Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 22 28 29 30 31 32
Results 621 to 635 of 635
  1. #621
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You said:
    "Setting aside the objectivity question that prompted this"
    so the "objectivity" point is still unrebutted.
    There was a miscommunication. When I said that it was set aside, I was referring to your response. You didn't address my rebuttal, so I assumed you had set it aside. In post 611 you didn't address or defend objectivity, you simply invoked it again, but in the context of a different point you were making. Thus I inferred you had moved beyond that point. If you wish to still argue it for some reason youíd need to address the rebuttal I offered in post 608, that being part of a different instance of the same process does not make one more objective as to the nature of that process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I see no reason for biologists opinions here.
    You are literally the only person I have ever talked with that promoted that life evolved from simple to complex and then God gave only one of the Great Apes sentience and that was the "first humans"!....
    Iím sorry you havenít had more experience with this position, it is quite common in Christian circles in a whole variety of forms. It is common to all ID thinking, theistic evolution, old earth creationism, really every train of Christian thought on the matter that isnít young earth creationism (which is relatively small as an intellectual movement).

    I think the opinions of biologists are incredibly important when we are discussing biological matters. We just need to be careful to not carry over assumptions from one field to a different one. Just like when people carry over their every day language into law and get worked up about Citizens United. If we conflate definitions across fields we are going to draw incorrect conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    "Speciation" is a human construct is it not?
    Our alien friends likely would not classify Earth life in the same way as humans.
    Biologists would argue that it isnít. That they are trying to describe something objectively true. I mean clearly there is an objective classification difference between a sea star and a manatee. The question is how do we understand that difference and whose definition most correctly fits the underlying, objective mechanism. [To be fair, evolutionary biologists are in a bit of a crises as they are having a harder and harder time defining exactly what mechanism gives rise to that change].
    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    On this point I am thinking you are right..?...
    You see Evolution basically as true. The difference seems, when God picks one of the Apes to be sentient (human).
    I will wait to comment on this line further till you have had a chance to say agree/don't agree (in one of your kinda cryptic/esoteric responses... )
    Oh you called it. Cryptic it shall be.

    I am totally fine with evolutionary processes being the final answer, but Iím not sure I would necessarily subscribe to them. There are a lot of current flaws in evolutionary biology (I wish Chad the geneticist were still here) that I think can lead to some reasonable doubt. And even a quick perusal of an evolutionary biology journal will find some pretty fundamental disagreements about what/if that process is.

    Sufficed to say that I am agnostic on exactly the mechanism used to bring about biological diversity on this planet, but that none of the current contenders really seem to be an issue for me aside from the materialist ďblind evolutionĒ (which Iím not very concerned about because evolutionary biologists also donít hold that position).

    TLDR version: Yes I more or less agree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Basically I agree, save this "Eve" has a more diverse DNA pool than a truly "first" human, and the point you are missing, is all of the males she and her children had sex with would not be directly related so no incest issue and no "Adam".
    Your Eve was not the first human woman (pre your source), and no Adam (first human man) is even speculated on.
    So:
    1. your source does not lend any credibility to Genesis
    2. your source does not lend any credibility to your claim that "all humans are the product of incest".
    Iím not sure what you mean when you say that Eve ďhas a more diverse DNA pool than a truly Ďfirstí humanÖĒ How so? Diverse in what aspect?

    No male is speculated on because we donít pass along mitochondrial DNA of course. It isnít some argument that there wasnít one (hell by definition there has to be a first if we are going to have any kind of speciation definition), just that this form of genetic analysis plays no part in male understanding.

    You are also assuming, against human social and genetic construct, polyandry. Humans are generally monogamous partners (especially in more austere environments where teamwork means survival), and even when we create social constructs that arenít, polyandry is vanishingly rare (there are exactly two instances of it that Iím aware of, both in societies well under 1000 people).

    I would disagree with you assessment, on both counts. The second claim is certainly not something Iíve said, but something youíve tried to use to put words in my mouth, so I can put that claim aside since it isnít something Iíve said nor something I support. The first claim depends on what assumption you bring to the evidence. It is certainly true that it lends credibility to the Genesis account when compared to traditional views on speciation evolution which hold that large swaths of the population continually migrate and dilute DNA alterations and that populations do not bottleneck in this way. In that sense it is a revolutionary finding (which is why it is so discussed in biological literature, obviously not for its theological implications) and paints a story that is far more like the Genesis account than the standard evolutionary account. That, at least, adds some credibility (even if you think it is vanishingly small) to Genesis..

