Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

Charlie died from natural causes, unlike the eight million babies who have been murdered in their own mother's womb since 1967.

I think that is a disgraceful thing to say.
]

[bluehillside Retd.]

Susan,

I think that is a disgraceful thing to say.

It's also a lie. "Babies" aren't "murdered".

[Nearly Sane]

I think that is a disgraceful thing to say.
]

Of course, it means that Alan Burns thinks his god, the geneticist in chief, murders all miscarriage 'babies'. Alan's god loves killing things.

[Nearly Sane]

Susan,

It's also a lie. "Babies" aren't "murdered".

No, it isn't a lie. AB regards the moment an egg is fertilised as being a baby. You can argue he's wrong but that's how he sees it. As to murder, obviously legal abortions are not legally murder but AB is using it the more figurative sense of 'to kill brutally or inhumanly. '


He has though, as I noted to Susan Doris, put his mad genetic professor god on the hook for all miscarriages. He worships a God with a big throbbing penchant for murdering in his terms.

[torridon]

I think that is a disgraceful thing to say.

Alan doesn't include mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome in his list of 'awesome divine attributes' of humans I guess.  No sign of any biased thinking there, I see

[Shaker]

Of course, it means that Alan Burns thinks his god, the geneticist in chief, murders all miscarriage 'babies'. Alan's god loves killing things.

"Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week. About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant." - Mayo Clinic

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, it isn't a lie. AB regards the moment an egg is fertilised as being a baby. You can argue he's wrong but that's how he sees it. As to murder, obviously legal abortions are not legally murder but AB is using it the more figurative sense of 'to kill brutally or inhumanly. '

Yes it is a lie - a foetus is not a baby. If you think something ceases to be a lie because the person telling it regards it differently, then nothing can be a lie.

He has though, as I noted to Susan Doris, put his mad genetic professor god on the hook for all miscarriages. He worships a God with a big throbbing penchant for murdering in his terms.

No, you just don't get it silly. AB's "God" is just responsible for sugar and spice and all things nice. All that horrible stuff is, you know, "Satan or "a mystery" or something.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Yes it is a lie - a foetus is not a baby.

Have you made the case? Or are you depending on Zeitgeist here?

[floo]

Charlie died from natural causes, unlike the eight million babies who have been murdered in their own mother's womb since 1967.

One thing that became apparent from Charlie's short life is the value of human life.

AB you really have excelled yourself this time! An embryo only has the potential to become a living, breathing human being, poor little Charlie Gard arrived in this world with a life reducing condition due to natural causes. But if your god, whom you praise to the skies, could have cured him, why didn't it do so, instead of letting him and his family suffer? No doubt if the lad had recovered you would have claimed it was down to the prayers said on his behalf, of which there were probably many. But as he has died, no blame of course is attached to the sky fairy by you! 

[Enki]

An interesting snippet from one of the major proponents of evolutionary biology:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”—Mayr, Ernst (renowned evolutionary biologist)

And here's another quote from the same Ernst Mayr:

The truly outstanding achievement of the principle of natural selection is that it makes unnecessary the invocation of “final causes”—that is, any teleological forces leading to a particular end. In fact, nothing is predetermined. Furthermore, the objective of selection even may change from one generation to the next, as environmental circumstances vary.

Ernst Mayr July Issue 2000 Scientific American

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Have you made the case? Or are you depending on Zeitgeist here?

No need - I have access to a dictionary.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes it is a lie - a foetus is not a baby. If you think something ceases to be a lie because the person telling it regards it differently, then nothing can be a lie.

No, you just don't get it silly. AB's "God" is just responsible for sugar and spice and all things nice. All that horrible stuff is, you know, "Satan or "a mystery" or something.

Don't understand the first point, surely to be a lie it has to be a deliberate dishonesty?

[Nearly Sane]

AB you really have excelled yourself this time! An embryo only has the potential to become a living, breathing human being, poor little Charlie Gard arrived in this world with a life reducing condition due to natural causes. But if your god, whom you praise to the skies, could have cured him, why didn't it do so, instead of letting him and his family suffer? No doubt if the lad had recovered you would have claimed it was down to the prayers said on his behalf, of which there were probably many. But as he has died, no blame of course is attached to the sky fairy by you! 

It's actually worse than this. Given Alan has put god as the genetic meddler then the original condition was created by his god in order to kill.

[wigginhall]

And here's another quote from the same Ernst Mayr:

Ernst Mayr July Issue 2000 Scientific American

Nice quote there from Mayr.  I have a book on the Galapagos finches, which demonstrates just that.   As the weather changed, the research team found changes in the finches' beak lengths and thickness, as food supplies changed.    I think the Grants have been working there for 40 years, during which times  there have been droughts and period of heavy rain.   It shows how fast evolution can work.

Ridiculous how the anti-science people distort stuff. but so transparently. 

