Church Is Not Enough?

quote:

---

Well let's start with the obvious. Go back, say, 80 million years and look at the animals and plants. You will find numerous species that are not alive today, and at most a few species strongly resembling modern species. That is change, and very significant change.

---

Is that not assuming that the plants did indeed change? Also, are you sure that they are not alive? There were quite a few species that were thought extinct for like over 10 million years that are eventually found to be still alive. About the only a few species, I’m going to do some research on that, should be finished and will answer about by next week. (sorry about the delay.)

quote:

---

Of course, I did not accuse you of lying. However you have made a number of obviously false statements - which you should have known to be false. And it's a bit rich for you to be complaining about personal attacks when you've been happy to indulge in them yourself.

---

I said it was not the best thing for you to do, not that you shouldn’t do it. Which obviously false statements? How are they wrong? Or rather, Why? Because I can’t seem to find them.

quote:

---

So your ability to "recognise logic" doesn't extend to identifying the name of a fallacy that you yourself referred to? And since I explicitly said that it was the fallacy of affirming the consequent in the preceding paragraph you're asking for information that had already been given.

---

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Not what I said. If evolution is a religion (P), then it should be given treatment same as other religions (Q). Unfortunately, evolution IS not treated in such a manner, so it should be =/=Q. Hence it is not a logical fallacy.

quote:

---

That only contains a minor expansion of your original claim with nothing that could be considered even an attempt to address my points. Your assertion that you had done so then is an obvious falsehood and one you should have known to be false.

---

So you don’t understand what I was saying? Funny. Dr. seemed not to have any.

quote:

---

So you DON'T object to the idea that humans and microbes are descended from a common ancestor ? But, regardless, even if the first life has to come from somewhere it doesn't have to be naturalistic abiogenesis. And if the "law of biogenesis" is any sort of law we ought to be looking for the idea which has fewest violations. If one is needed then that would be one.

---

This is the second time you have avoided answering the question, How do you define evolution? The law of biogenesis has never been observed to be broken, you should know that.I do object. I’m just not making it an issue here.

quote:

---

But that's exactly what you did. You appealed to the opinions of Provine and Dawkins, without even presenting their arguments. If all you have is an appeal to authority, pointing to similarly qualified authorities who disagree is a valid counter.

---

I referenced them, which is presenting their arguments enough. Basically, the question was about whether you wanted to see who's list was longer.

quote:

---

Is that not assuming that the plants did indeed change? Also, are you sure that they are not alive? There were quite a few species that were thought extinct for like over 10 million years that are eventually found to be still alive. About the only a few species, I’m going to do some research on that, should be finished and will answer about by next week. (sorry about the delay.)

---

No, it's not an assumption. I really don't think that you will find many examples - and if we push it back further we find even more differences.

quote:

---

I said it was not the best thing for you to do, not that you shouldn’t do it. Which obviously false statements? How are they wrong? Or rather, Why? Because I can’t seem to find them.

---

Since I hadn't even done it - unlike your attacks - it seems a bit pointless. And we already have an example, and more to come...

quote:

---

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
Not what I said. If evolution is a religion (P), then it should be given treatment same as other religions (Q). Unfortunately, evolution IS not treated in such a manner, so it should be =/=Q. Hence it is not a logical fallacy.

---

There is just one problem with that. It isn't what we were talking about. What we were talking about it your claim that Provine's statement allowed you to extend the claim that evolution is a religion to claim that atheism is a religion. Now since I have twice explained this - without any attempt to deal with the point from you I believe that I am justified in claiming that I was right. Certainly by your standards....

quote:

---

So you don’t understand what I was saying? Funny. Dr. seemed not to have any.

---

And there is another of those obvious falsehoods. I understood your point perfectly well - that is why I know that it does NOT address my points.

quote:

---

This is the second time you have avoided answering the question, How do you define evolution? The law of biogenesis has never been observed to be broken, you should know that.

---

In fact I did better than answering your question. I explained exactly which aspect of evolution I was referring to and explained why the "law" of biogenesis supported it.You, on the other hand have evaded offering any reason why evolution requires abiogenesis at all.So if I tell you that by "evolution" I mean the scientific theory of evolution, including natural selection, common ancestry, population genetics etc. does it help ?

quote:

---

I do object. I’m just not making it an issue here.