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You are of course correct here, my apologies.
    Ahh, I could never stay mad at you. 

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You gave the premise, "Adam & Eve" being the "first two humans", but also suggested they had "ancestors". I was commenting on that thought.
    Again I will say, you are the ONLY person ever to suggest to me that Eve had ANY ancestors.
    Only person youíve met, right? 

    Your statement was: ďIf there were humans before Adam an Eve, then they were not the first humans.Ē My point was, in order for us to answer this question, I need to know what you mean by ďhuman.Ē Were Eveís ancestors humans or something else?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I know you are saying this does not conflict with Genesis (though I think this is a minority position for a Christian), though does it square with
    "created in the image of God"?
    If God had picked a different Great Ape to grant sentience to, they would be the "human"?
    Since all us apes are related thru evolution we all must be in the "image" or is sentience all that matters to be the "image"?
    Given, as I discussed earlier, that God is spirit, thus without physical form, image can only refer to non-physical traits. There is certainly no discussion in any Jewish or Christian literature that Iím aware of that our ďimageĒ refers to anything physical about us.

    But we also need to be careful, because we arenít defining human as solely as being created in the image of God. This would fall into Docetism, which is a whole set of problems. The answer to your question is I have no idea fully why this particular form was chosen by God to be the physical aspect of humans versus, say Gigantopithicus. This, to some sense, gets back to the asteroid question, is it possible? I guess, Iím not sure why the possibility matters. It certainly isnít the aspect of our humanity that God has emphasized with us in the Torah, OT, or NT.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #622
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There was a miscommunication. When I said that it was set aside, I was referring to your response. You didn't address my rebuttal, so I assumed you had set it aside.
    In post #608 you just kinda waved your hand and say all life is "part of the same process" so my point didn't matter.
    Though you didn't show all life anywhere/everywhere in the universe started in the same way and had the same evolutionary pressures. Even If you can do that, they would still see life going from just an "animal" to sentience" before their "eyes". Something humans can not witness/experience/observe. They also could have "seen" how/when life started on Earth which is another perspective humans just can not have.

    Further even if that were the case, you gave no reason why an unrelated observer is necessarily less or equally objective as that which is being observed.

    ---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I’m sorry you haven’t had more experience with this position, it is quite common in Christian circles in a whole variety of forms. It is common to all ID thinking, theistic evolution, old earth creationism, really every train of Christian thought on the matter that isn’t young earth creationism (which is relatively small as an intellectual movement).
    I wonder if you can find a Christian on ODN that agrees with you?
    Actually, I just did a search and will say that the % is much higher than my personal experience would allow, though it still is no where near the mainstream everybody believes it:
    https://www.christianpost.com/news/h...w-you-ask.html
    "If you ask white evangelical Protestants whether they believe “humans have evolved over time,” 32 percent agree that they have"

    Even the 71% estimate leaves nearly a third not believing.

    ---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Biologists would argue that it isn’t. That they are trying to describe something objectively true. I mean clearly there is an objective classification difference between a sea star and a manatee. The question is how do we understand that difference and whose definition most correctly fits the underlying, objective mechanism. [To be fair, evolutionary biologists are in a bit of a crises as they are having a harder and harder time defining exactly what mechanism gives rise to that change].
    In a way that makes "sense to humans" yes?

    Would an alien life form based on silicon instead of carbon see it the same way?

    ---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I’m not sure what you mean when you say that Eve “has a more diverse DNA pool than a truly ‘first’ human…” How so? Diverse in what aspect?
    Since you ascribe to evolution this matters not as much I'm thinkin, but, a first human would have no history of mutations/adaptations/or a mixing of ancestry in general. No immunities, possibly no recessive traits. I could be wrong, but DNA would seem to have differences if one had no ancestors at all?

    ---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No male is speculated on because we don’t pass along mitochondrial DNA of course. It isn’t some argument that there wasn’t one (hell by definition there has to be a first if we are going to have any kind of speciation definition), just that this form of genetic analysis plays no part in male understanding.
    Oh, then just what I said.
    Your source does not lend support to a first human male! Agreement!

