education is also increasing steadily.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You may not be trying; that doesn't mean that nobody else is.

While they are 'trying' I'm 'doing' (of course as a highly organized person I have more time to do moral stuff).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Applying it to what?

To something that is non-material and therefore not testable by scientific methods.

 

[Cearbhall]

Are you saying that the majority of, read most, people do understand evolution?

This study measures those who agree with evolution, so they don't all necessarily understand it, but the two generally go hand-in-hand. 39% for people aged 65+ vs. 65% for people aged 18-29. 13% for those who haven't finished high school, 46% among those who have, and 71% of college grads.

Only 28% of people in my age group believe in Creationism, so I'm confident that we're headed in the right direction.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This study measures those who agree with evolution, so they don't all necessarily understand it, but the two generally go hand-in-hand. 39% for people aged 65+ vs. 65% for people aged 18-29. 13% for those who haven't finished high school, 46% among those who have, and 71% of college grads.

Only 28% of people in my age group believe in Creationism, so I'm confident that we're headed in the right direction.

From the chart it seems that as people mature they change their beliefs from evolution towards creation. Of course it may be that as people approach death they get more religious.

Believing isn't understanding. If one believes without understanding it's just another belief based on faith; in this case faith that science has it right.

 

[TheDag]

And risk birth defects? Since when does human nature actually support having sex with close relatives? Royal lines give plenty of evidence of how unwise that practice is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You need to learn to read a bit better Mark. The statement was we should not follow NATURE otherwise that is the kind of behaviour we would have. They never said human nature.

 

[TheDag]

But I can talk about legal and illegal in countries because those laws are established because of largely enough shared morality. That's also how society holds you responsible for your actions.

However, it would seem that "the ultimate judge" that most people have in mind tends to do a lot more forgiving than society does when someone is caught and prosecuted. I see now reason to believe, based on what people who believe in this judge tell me, there is essentially no accountability with this ultimate judge anyway.

Garbage. Plenty of countries have or have had laws that the majority did not want. It does not come down to what the majority said. In any case you still ignored the context of the conversation which is why you can't bring in judges in courts.

Just because you don't understand something does not mean you are entitled to make assumptions about it. There is most certainly accountability.

 

[TheDag]

I do. Evolution is a theory of biology. An explanation for the diversity of life.
What would be "unfair" is to apply it to anything but that.

I believe in fairness. Since many non-christians decide that since christians don't agree on everything they can decide what we believe. So to be fair since some say evolution does more than that I have decided it is reasonable for me to decide what evolution does and does not say.

I'm an atheist and I don't. By that fact alone, this statement is false.

No that would be double standards unless you are happy to accept religion simply because people said so.

Yep. Not unlike any other social species.
Wolves in a pack also have what one could call "rules of conduct".
So do chimps, gorilla's etc.

Those who break the rules, don't get away with it either.
They will be attacked, killed or simply "banned"/chased away from the group.

Yes that is correct and those morals include things like my partner doesn't want sex as they have kids to look after so I will kill the kids & eat them then force myself on her. That is nature. Or perhaps we can take a non meat eating animal and know that they may take a kid rip it to pieces and eat it and share it with the rest of the group. Did I mention they aren't meat eaters? These are an example of natural morals. Oh and they won't be kicked out for this behaviour.

 

[TheDag]

Of course thoughts and ideas can be observed; there is a whole science devoted to it; Philosophy. The whole of science is devoted to the outcome of those thoughts and ideas; from scio; sciare; to know. And another, devoted to thoughts and ideas about God; theology. And another to thoughts and ideas about rocks; geology. Need I go on?

Philosophy is not a science.

 

[Catherineanne]

Philosophy is not a science.

Yes it is, in the sense that it relates to the Latin scio: sciare. I thought I had made that clear.