---

Then why did you say that you had no objection to common descent ?

quote:

---

I referenced them, which is presenting their arguments enough. Basically, the question was about whether you wanted to see who's list was longer.

---

No, providing a reference to a book which might contain an argument is not enough. At the least you should present the argument. And no, again, I said nothing about counting experts, I simply pointed out that people with similar scientific qualifications disagreed.

quote:

---

No, it's not an assumption. I really don't think that you will find many examples - and if we push it back further we find even more differences.

---

Next week.

quote:

---

Since I hadn't even done it - unlike your attacks - it seems a bit pointless. And we already have an example, and more to come...

---

And yet you fail to cite that.

quote:

---

There is just one problem with that. It isn't what we were talking about. What we were talking about it your claim that Provine's statement allowed you to extend the claim that evolution is a religion to claim that atheism is a religion. Now since I have twice explained this - without any attempt to deal with the point from you I believe that I am justified in claiming that I was right. Certainly by your standards....

---

No, not exactly what I was saying. They are not the same because they are religions. Evolutionism=atheism, which is a religion. It is not, If evolution (P), then atheism (Q). This does not follow and is not what I said.

quote:

---

In fact I did better than answering your question. I explained exactly which aspect of evolution I was referring to and explained why the "law" of biogenesis supported it.
You, on the other hand have evaded offering any reason why evolution requires abiogenesis at all.

---

If by evolution you mean simply change, then I have no objection to that.I’m arguing based on Kerkut’s definition, which would include abiogenesis, and every other process toward humans. (You may, however, consider it overworn)

quote:

---

So if I tell you that by "evolution" I mean the scientific theory of evolution, including natural selection, common ancestry, population genetics etc. does it help ?

---

That certainly shows me that I do not have an argument with you. At least, not on this thread. Population genetics. I won’t go into the really technical details, but seeing that the NET EFFECT of mutations is overwhelmingly negative to the information encoded into the genome, I wouldn’t say that positive mutations, when they do occur, actually helps much. (And no, this is not meant to be a textbook)
Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? - PubMed

quote:

---

Then why did you say that you had no objection to common descent ?

---

If you noticed the example of common descent that I gave (The cousin), you will realize it is different than the one you have just cited. Not from a common ancestor of different species.I will clarify a few things here. I take no objection to saying that common descent is true, as in salamanders and newts come from the same ancestor. Human and chimps? No.

Why do you object to acknowledging that humans are just another primate, just another chordate, just another animal?

Since CS seems my post with worthy of a vote down let me state it differently to Mr. Limpspider.Please show how your post supports this. I do not see it.

quote:

---

And yet you fail to cite that

---

Why would I need to cite something we were actively discussing ?

quote:

---

No, not exactly what I was saying. They are not the same because they are religions. Evolutionism=atheism, which is a religion. It is not, If evolution (P), then atheism (Q). This does not follow and is not what I said.

---

In other words, I have correctly identified what you were saying and your error.

quote:

---

If by evolution you mean simply change, then I have no objection to that.
I’m arguing based on Kerkut’s definition, which would include abiogenesis, and every other process toward humans. (You may, however, consider it overworn)

---

I'm not familiar with Kerkut's definition but from what you say he is one of a group who thought to extend the concept of evolution beyond the actual theory of evolution. However, this idea has completely fallen by the wayside.

quote:

---

That certainly shows me that I do not have an argument with you. At least, not on this thread. Population genetics. I won’t go into the really technical details, but seeing that the NET EFFECT of mutations is overwhelmingly negative to the information encoded into the genome, I wouldn’t say that positive mutations, when they do occur, actually helps much. (And no, this is not meant to be a textbook)
Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? - PubMed

---

Our continued existence rather suggests that other factors prevent that from being a serious problem.

quote:

---

If you noticed the example of common descent that I gave (The cousin), you will realize it is different than the one you have just cited. Not from a common ancestor of different species.

---

Yes, I noticed that your "example" looked like an attempt to justify a deliberate deception. In the context of evolution, of course it means common ancestry of different species - something noticeably missing from your "example".

quote:

---

I will clarify a few things here. I take no objection to saying that common descent is true, as in salamanders and newts come from the same ancestor. Human and chimps? No.

---

Your objection is not justified by the scientific evidence... However, I suppose it is at least somewhat relieving to see that you have no quarrel with macroevolution.