    Again, it also does not lend support to an actual first human female either, just to humans born after she was born, not before. The many generations prior shows conclusively she was not the first female human.
    Your "bottleneck" of current generations matters little to this fact.

    ---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Humans are generally monogamous partners (especially in more austere environments where teamwork means survival).
    Where in the HELL did you get that idea? I wait with bated breath your support of this position!

    http://www.creditdonkey.com/infidelity-statistics.html

    Now when looking at these stats above consider:
    % of humans that mate for life, not just who has an affair/cheats!
    IOW, how many people only have ONE sexual partner, total? Because you only have sex with one person at a time hardly makes one monogamous.

    ---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The second claim is certainly not something I’ve said, but something you’ve tried to use to put words in my mouth, so I can put that claim aside since it isn’t something I’ve said nor something I support.
    This is a disappointing comment. I would not do that, certainly not intentionally, and in this case NOT at all.
    Should you care to challenge me, I will go back till I find the quote (it is before page 16 because I got that far before I ran out of time) but I believe our conversation went pretty close to:
    Me: if you believe in Adam and Eve then you believe ALL humans since then are the product of incest?
    You: so do you since you believe in evolution
    Me: so what was first, the chicken or egg? answer, there was no first chicken, no first chicken egg, nor first human

    You (as of now), just because there was one human male and one human female that started the entire human race does not mean I said incest was involved.....


    Yes you did say it, no you can not set it aside!
    If you support only two humans started the human race, then all humans since then are a product of incest. There is no alternative that you have forwarded.

    ---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would disagree with you assessment, on both counts.
    Your source shows human females existed before your "Eve" and doesn't speak to males at all so no, it doesn't support Genesis, at all.

    ---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ahh, I could never stay mad at you. 
    What do you mean "stay" mad? You have been mad at me before
    j/k

    ---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ahh, I could never stay mad at you. 
    I appreciate that since our relationship so far is mostly "adversarial"

    I really enjoy talking with you!

    ---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Only person you’ve met, right? 
    Well, no. You have spoken with MT (for instance) yes? He is very Christian and disagrees with you all over the place (not to put words in his mouth, but he is on record recently on ODN stating he only believes in "micro evolution", not evolution in general). In fact, I can't think of a theist on ODN that shared your opinion, but I may be wrong...

    ---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your statement was: “If there were humans before Adam an Eve, then they were not the first humans.” My point was, in order for us to answer this question, I need to know what you mean by “human.” Were Eve’s ancestors humans or something else?
    I get that now, however my previous understanding was "first" meant nothing/no ancestor before.

    I haven't raised that distinction though. I just see humans as any other life on earth mostly.

    ---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The answer to your question is I have no idea fully why this particular form was chosen by God to be the physical aspect of humans versus, say Gigantopithicus.
    Actually your answer is:
    "yes, there is nothing special about humans except God granted us alone "sentience".

  3. #623
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Though you didn't show all life anywhere/everywhere in the universe started in the same way and had the same evolutionary pressures.
    Ahh, I think I see the miscommunication. The topic was related to whether a hypothetical alien would be more or less objective related to analyzing evolution. That alien was analyzing the process, not a specific instance. It wasnít relevant to the point whether it would have had the same evolutionary experience we did (in fact by definition it couldnít have). It is relevant that the same broad mechanisms are the same (ie natural selection) since that is what it is trying to be objective about.

    To continue an analogy I think I used earlier, if Iím asking someone about the process of jury trial, the fact that they were tried by a jury is relevant to analyzing their objectivity. Even if they were tried for arson in Florida while the original topic was theft in Oklahoma. As long as Iím not specifically asking them about crime or state specific details, their objectivity is very much in question (and even if I were asking them about those details their objectivity would be in question).

    The same is true in our example, because I am asking about broad evolutionary mechanisms, the fact that they didnít experience the Cambrian explosion isnít an effective defense of their objectivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Even the 71% estimate leaves nearly a third not believing.
    I rarely trust media reporting of polls (which are by themselves somewhat dubious in todayís world). This is a good example.
    The 32% is only for self described evangelicals (there were also options for general protestant) so it isnít fully clear from the Pew link just how big this group is.
    Further, the thrust of the Pew finding wasnít even that that the 32% number was accurate. It was that it really depended on how you asked them the question. That reflects that there is nuance in their position the survey question is having a hard time picking up. If you asked it as a single question (no evolution vs evolution) you got 62% agreeing with the evolved over time position.

