The Bible

[Sleipnir]

Why do you believe the first chickens to contain the OC-17 protein could not have been hatched from eggs crystallized in a different manner?

To me it seems like you are purposefully avoiding this obvious question. However, if you honestly think you have been addressing it please let me know and I will help fill in the blanks.

You realize that she won't rationally or logically answer that question?

[WIP]

No, Harris believes that advances being made in neuroscience can provide more factual insight into human well being and thus act as a guide for morality.

First, I'm late responding here because I lost track of this thread.

2nd, I didn't buy the book, and most of my impressions about his new ideas on ethics come from a one hour lecture I watched back before the book was released. But it seems to me that the Moral Landscape wouldn't have stirred up controversy in philosophy and scientific circles if he was just advocating using new data from brain imaging and other scientific information to improve ethical theories. His bold claims in the lecture went beyond all that to claims that the scientific process itself could determine what the best, most optimal ethical choices on issues would be. He was not only kicking theology to the curb, he was saying that philosophy had no place either in ethics.

For an example of what I consider to be a red flag, I took this from Russel Blackford's review, which agreed with his critiques of libertarian free will and moral relativism but contends that moral judgments are the equivalent of scientific facts:

Here is how the picture looks if we go along with Harris. Ordinary factual claims are straightforwardly and determinately true or false, as are the theoretical claims made by science. So are moral judgments, and in much the same way. Indeed, moral judgments are simply claims about the well-being of conscious creatures – claims that may often depend on scientific evidence.

Is Harris justified in saying that moral terms are most reasonably defined in reference to brain states? Why “wellbeing” and whose wellbeing are we talking about here?

The moral philosopher - Peter Singer created a thought problem some years ago to advance the notion that every conscious human being has to show concern for all conscious beings...even higher functioning animals....but just focusing on conscious humans for the purpose of the exercise, he asks the subject if they would be willing to damage an expensive suit and wade into water if they saw a drowning child? Most people will at least claim to answer yes; but then the question is addressed to the multitude of starving children in Africa or any impoverished lands. And the perfect utilitarian response would be that one cannot enjoy any comfort if there is any suffering, anywhere in the world regardless of distance or whether we would ever have any personal relationship with them. Singer, who says he doesn't give everything to charity, but gives 20% of his income to charitable causes like famine relief, raises a big problem for any ethicist who thinks there is a straight line from scientific evidence to perfect moral judgments without confronting that Is/Ought dilemma.

Harris, believes we should seek to maximize human well being, not just happiness. He states many times that there are multiple peeks on the moral landscape, he even uses the drug example you mentioned. Again, science and neuroscience can help us determine the peaks and choose between them.

I was getting to that point of the difficulty in determining well being, let alone how to maximize well being above; but the next problem is should ethics be all about maximizing well being and happiness in the first place? A samurai warrior would have argued that perfecting ethics was a matter of perfecting one's self through effort. And the samurai's life goal would be perfecting his swordsmanship. But, who's to say the samurai warrior is wrong, and wasting his life on a trivial goal?

And, if Harris believes that we should maximize human well being, that makes him a typical humanist; but the human race has pushed itself up against the threat of extinction in this age because our species attempts to use our ingenuity to maximize the planet's resources for our own benefit. For this reason, there are a number of ecologists who feel that humanism and the goals of the enlightenment to create new inventions to exploit nature have only enabled humans to "maximize" their wellbeing for a relatively brief period of time in terms of Earth's history. If there are no humans three centuries from now....or just a remnant of survivors struggling in a stone age, pre-industrial existence, how successful can we say that humanist and enlightenment goals have been?

[WIP]

WIP, your discussion with some of the posters had branched away from the topic, and it is quite interesting. However, it needs its own thread.

I'll try to get to it this weekend if I can, since I have touched on these issues in other threads regarding the reasons I withdrew from the atheist/humanist movement, and change my mind on the value of secular humanism as a grounding philosophy. Since there are a few people who seem interested in discussing basic philosophical ideas now, it might get a discussion going.

[betsy]

The newspaper story you are quoting is simplifying two points from the actual article...which I doubt you have read.

1) Chicken eggs are crystallized with the help of a calcium binding protein called OC-17.

2) OC-17 is, so far, unique to chicken eggs.

BUT... Nobody is disputing either point.