Yeah, fuck the topic. Somebody posted an unevidenced assertion on the internet. Get him!Thanks droid.

And evolution is a religion in the same sense, an artificial one. You can catapult a pig into the air in a trajectory that superficially resembles "flight" and you can twist evolution into a caricature that superficially resembles a religion. Is that your best argument that evoluion "is" a religion?

If you do not have anything to contribute, why are you posting? You might want to read the thread and follow through to understand the reason for the question.Why are you not making personal attacks against others that are pressing Limpspider for support for his assertions? Do you revel in personal attacks against me?Edited by Theodoric, : changed to reason from meaning seemed to flow better

Is it your argument that the word "Natural" and "Biological" in the title implies that the authors have taken the position that rape is not evil? Are you surprised that I find that position inane? Your have no point. Regardless of our purpose or lack of purpose here, we can reach the conclusion that harming each other is evil.Yes, you could have used Stalin instead of the Nazis, but to no better effect. You don't have to be a Christian to understand that murder is evil.I'll note that the Bible takes a fairly tolerant view on slavery, even endorsing slavery on occasion. Is slavery really evil, or do I need to take some historical context into account? How is that not relativism of the most odious order.

Actually, humans are unique. We have the capacity to creatively use language and reason. Something I have never seen in a primate.

quote:

---

Our continued existence rather suggests that other factors prevent that from being a serious problem.

---

I would call this affirming the consequent.

quote:

---

Your objection is not justified by the scientific evidence... However, I suppose it is at least somewhat relieving to see that you have no quarrel with macroevolution.

---

No one has ever bred a primate into a human. Add to this what I said to jar. No. I have quarrel with macroevolution. What I see you describing is microevolution. Something which I totally agree with. I can even see that happening before my eyes.

quote:

---

Is it your argument that the word "Natural" and "Biological" in the title implies that the authors have taken the position that rape is not evil? Are you surprised that I find that position inane?

---

Well, is there a logical basis for you to view it as inane?

quote:

---

Your have no point. Regardless of our purpose or lack of purpose here, we can reach the conclusion that harming each other is evil.
Yes, you could have used Stalin instead of the Nazis, but to no better effect. You don't have to be a Christian to understand that murder is evil.
I'll note that the Bible takes a fairly tolerant view on slavery, even endorsing slavery on occasion. Is slavery really evil, or do I need to take some historical context into account? How is that not relativism of the most odious order.

---

We can indeed reach such a conclusion. The question that this brings to minds is, Is there a logical basis for considering this moral view evil?Re: Slavery. I don’t need to point out that slavery in the Bible refers more to indentured servants. Not the american style slavery....beatings, etc...I would like to quote C. S. Lewis on the point of morality. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other.

Yes. The logical basis for considering your conclusion to be unsupported is that authors do not make any claim that rape is not evil. If you believe that to be wrong, you need to show it using excerpts from the book. The book's title does not support your claim. It is indeed inane to reach your conclusion from the book's title. Yes, there are a number of logical reasons to reach that conclusion. For example, the conclusion that murder, theft, and mistreating one's neighbor are evil can be reached by looking at the consequences for society or even the individual provided that considerations other than immediate gratification are taken into account. I'll agree that we cannot reach a conclusion to keep the Sabbath using that type of reasoning. "American style" ?? Americans did not invent chattel slavery.Have you ever actually read the Bible?Given that your claim that the Biblical slavery means indentured servitude is demonstrably wrong, you don't get off with that response. There are several types of slavery endorsed in the Bible including types involving ownership and beatings. For example:Exodus 21:20-21

quote:

---

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

​

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

---

Leviticus 25:44-46

quote:

---

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

​

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

​

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

---

Are those verses talking about indentured servitude? If you don't want to call the system endorsed in those verses slavery, is it fair to say that they do describe an evil, abhorrent practice?And on the topic of pillaging and raping:Numbers 31:17-18

quote:

---

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

​

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

---

How do you accept that those things were "okay" in ancient Hebrew culture?

Then you have never looked or are simply repeating a falsehood. Here is a list of over 70,000 scholarly articles on primate use of language.And here is a list of over 40,000 scholarly articles on primate reasoning and cooperation.But you also should remember that humans ARE just another primate, just another chordate, just another animal. Every critter is unique, there is nothing unique about being unique.