Church Is Not Enough?

quote:

---

I would call this affirming the consequent.

---

If you did, you'd be wrong.

quote:

---

No one has ever bred a primate into a human.

---

Humans ARE primates.

quote:

---

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.

---

Where do you see me describing microevolution ?

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: Bible injustice - creation.comRe: 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.

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.

Exactly. Apparently having a purpose is no impediment to relativism. I find it interesting that you are unable to say that slavery is evil. Did not the Hebrews have a purpose? 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.

Utter nonsense.Communication is communication and in addition they can use language, form sentences and transmit information just as we do. They can even learn and use ASL and pass the knowledge on to future generations.Cooperation requires reasoning. But it goes beyond cooperation and includes planning and as well as tool creation and use.Why is it you seem afraid to admit that humans are just another primate, another chordate, another animal?

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.

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. Slave Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

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 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 Language - Wikipedia 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.

---

A cooperative instinct | Nature Interesting article differentiating cooperation and reasoning.

When someone looks at a problem and figures out a solution is it not reasoning?When they transmit that solution to another person is that not using reasoning?When two people decide to cooperate in order to accomplish a task is that not reasoning?When someone uses ASL to make a request is that not using language?Why are you afraid to admit that you are just another primate, another Chordate, another animal?

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.

When someone looks at a problem and figures out a solution is it not reasoning?When they transmit that solution to another person is that not using reasoning?When two people decide to cooperate in order to accomplish a task is that not reasoning?When someone uses ASL to make a request is that not using language?Why are you afraid to admit that you are just another primate, another Chordate, another animal?What does any of this have to do with the topic?

Well let's lock down the type of slavery. I'm referring to slavery as described in the Bible verses I referenced. The type involving beatings nearly to the death. The type the Bible says God told the Hebrews to practice on the people they conquered and cited in my previous post.But perhaps you've already answered the question. You think that some versions of slavery are just peachy.

I would like to note that the laws were merely regulating what was already in place. Not instructions to DO something that was not being done.

So you acknowledge that you are fully aware of the type of slavery that I am talking about and that it is not indentured servitude. Yet you refuse to condemn the practice.You should not expect me to find your future arguments based on relativism the least bit credible.Further with respect to raping and pilaging, the passage cited included instructions on how to proceed. As if that were anything but a duck the question strategy on your part

The connection between the topic of this thread and anything at all that anyone's posting on it seems to have vanished.