    Pewís position was that this discrepancy is consistent with the arguments made by scholars of religion, who argue that the ďhave not changed over timeĒ position serves as a catch all because many very religious are reluctant to answer the question as evolved over time unless they are able to clarify their belief. That is why the number massively switches when they are given that option. When presented that way, they arenít that far off from the general US population.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    In a way that makes "sense to humans" yes?

    Would an alien life form based on silicon instead of carbon see it the same way?
    No and yes respectively. The point isnít that it is intuitively correct, but that it fits objective reality. A silicon based lifeform should be able to agree with that differentiation. IE the fact that Xandar is silicon based doesnít mean that he doesnít see an objective difference between Manatee and Sea Star.
    Likewise, if we travelled to its planet, we would recognize a difference between a single celled silicon based organism that converts methane to water and a multi-celled organism that has bi-radial symmetry, complex communication, sexually reproduces, and displays some form of cellular specialization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Since you ascribe to evolution this matters not as much I'm thinkin, but, a first human would have no history of mutations/adaptations/or a mixing of ancestry in general. No immunities, possibly no recessive traits. I could be wrong, but DNA would seem to have differences if one had no ancestors at all?
    I suppose it would depend on how that DNA is constructed, but I wonít detract from the more important issues in the thread since it does seem to be off topic now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Your source does not lend support to a first human male! Agreement!
    I didnít claim that it did. But because this particular argument doesnít support that doesnít mean we are to reject the concept, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Where in the HELL did you get that idea? I wait with bated breath your support of this position!
    Well, who am I to argue with ďCredit Donkey?Ē

    Donít confuse modern, secular American culture with general human tendencies. I am not generally a fan of evolutionary psychology (it suffers from too many ďjust soĒ tendencies like a lot of popular economics), but it is the field relevant to this question. I am drawing my understanding from Robert Wright. He wrote about this extensively in The Moral Animal. http://robertwright.com/moral-animal/comment-page-1/

    There are two major points in that work that are relevant to our discussion. The first is that social monogamy is the overwhelming tendency for human relationships. While there are certainly some societies that have (and do) differ from that, when taken in the historical context they tend to be either limited, short in duration, or where non-monogamy is still a minor practiced action.
    The second is the evolutionary reasons for that. Non-monogamy is a socially unstable practice he argues and so leads to less competitive societies. He divides non-monogamy into these categories, with the attendant consequences in brackets.
    1) Non-binding societies (where people arenít socially linked to each other in some sexual relationship). [These societies tend to have a low birth rate, especially when you consider survival to age 5. There are fewer specific resources dedicated to child rearing and limited capacity to protect and develop children.]
    2) Polygynous societies (1 female to multiple males). [Birthrate is relatively limited with many females not bearing children due to a relative scarcity of men. Since the men in the relationship also have no firm knowledge of whose biological child is born, these tend to also be associated with low resource allocation to offspring, though that is made up by a larger number of providers. There are almost no examples of this historically, aside from a few clans on the Indian sub-continent.]
    3) Polygamous societies (1 male to multiple females). [These societies tend to produce an excess of young males (since there arenít enough women to marry). This can produce a lot of expansionary fever and these societies tend to create empires, but collapse relatively quickly. The also tend to export a lot of violence historically. Arab and Chinese cultures (for very different reasons) have, at times, flirted with these and tended to go through the boom and bust cycle associated with an imbalanced social sex distribution.]
    Now we could also go into all the ďbourgeoisies valuesĒ arguments that come from non-monogamous social groups in the US as well. The lower economic outcomes, the higher suicide rates, the lower education, lower health measures, etc, etc. Regardless, monogamy does seem to be the default human position with only some variants historically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    This is a disappointing comment. I would not do that, certainly not intentionally, and in this case NOT at all.
    Should you care to challenge me, I will go back till I find the quote (it is before page 16 because I got that far before I ran out of time) but I believe our conversation went pretty close to:
    Me: if you believe in Adam and Eve then you believe ALL humans since then are the product of incest?
    You: so do you since you believe in evolution
    Me: so what was first, the chicken or egg? answer, there was no first chicken, no first chicken egg, nor first human
    Fair enough that my characterization of you as having put words in my mouth was uncharitable. I definitely know you better than that. I apologize.