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10282.html

[wigginhall]

AB you really have excelled yourself this time! An embryo only has the potential to become a living, breathing human being, poor little Charlie Gard arrived in this world with a life reducing condition due to natural causes. But if your god, whom you praise to the skies, could have cured him, why didn't it do so, instead of letting him and his family suffer? No doubt if the lad had recovered you would have claimed it was down to the prayers said on his behalf, of which there were probably many. But as he has died, no blame of course is attached to the sky fairy by you! 

Not only that, but AB seems to be saying that God arranges genetic mutations, so presumably produced Charlie's illness.  I suppose this will be denied, as bad stuff is not from God, but from the goblins.

(cross-post with NS).

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Don't understand the first point, surely to be a lie it has to be a deliberate dishonesty?

The point is that how someone happens to regard something doesn't alter the fact. "Baby" and "foetus" have different definitions and meanings - if, say, I regard the Holocaust as just a big conspiracy am I not lying if I say it didn't happen?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

The point is that how someone happens to regard something doesn't alter the fact. "Baby" and "foetus" have different definitions and meanings - if, say, I regard the Holocaust as just a big conspiracy am I not lying if I say it didn't happen?

So when someone who is pregnant refers to their foetus as a baby, which happens all the time, they are lying?


ETA


And see definition 2 in link

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/baby

[Enki]

The Lederberg experiment shows that random mutations can improve the survival of simple bacteria using natural selection.  This process can be used to confirm one of my earlier comments that random mutations and natural selection can perform fine tuning on things which are already complex, but it does not show that random mutations and natural selection are a sufficient means of generating the staggering complexity we see in human beings.

The Lederberg experiment is evidence for the randomness of mutations and clearly shows that whether they are beneficient(or positive) is not necessarily dependent upon when they are produced, hence leading to the conclusion that they are not directed.

In no way can this lead to the conclusion that random mutations and natural selection only performs fine tuning  on things that are already complex. That is a non sequitur. However, if I was to take this idea as true, in other words that your God was responsible for the 'staggering complexity' of human beings, it would immediately lead me to ask two questions:

1) Exactly how did He do it?

2) Why would their be any need for fine tuning based upon random mutations unless He was not particularly competent at what He was doing?

[wigginhall]

The Lederberg experiment is evidence for the randomness of mutations and clearly shows that whether they are beneficient(or positive) is not necessarily dependent upon when they are produced, hence leading to the conclusion that they are not directed.

In no way can this lead to the conclusion that random mutations and natural selection only performs fine tuning  on things that are already complex. That is a non sequitur. However, if I was to take this idea as true, in other words that your God was responsible for the 'staggering complexity' of human beings, it would immediately lead me to ask two questions:

1) Exactly how did He do it?

2) Why would their be any need for fine tuning based upon random mutations unless He was not particularly competent at what He was doing?

I think computer modelling can show how with small increments, and long periods of time, complex configurations can be generated.   The obvious example is the eye, which has been modelled from light sensitive skin patches to the human eye, and of course, others.   Dawkins summarizes this in 'Climbing Mount Improbable'. 

(I think something similar is used to study how stars are formed).

No doubt the anti-science people will raise some canard.

Actually, the famous Nilsson and Pelger article calculated 300, 000 years for the evolution of the eye from light-sensitive skin.  Note, this is a pdf.

 http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/aph161/Handouts/Nilsson1994.pdf

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So when someone who is pregnant refers to their foetus as a baby, which happens all the time, they are lying?

ETA

No – she’d just be using a common misnomer, just as for example people refer to Koala “bears” when they’re not bears at all (they’re marsupials). AB on the other hand uses a misnomer (“baby” for “foetus”) specifically to make an emotional point. That he regards them as interchangeable doesn’t get him off the hook of lying on the facts.

What might do that by the way would be if he was just mistaken – ie, ignorant of the difference. I cannot know for certain that he isn’t, so you might on that basis say I had no right to call him a liar because he could just be making an innocent mistake. That’s technically true (though unlikely I'd have thought) but then no-one could ever be accused of lying – Trump for example might just “regard” all the things he says to be true despite the evidence to the contrary. 

And see definition 2 in link

Colloquial dictionaries often contradict medical, technical, legal etc definitions. AB was attempting a technically correct argument (that “babies” are “murdered”) rather than a colloquial one.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No – she’d just be using a common misnomer, just as for example people refer to Koala “bears” when they’re not bears at all (they’re marsupials). AB on the other hand uses a misnomer (“baby” for “foetus”) specifically to make an emotional point. That he regards them as interchangeable doesn’t get him off the hook of lying on the facts.

What might do that by the way would be if he was just mistaken – ie, ignorant of the difference. I cannot know for certain that he isn’t, so you might on that basis say I had no right to call him a liar because he could just be making an innocent mistake. That’s technically true (though unlikely I'd have thought) but then no-one could ever be accused of lying – Trump for example might just “regard” all the things he says to be true despite the evidence to the contrary. 

Colloquial dictionaries often contradict medical, technical, legal etc definitions. AB was attempting a technically correct argument (that “babies” are “murdered”) rather than a colloquial one.   

This makes no sense. It is obvious by the context of his use that he isn't accepting the technical definition here, and the sane is obvious to his use of murder. He isn't writing a technical, or legal paper. He's writing on a message board where colloquial is the rule rather than the exception.

