Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
51 online now:
WookieeB (1 member, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Church Is Not Enough?
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 69 of 110 (674354)
09-28-2012 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Tangle
09-28-2012 2:57 AM


I did say SEEM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2012 2:57 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2012 3:38 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 70 of 110 (674355)
09-28-2012 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 7:20 PM


You should have made that clear. It was not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 7:20 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2012 3:17 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 72 of 110 (674358)
09-28-2012 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by PaulK
09-28-2012 1:06 AM


quote:
Of course, science isn't limited to direct experimentation. There's lots of scientific research to support that conclusion. In fact we can start with the "law" of biogenesis and the fact that the fauna and flora on Earth have changed drastically over time. How do you explain these changes within the "law" of biogenesis other than invoking evolution ?

Let’s talk about just one of these. “Change” has to be defined quite clearly if you want to do so.

quote:
No offence intended but when a creationist says something like this he's usually whining that nobody will believe his obvious lies. If you can't understand something perhaps politely asking for clarification would be a better approach than an offhand and slanderous dismissal.

Actually, accusing me of lying is not exactly the best thing for you to do. Because, to my knowledge, I’ve not purposely deceived anyone. Have I?

quote:
And as for "recognising logic" the fact that your argument relied on the very same fallacy rather suggests that your recognition of logic is not so good.

Can you state specifically what fallacy I was using? That would be helpful

quote:
Having reviewed this thread, I don't see any relevant responses. Please provide links to these alleged replied.

Message 59. And if you feel you have not been responded to, let me know. (Or maybe I did not feel there was anything to reply to.

quote:
And you are accusing other people of being biased ? How can any unbiased person not dismiss that argument as being nothing more than an obvious and desperate clutching at straws ?

Whether you want to recognize it or not, everyone has a bias. Me included.

quote:
In this case I argue that Pasteur's experiment supports common descent, and that common ancestry of different species requires evolution of some form. (Obviously spontaneous generation, of the form disproved by Pasteur, is inconsistent with common ancestry. The spontaneously generated microbes would have NO ancestors!)

Common descent, I have no objection to. I come from the same person as my....hundredth times removed cousin? But that’s not the point. Once again, what is your definition of “evolution”, I’ve met people who change the definition half-way through talking. And speaking of spontaneous generation, the first cells, would have no ancestors. As in, Abiogenesis. After all, it has to start somewhere.

quote:
And yet when dealing with ethics or the existence of God we are moving out of the field addressed by the theory of evolution or even science in general and into that addressed by philosophy. Knowing the science is not sufficient. There are also experts in science who disagree with Dawkins and Provine (e.g. Kenneth Miller and Simon Conway-Morris).

So should I start the name throwing of which scientist supports/opposes the views that have been expressed? I think not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 1:06 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 3:57 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


(1)
Message 73 of 110 (674359)
09-28-2012 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2012 3:17 AM


Must have missed that. Apologies, Dr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2012 3:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 76 of 110 (674362)
09-28-2012 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
09-28-2012 3:57 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 3:57 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 6:58 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 78 of 110 (674374)
09-28-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by PaulK
09-28-2012 6:58 AM


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)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 6:58 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 09-28-2012 10:11 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 11:17 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 86 of 110 (674452)
09-29-2012 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by jar
09-28-2012 10:11 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 09-28-2012 10:11 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 09-29-2012 10:18 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 87 of 110 (674453)
09-29-2012 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
09-28-2012 11:17 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 11:17 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2012 1:56 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 88 of 110 (674459)
09-29-2012 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by NoNukes
09-29-2012 12:53 AM


Re: Assumptions
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.”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 12:53 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 9:16 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 92 of 110 (674497)
09-29-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by NoNukes
09-29-2012 9:16 AM


Re: Assumptions
quote:
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.

I said I did so from an interview, which I linked. (You must have missed it)

quote:
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.

Well, what about survival of the fittest? Do you agree with that?

quote:
"American style" ?? Americans did not invent chattel slavery.

America style because it is the most famous example.

quote:
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:

Actually I have.
I’m going to take into account some historical context. Relativist as that may seem to you. See: http://creation.com/bible-injustice

Re: Rape. Firstly, I never said I accepted that. I said that from the view that there is no purpose, rape can’t be wrong, or right. This is supported by scholars, who I cited talking about their book. In the interview link. It is hard to excerpt an interview.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 9:16 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 6:48 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 93 of 110 (674500)
09-29-2012 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
09-29-2012 10:18 AM


The language they are talking about (and I did peruse more than several) is communication....like dogs howling. Not at all like what we are doing. Grammar, logic, etc.

You actually searched for primate cooperation, not primate reasoning, I don't dispute that they do cooperate, I dispute that they reason, like thinkers. I searched for "primate reasoning" and found none.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 09-29-2012 10:18 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 09-29-2012 6:51 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 96 of 110 (674507)
09-29-2012 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
09-29-2012 1:56 PM


quote:
If you did, you'd be wrong.

Would I? Unlike you, I would not be relying on “self-evident” remarks. I would actually explain myself.

1. If negative mutations did not have an effect (P), then we would be here (Q)
2. We are here (Q)
3. Therefore, negative mutations did not have an effect.

It is disingenuous to just claim that what I say is wrong without first asking my reasons for doing so. (Yeah, throw that back at me )

Humans are primates? See my conversation with, was it, ringo?

Microevolution is change that is incapable of bringing a microbe to a man. Microevolution uses all that you have described to change maybe a canine ancestor to their varied types of the current age.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2012 1:56 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2012 3:17 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 97 of 110 (674510)
09-29-2012 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes
09-29-2012 6:48 PM


Re: Assumptions
quote:
Exactly. Apparently having a purpose is no impediment to relativism. I find it interesting that you are unable to say that slavery is evil.

Yes, I do find that hard to say. It totally depends on what kind of a slave a person is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave

quote:
Did not the Hebrews have a purpose?

I don’t think I’m Hebrew. And I was talking about those with no purpose. The Hebrews have a purpose.

quote:
Are you suggesting that if I accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, that I also endorse the idea that strong men should dominate the weak? As it turns out, I don't endorse that idea. But yes, survival of the fitest is the law of animals in the jungle.

Well, then it brings to mind the question, Are we animals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 6:48 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 10:15 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 98 of 110 (674511)
09-29-2012 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by jar
09-29-2012 6:51 PM


This leads to a round and round about the merry-go-round. Language is communication. Communication is not language. Humans use language. Animals do not. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language Even wikipedia admits it’s unique to humans.

quote:
Cooperation requires reasoning. But it goes beyond cooperation and includes planning and as well as tool creation and use.

http://www.nature.com/...ournal/v489/n7416/full/489374a.html Interesting article differentiating cooperation and reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 09-29-2012 6:51 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 09-29-2012 7:16 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3074 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 100 of 110 (674517)
09-29-2012 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
09-29-2012 7:16 PM


You are equivocating, or otherwise known as bait-and-switch. I have already given you all required information about the distinctions between the two. What makes you think I'm afraid? You refuse to acknowledge the distinction, and have at least twice used equivocation. Therefore, I will not continue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 09-29-2012 7:16 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 09-29-2012 9:14 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021