    As for the status of the claim. Re-read your summary a bit. I didnít say that I think all humans are the product of incest, I said that if you are applying that logic to my argument it results in the same absurd conclusion with your position (purely natural selection). That was a critique of the reasoning, not a tu quoque fallacy on my part with a concession.

    Rather, my position has consistently been that it is only Ďincestí if you commit an equivocation fallacy by using the term human to cover both the biological and religious definitions being used. You are presuming, with no biblical support, that the children of Adam and Eve had to have sex with each other. My point above was that if you make the same presumption with whomever crossed the biological line to ďhumanityĒ you get the same incestual result. The fact is, there is a clear way out of that conclusion for both options.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Your source shows human females existed before your "Eve" and doesn't speak to males at all so no, it doesn't support Genesis, at all.
    I think this would be a good place to try and clarify the terminology to preclude the misunderstanding between us that is moving into an equivocation fallacy.

    The article discusses the finding that there was, at one point, a single female from which we are all descended. You are correct that she was not the first Homo Sapien Sapien to exist (Iím adopting the biological description here because that is what is being discussed in the article). My point was that Genesis also describes a point where a single Homo Sapien Sapien couple exists that are also the first Human Beings (adopting a different term to clarify that, as we discussed, Genesis is talking about more than just the biological definition). Those are separate terms which are not necessarily identical entities.

    The point in bringing that article up was that they coincide relatively well. And specifically, coincide in a way that was long thought of as unlikely to impossible by evolutionary biologists. This finding was part of the broad revolution in evolutionary biology that swept out Nuevo Darwinianism and ushered in Punctuated Equilibrium. This is a lot like the revolution from steady state universe to expansionary big bang.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I appreciate that since our relationship so far is mostly "adversarial"

    I really enjoy talking with you!
    Here as well. Adversarial isnít so much a problem when, as it is here, intellectual honesty is a given.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Well, no. You have spoken with MT (for instance) yes? He is very Christian and disagrees with you all over the place (not to put words in his mouth, but he is on record recently on ODN stating he only believes in "micro evolution", not evolution in general). In fact, I can't think of a theist on ODN that shared your opinion, but I may be wrong...
    I believe Apok does, though Iím not sure. Chad does for sure (being a geneticist). Chad also brought up a good point on the issue which is also why I think there is so much disagreement in Christian circles about evolution in particular (though not as much about the broader use of evolutionary processes) is that the theory itself is somewhat vague. What most people know about evolution and what is taught in most schools is about 70 years out of date. Combine that with the interesting fact that most practicing biologists and geneticists donít use anything from evolutionary biology in their fields and the field appears to be kind of a quaint afterthought in biology circles [for example, one of the interesting factoids was that genetics articles virtually never cite articles from evolutionary biology, indicating they are essentially unrelated fields. The same isnít true of other hard sciences or soft sciences for that matter.]
    The point of the above is that it isnít even clear that biologists really have a good clear picture of what is going on with this process with any real detail, so I wouldnít expect the laymen to have a clear, unified picture of how it is applied either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I get that now, however my previous understanding was "first" meant nothing/no ancestor before.

    I haven't raised that distinction though. I just see humans as any other life on earth mostly.
    Tying in my last point, this question is a problem unrelated to theism. Even if we assumed a purely materialistic universe the question of speciation and where you draw a line between Homo Sapien Sapien and Pre- Homo Sapien Sapien would be a relevant one. If I recall correctly, my original point was that it was hardly intellectually fair to push this problem onto theology when biology canít even give you a good answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Actually your answer is:
    "yes, there is nothing special about humans except God granted us alone "sentience".
    That might be a stretch. God granting us sentience or imparting upon us His image has a host of attendant consequences that do make us ďspecialĒ compared to other creatures. Because of that bestowal (is that a word?) our actions take on moral consequences, how we treat and use our body matters, what we do physically has relevance to meaning an morality. This isnít true of other animals. It might not be the distinction you were thinking about, and it might not matter to where you were going, but I think we should keep it in mind.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #624
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ahh, I think I see the miscommunication. The topic was related to whether a hypothetical alien would be more or less objective related to analyzing evolution. That alien was analyzing the process, not a specific instance. It wasn’t relevant to the point whether it would have had the same evolutionary experience we did (in fact by definition it couldn’t have). It is relevant that the same broad mechanisms are the same (ie natural selection) since that is what it is trying to be objective about.
    Hmmm, ???.
    My original point was:

    "I think it relates.
    However, I said nothing like "evolution killed" anything. Evolution is not a thing and has no causative powers. It is a description/observation of changes in life on earth over time. Form a really subjective human point of view, the asteroid interfered with dinosaurs evolution. Perhaps we can make a bit more objective point of view:

    Let us say earth is visited by an extremely advanced (by human standards) aliens that wanted to learn about earth. I doubt they would conclude that the asteroid "interfered with earth's evolution". A more likely scenario is they would conclude it was part of the evolution of life on earth."

    I am not really sure where you are going, but I am sticking with:
    1. "the asteroid (that killed the dino's) in question, was part of life's evolution on Earth, not something that interfered with life's evolution on Earth" (as you suggested).
    2. a life form observing Earth with no life, then single cell, then multi cell is bound to be more objective about it than the life being observed could be.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I rarely trust media reporting of polls (which are by themselves somewhat dubious in today’s world)….
    Point is, lots of religious people, on the order of 1/3-2/3, do not believe in the basics of evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No and yes respectively. The point isn’t that it is intuitively correct, but that it fits objective reality. A silicon based lifeform should be able to agree with that differentiation. IE the fact that Xandar is silicon based doesn’t mean that he doesn’t see an objective difference between Manatee and Sea Star.
    Well, ya, they would see "differentiation", but would they keep the same groupings/classifications as humans or would they see a different way to group/classify/ differentiate. You speak as if humans have an objective view of life on Earth that is sooooooo obvious, even silicon based life would "see" it like us which I see no support for.
    Tell me that it is obvious/a given/objective fact that any life form that studied Earth life's history would classify it anything at all like humans do, cause you haven't supported that contention in the least?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I didn’t claim that it did. But because this particular argument doesn’t support that doesn’t mean we are to reject the concept, right?
    You were claiming an Eve AND Adam and gave support for your "first couple". It is certainly relevant to show your source only supports 1/2 of your claim and you have given no support at all for the other half (Adam)…
    It is also relevant to submit that your source clearly shows "sentient/not other great ape/don't get caught up in semantics/people, actual other humans that God granted His likeness etc to, so your "Eve" is not the first of anything.....


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, who am I to argue with “Credit Donkey?”
    Which fallacy is it again to attack the source of info instead of the info? Unless your are saying Credit Donkey actually came up with the numbers and were not quoting another source?
    (though they do list sources at the bottom:
    National Opinion Research Center
    Journal of Marital and Family Therapy
    Rutgers University
    CNET
    Business Insider
    The Normal Bar
    Focus on the Family
    Co-operative Legal Services
    Huffington Post
    American Psychological Association)

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There are two major points in that work that are relevant to our discussion. The first is that social monogamy is the overwhelming tendency for human relationships.
    Oh,..hmm….
    I thought you were going to support that humans were basically monogamous???


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Fair enough that my characterization of you as having put words in my mouth was uncharitable. I definitely know you better than that. I apologize.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As for the status of the claim. Re-read your summary a bit. I didn’t say that I think all humans are the product of incest, I said that if you are applying that logic to my argument it results in the same absurd conclusion with your position (purely natural selection). That was a critique of the reasoning, not a tu quoque fallacy on my part with a concession.
    Ah hah. I misunderstood.
    Though the first time I said:
    me;"if you believe Adam and Eve were the first two humans then you believe we are al the product of incest"
    you: "so do you if you believe....."

    Anyway, again I will say, there was no first chicken nor egg, nor first human, so I don't see as "...it results in the same absurd conclusion with your position (purely natural selection)."


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Rather, my position has consistently been that it is only ‘incest’ if you commit an equivocation fallacy by using the term human to cover both the biological and religious definitions being used. You are presuming, with no biblical support, that the children of Adam and Eve had to have sex with each other. My point above was that if you make the same presumption with whomever crossed the biological line to “humanity” you get the same incestual result. The fact is, there is a clear way out of that conclusion for both options.
    True you are consistent that when I disagree with you it is always a fallacy!