Further, in the context of the moral discussion of abortion, the definition of baby is what is the dispute. That AB happens to be on one side of that doesn't make him a liar.

And this bizarre point that even if people think they are correct they must be lying because otherwise there would be no lying ignores that people definitely do make statements that they know are wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This makes no sense. It is obvious by the context of his use that he isn't accepting the technical definition here, and the sane is obvious to his use of murder. He isn't writing a technical, or legal paper. He's writing on a message board where colloquial is the rule rather than the exception.

If, say, I told you that Koalas are in fact bears and in response you quoted the relevant text books that explained that they’re actually marsupials, took me to the Natural History Museum to study their morphology so I could see that it was consistent with that of marsupials, then perhaps introduced me to the Professor of Koala-ology at Koala University who then explained it to me too, only for me still to assert after all that, “Koalas are definitely bears” at what stage would you accuse me of lying about that?

That’s essentially what AB does about evolution – no matter how many times he’s told what the TofE actually says, he consistently asserts it to say something else (while at the same time telling us that he understands it).

It seems to me that when ignorance becomes wilful then it becomes dishonest, but you seem to disagree.       

Further, in the context of the moral discussion of abortion, the definition of baby is what is the dispute. That AB happens to be on one side of that doesn't make him a liar.

It does if he’s wilfully mis-stating the facts. If he wants to say something like, “I think the destruction of a foetus (or an embryo up to three months) is immoral” that’s fine – the issue can be discussed and debated. When he uses language incorrectly to elicit an emotional response though (who on earth would support "murdering babies"?), that’s a different matter. 

And this bizarre point that even if people think they are correct they must be lying because otherwise there would be no lying ignores that people definitely do make statements that they know are wrong.

No – if my defence to any untruth I may utter is “but that’s how I regard things” can I ever be accused of lying? 

I think your advocacy of murdering ginger people is disgusting by the way. What’s that you say – you haven’t advocated that at all? But I regard that you have, so shame on you. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

If, say, I told you that Koalas are in fact bears and in response you quoted the relevant text books that explained that they’re actually marsupials, took me to the Natural History Museum to study their morphology so I could see that it was consistent with that of marsupials, then perhaps introduced me to the Professor of Koala-ology at Koala University who then explained it to me too, only for me still to assert after all that, “Koalas are definitely bears” at what stage would you accuse me of lying about that?

That’s essentially what AB does about evolution – no matter how many times he’s told what the TofE actually says, he consistently asserts it to say something else (while at the same time telling us that he understands it).

It seems to me that when ignorance becomes wilful then it becomes dishonest, but you seem to disagree.       

It does if he’s wilfully mis-stating the facts. If he wants to say something like, “I think the destruction of a foetus (or an embryo up to three months) is immoral” that’s fine – the issue can be discussed and debated. When he uses language incorrectly to elicit an emotional response though (who on earth would support "murdering babies"?), that’s a different matter. 

No – if my defence to any untruth I may utter is “but that’s how I regard things” can I ever be accused of lying? 

I think your advocacy of murdering ginger people is disgusting by the way. What’s that you say – you haven’t advocated that at all? But I regard that you have, so shame on you.

If you honestly think that I have advocated murdering gingers, then you are not lying. If you don't and are just saying you regard it that I have said it then you are.

I don't know how you tell how ignorance becomes dishonest. I am not even sure what you mean by wilful dishonesty.

And again AB is writing on a message board which uses terns such as baby and murder colloquially. He's allowed to use emotion, he's allowed to present how he sees things, he doesn't have to use the terms in technical or legal senses. Using the terns in the colloquial sense isn't ignorant, wilful or otherwise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If you honestly think that I have advocated murdering gingers, then you are not lying. If you don't and are just saying you regard it that I have said it then you are.

I don't know how you tell how ignorance becomes dishonest. I am not even sure what you mean by wilful dishonesty.

And again AB is writing on a message board which uses terns such as baby and murder colloquially. He's allowed to use emotion, he's allowed to present how he sees things, he doesn't have to use the terms in technical or legal senses. Using the terns in the colloquial sense isn't ignorant, wilful or otherwise.

If you ask me for a citation of you advocating ginger murdering and I just ignore the question and repeat the accusation, if you show me examples of you saying how lovely ginger people are and i still just respond that you want them dead etc then - at some point - you'll tell me that I'm dishonest. You've done it for much less egregious examples in the past.

It's simple enough: if he says that the TofE says something it doesn't say even though he's had what it does say explained to him many times, that's wilful.

As for language, of course he can say whatever he likes but but he cannot at the same time be exempt from having the tactic of emotional language pointed out when he does it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It's simple enough: if he says that the TofE says something it doesn't say even though he's had what it does say explained to him many times, that's wilful.

As for language, of course he can say whatever he likes but but he cannot at the same time be exempt from having the tactic of emotional language pointed out when he does it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language

This particular discussion is about his use of babies and murders. It may be emotional, it isn't lying