However, you are still avoiding my question. I will rephrase it and precede it with a few points to hopefully make it more clear for you.

1) Many species produce hard shelled eggs.

2) There are many calcium binding proteins used in egg production.

3) Chickens produce eggs using the protein OC-17

Why do you believe the first chickens to contain the OC-17 protein could not have been hatched from eggs crystallized in a different manner?

To me it seems like you are purposefully avoiding this obvious question. However, if you honestly think you have been addressing it please let me know and I will help fill in the blanks.

I do understand what you are proposing, and I did not avoid it. I tackled it. Let me try again:

The article said:

British researchers say the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken’s ovaries.

‘It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University."

They say they have scientific proof to support that claim! Now you're saying:

"Why do you believe the first chickens to contain the OC-17 protein could not have been hatched from eggs crystallized in a different manner?"

You cannot use a supposition to rebutt a scientific fact! As simple as that.

The article was widely published. That you would use an assumption to rebutt only suggests you couldn't find any refutations from other credible scientists.

Edited November 8, 2012 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

You cannot use a supposition to rebutt a scientific fact! As simple as that.

Of course you can. We Christians do it everytime we talk about how the earth was created.

[Sleipnir]

They say they have scientific proof to support that claim! Now you're saying:

"Why do you believe the first chickens to contain the OC-17 protein could not have been hatched from eggs crystallized in a different manner?"

You cannot use a supposition to rebutt a scientific fact! As simple as that.

The article was widely published. That you would use an assumption to rebutt only suggests you couldn't find any refutations from other credible scientists.

*counters the stupidest claim I've ever had to dealt with*

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0041453

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0010639

http://www.nature.co...e03156.html#abs

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2265484/

Edited November 8, 2012 by Sleipnir

[cybercoma]

I'm surprised you're still trying to teach betsy something. She's been doing this for years. It's utterly hopeless.

[Sleipnir]

I'm surprised you're still trying to teach betsy something. She's been doing this for years. It's utterly hopeless.

I've been specializing in the topic of evolution and biodiversity or 6 years. When I come across statements like betsy made - it makes my left eye twitch.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

Of course you can. We Christians do it everytime we talk about how the earth was created.

Read again. I said:

betsy:

You cannot use a supposition to rebutt a scientific fact! As simple as that.

And what is the fact? Everything started as an accident?

Why don't you deal with the listed facts here for starters.....

Edited November 9, 2012 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

Why don't you deal with the listed facts here for starters.....

Why don't you start following your own advice before telling others to do so? Derp.

[cybercoma]

Why don't you start following your own advice before telling others to do so? Derp.

It's no use. She doesn't have an answer for the questions you pose to her, so she has put you on ignore. This way she doesn't have to confront her assumptions.

[Sleipnir]

It's no use. She doesn't have an answer for the questions you pose to her, so she has put you on ignore

Now I feel a little dumb, like I was talking to a wall for how long? lol....

[Mighty AC]

You cannot use a supposition to rebutt a scientific fact! As simple as that.

I completely agree and I expect that quote will come back to haunt you as you post about religious topics. However, you are not reporting scientific facts. You are reporting newspaper fluff.

The article was widely published. That you would use an assumption to rebutt only suggests you couldn't find any refutations from other credible scientists.

British researchers say the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken’s ovaries.

‘It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University."​

[/Quote]

[/Quote]

Let's look at your two quotes. First, you seem to be implying that they came from the scientific article, but they did not. You found them on a Christian Appolgetics site article, but they are actually from a Fox News story.

As mentioned previously the actual article, which you did not read, makes no claim that chickens containing OC-17 were not hatched from eggs. It simply explains the role of OC-17 in egg crystallization. The study does not need to be refuted because it does not make the claim you think it does. The news reporting is flawed (what else is new) and has been refuted by Jerry Coyne PhD and others.

In short, your so called scientific proof stems from a Fox News quote not a published article.

[Sleipnir]

I completely agree and I expect that quote will come back to haunt you as you post about religious topics. However, you are not reporting scientific facts. You are reporting newspaper fluff.

I think she'll be oblivious to any statement that contradict her religious beliefs.

[Mighty AC]

And what is the fact? Everything started as an accident?

