Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,078 Year: 5,335/9,624 Month: 360/323 Week: 204/160 Day: 21/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Church Is Not Enough?
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4288 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 103 of 110 (674525)
09-29-2012 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by NoNukes
09-29-2012 10:15 PM


Re: Assumptions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 10:15 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 11:40 PM LimpSpider has replied

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4288 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 106 of 110 (674530)
09-30-2012 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by NoNukes
09-29-2012 11:40 PM


Re: Slip sliding away.
NoNukes, I actually don't know what you're talking about. I have no arguments based on relativism. And your assertions about what I'm "fully aware" of is simply false. I have given you the required information on my position on this. To ignore it is not a fault of mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 11:40 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4288 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 108 of 110 (674535)
09-30-2012 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by PaulK
09-30-2012 3:17 AM


quote:
Of course this is not my reasoning. So I guess the difference between us is that I am honest and do not invent a strawman.
Try this reasoning.
1) If there were nothing to counteract the accumulation of detrimental mutations we would not be here.
2) We are here.
3) There is something to counteract the effect of detrimental mutations
(i.e. the form "if A then B" "not B" "therefore not A", which is valid).
Argument from silence. No such mechanism has been observed. If it evolved in the first place, why isn’t it still present to counteract the present degradation?
How am I to know your reasoning if you do not share it? Is the reasoning I gave invalid? No, because not only did you fail to give me your reasoning, when I gave you perfectly logical and valid reasoning from what you said, you dismissed it immediately as false.
quote:
Last time you claimed to have answered my points elsewhere it was a lie. So I decline to do your work for you.
It was not a lie. It was an explanation you refuse to accept.
quote:
If you claim to have an answer elsewhere, link to it. The forum software allows links to other messages to be produced quite easily with, for example the mid tag.
EvC Forum: Church Is Not Enough? thereabouts. And, no, your mid tag don’t seem to work
quote:
This makes no sense as a definition. I prefer the standard definitions where macroevolution is any evolution at or above the level of species (i.e. a speciation event is an example of macroevolution - so newts and salamanders having a common ancestor would be an outcome of macroevolution)
Then it appears that there are some parts of evolution that I agree with and others that I don’t.
Having said this, and your continued assertion that I lie, even though I have given you perfectly valid and logical reasons for what I said, I refuse to continue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2012 3:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2012 5:02 AM LimpSpider has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024