We know an amazing amount about our universe, our solar system, our planet and the biodiversity of it; but, we don't know anything before the big bang. However, isn't it humble and honest to say 'we don't know but we're working on it', as opposed to a magic being must have created it? Why are the religious willing to stop asking questions at that point, instead of asking the obvious 'Then what created the god?'

[Mighty AC]

I'll try to get to it this weekend if I can, since I have touched on these issues in other threads regarding the reasons I withdrew from the atheist/humanist movement, and change my mind on the value of secular humanism as a grounding philosophy. Since there are a few people who seem interested in discussing basic philosophical ideas now, it might get a discussion going.

OK...we can continue this discussion in the new thread.

[betsy]

I completely agree and I expect that quote will come back to haunt you as you post about religious topics. However, you are not reporting scientific facts. You are reporting newspaper fluff.

Let's look at your two quotes. First, you seem to be implying that they came from the scientific article, but they did not. You found them on a Christian Appolgetics site article, but they are actually from a Fox News story.

As mentioned previously the actual article, which you did not read, makes no claim that chickens containing OC-17 were not hatched from eggs. It simply explains the role of OC-17 in egg crystallization. The study does not need to be refuted because it does not make the claim you think it does. The news reporting is flawed (what else is new) and has been refuted by Jerry Coyne PhD and others.

In short, your so called scientific proof stems from a Fox News quote not a published article.

The quoted article above was from this site:

http://www.metro.co....e#ixzz2BLIPAH9d

-------------------------------

First, there's nothing wrong about using claims/refutations from Christian Apologetics sites - as long as they are credible.

There is nothing wrong too about using claims/refutations from atheist evolutionist sites - as long as they are credible.

Yeah, sure you gave another bloody blog! And his remarks raise serious concern over how some of these scientists "operate." Here, let me quote parts of it:

Now I haven’t read the whole paper (link is below), but even if the piece accurately describes what the scientists found, it says nothing—absolutely nothing—about whether the chicken or the egg came first.

First, he admits he hadn't read the whole paper. And then he claims that,"EVEN IF THE PIECE ACCURATELY DESCRIBES WHAT THE SCIENTISTS FOUND, IT SAYS NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - ABOUT WHETHER THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG CAME FIRST."

Then he continues:

In fact, we’ve known the answer to that question for decades. In the evolutionary sense, which is the only meaningful sense in which you can ask this question, the answer is clear: the egg came first. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs laid eggs. Therefore eggs were around before there were birds, and during the period when birds were evolving from dinosaurs, every creature in that lineage laid eggs. Therefore eggs preceded chickens in evolutionary time.

http://whyevolutioni...before-the-egg/

So he claims they've known that answer for decades - the egg came first - because he says birds evolved from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs laid eggs!

First I'd like to ask him, which came first - the dinosaur or the egg?

Second I'll say - you're simply assuming the bird evolved from the dinosaur.

Third, I'll ask - well bloody 'ell. How do you explain this then?

Science News

Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links

ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009) — Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight – and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.

The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.

"It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed."

These studies were just published in The Journal of Morphology, and were funded by the National Science Foundation.

http://www.scienceda...90609092055.htm

Edited November 10, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Not only that! Oh boy.....the plot thickens....

Science News

Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?

ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) — A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.

The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.

"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.

More....

http://www.scienceda...00209183335.htm

See? What we've been given for almost a century now are "EXTRAORDINARY" EVIDENCES that show the theory of evolution is just propped up by suppositions.

If there's any proof of evolution happening at all - it's the endless neo-darwinian evolution suppositions that keep on evolving - trying to patch up the leaky evolution bucket in their hope to make the theory fit!

Which supposition came first?

Edited November 10, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

First, there's nothing wrong about using claims/refutations from Christian Apologetics sites - as long as they are credible.

There is nothing wrong too about using claims/refutations from atheist evolutionist sites - as long as they are credible.[/Quote]

It depends on what you are using them for. I wouldn't pass off a blog entry or a newspaper quote as "scientific proof".

First, he admits he hadn't read the whole paper. And then he claims that,"EVEN IF THE PIECE ACCURATELY DESCRIBES WHAT THE SCIENTISTS FOUND, IT SAYS NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - ABOUT WHETHER THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG CAME FIRST."[/Quote] I understand why you quoted this, but it really just speaks to your ignorance on scientific papers. I suspect you don't read many journal articles including the one in question here. A large portion of a scientific paper is dedicated to describing the experimental design and method. This portion can be skipped unless you are attempting to question their design or recreate their experiment. Like me, Coyne no doubt read the intro, findings and conclusion. He's right the authors say absolutely nothing about the modern chicken preceding the egg.

So he claims they've known that answer for decades - the egg came first - because he says birds evolved from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs laid eggs! [/Quote] Yes that has been what the body of evidence has suggested for some time. Yet, right now some newly discovered fossils containing feathers suggest that birds didn't evolve from theropods but rather an earlier common ancestor. That's how science works, if new discoveries cast doubt on previous theories more work is done and, if need be, theories are changed. Science is evidence based after all. Still, the older ancestor they speak of still hatched from eggs

[Mighty AC]

Not only that! Oh boy.....the plot thickens....

http://www.scienceda...00209183335.htm

See? What we've been given for almost a century now are "EXTRAORDINARY" EVIDENCES that show the theory of evolution is just propped up by suppositions.

If there's any proof of evolution happening at all - it's the endless neo-darwinian evolution suppositions that keep on evolving - trying to patch up the leaky evolution bucket in their hope to make the theory fit!

Which supposition came first?

Evolution and even speciation are observable in real time. What you are referring to here is simply archaeology. The new fossil discoveries simply change where they draw the branches on ancestral charts.

For example discovering that your great, great, great grandmother was actually knocked up by the village cobbler simply changes how we draw your family tree not the fact that you're a product of the genes of your ancestors.

[Sleipnir]

-left eye twitch-

[Mighty AC]

Only your left?

[betsy]

It depends on what you are using them for. I wouldn't pass off a blog entry or a newspaper quote as "scientific proof".

I'm not. I'm using the statement of the scientist who made the discovery!

On the other hand, the rebuttals that were used against him on this board were either PLAIN and SIMPLE BLOGS by some clinging to OUTDATED and REFUTED THEORIES, therefore, not only are they basing their opinions on plain ASSUMPTIONS, but as the given sources indicate - they're basing it on FALSEHOOD!

I understand why you quoted this, but it really just speaks to your ignorance on scientific papers. I suspect you don't read many journal articles including the one in question here. A large portion of a scientific paper is dedicated to describing the experimental design and method. This portion can be skipped unless you are attempting to question their design or recreate their experiment. Like me, Coyne no doubt read the intro, findings and conclusion. He's right the authors say absolutely nothing about the modern chicken preceding the egg.

Yes that has been what the body of evidence has suggested for some time. Yet, right now some newly discovered fossils containing feathers suggest that birds didn't evolve from theropods but rather an earlier common ancestor. That's how science works, if new discoveries cast doubt on previous theories more work is done and, if need be, theories are changed. Science is evidence based after all. Still, the older ancestor they speak of still hatched from eggs

Well you can call me ignorant as much as you want but I'm just showing you WHAT SCIENCE IS SAYING PUBLICLY! Those articles are written for the public, simplifying the explanation what the issue is all about - IN A NUTSHELL and in LAYMEN'S TERMS!

We don't all pretend to be so knowledgeable in the intricacies of scientific works...... unlike some would like to pretend they are.

That's how science works, if new discoveries cast doubt on previous theories more work is done and, if need be, theories are changed. Science is evidence based after all.

That's right. For more than a century now...and with all the modern technology, evidence for evolution has yet to be found.

The SUPPOSITIONS on evolution is the only thing that evidently keeps on evolving!

Still, the older ancestor they speak of still hatched from eggs

In your dreams. And dreams don't count.

Edited November 10, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Evolution and even speciation are observable in real time. What you are referring to here is simply archaeology. The new fossil discoveries simply change where they draw the branches on ancestral charts.

For example discovering that your great, great, great grandmother was actually knocked up by the village cobbler simply changes how we draw your family tree not the fact that you're a product of the genes of your ancestors.

You dismiss the statement of the scientist who made the discovery because it's been reported by a newspaper - and yet you swallow the blogs of your source, who admittedly confessed he didn't actually read the whole report! Duh?

I think I'd prefer to consider what Science Daily says, thank you......especially when you've been showing how desperately senselessly you're grasping for straws.

Edited November 10, 2012 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Yes, betsy. The chicken came first. It was moulded from the breath of angels then started laying eggs.