    No one but you is trying to speak of "religious vs biological" definitions here. I use mostly simpler words because I am trying to focus on the idea, not the semantics...

    1. I don't think frogs (or pick an animal or plant for that matter) just appeared from nothing. Some earlier form of that life adapted over time to suit their local environmental conditions. There was no first "frog".
    2. Saying that Adam and Eve's children had sex with * non-"human"/* less than "human"/not bestowed sentience life to have kids with, instead of each other (the only sentient/in God's image life available at the time) is not a great way out of your predicament IMHO...


    * "humanoid" life that had not had sentience bestowed upon it (so they must have had sex with other "great apes" to have offspring so not committing incest, and you think this thought is shared by most Christians?)


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The article discusses the finding that there was, at one point, a single female from which we are all descended. You are correct that she was not the first Homo Sapien Sapien to exist (I’m adopting the biological description here because that is what is being discussed in the article). My point was that Genesis also describes a point where a single Homo Sapien Sapien couple exists that are also the first Human Beings (adopting a different term to clarify that, as we discussed, Genesis is talking about more than just the biological definition). Those are separate terms which are not necessarily identical entities.
    I know you like distinction, but the article obviously meant the first humans as the same as homo sapiens. You are really stretching here. Sure separate terms, but describing the same thing. Of course Genesis doesn't say "homo sapiens" for god's sake....


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The point of the above is that it isn’t even clear that biologists really have a good clear picture of what is going on with this process with any real detail, so I wouldn’t expect the laymen to have a clear, unified picture of how it is applied either.
    Hmmm, I wonder if a more objective source would see biology the same as humans.
    (spoiler; very unlikely)

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Tying in my last point, this question is a problem unrelated to theism. Even if we assumed a purely materialistic universe the question of speciation and where you draw a line between Homo Sapien Sapien and Pre- Homo Sapien Sapien would be a relevant one. If I recall correctly, my original point was that it was hardly intellectually fair to push this problem onto theology when biology can’t even give you a good answer.
    No first human, nor chicken, nor chicken egg.
    No line to draw.
    You are speaking of human constructs, not an objective reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That might be a stretch. God granting us sentience or imparting upon us His image has a host of attendant consequences that do make us “special” compared to other creatures.
    Agreed, it does seem a stretch. Your "attendant consequences" only appear AFTER God grants us sentience, so per you, nothing actually special about humans, except God picked us out of the other "great apes".
    (of course it has to be "great apes". Humans could not just be an ape after all. Humans know no bounds of their self importance. The universe was made for "us". The Earth was made for "us". We are of God's image. This would be ok if Gods said it instead of a man...)
    Last edited by Belthazor; May 6th, 2019 at 09:01 PM.

  5. #625
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. "the asteroid (that killed the dino's) in question, was part of life's evolution on Earth, not something that interfered with life's evolution on Earth" (as you suggested).
    2. a life form observing Earth with no life, then single cell, then multi cell is bound to be more objective about it than the life being observed could be.
    1 however doesnít really make sense from a process point of view. The asteroid is external to any biological process involved with evolution that Iíve heard of. Letís use an example. Beavers have a process they use for creating a lodge which starts with creating a dam. Now imagine some naughty children came in and dug a channel from the pond to the stream that circumvented the dam. We wouldnít call that ďpart of the beaverís process.Ē We would say an external agent interfered in the process and the Beavers had to adjust the process to the new reality. External shocks to a system are not generally considered to be part of a system (hence why they are external and not internal to the system).

    There is a further problem with defining the asteroid as part of the evolutionary process. In that sense youíve so expanded the scope of the evolutionary process that the universe suddenly becomes part of the evolutionary process. It loses all distinction, in that sense, from the rest of general physics. Thus, any alien capable of categorizing things (which would seem likely given that it developed some kind of science, which requires categorical thinking at some level) would reject that definition as overly broad.

    Iím not sure why 2 would be the case. It might be more objective about the nature of those multi-cellular organisms themselves, sure, but not about the general processes that gave rise to them given that the same processes gave rise to the aliens. Americans arenít particularly very objective about democracy in foreign countries even if we are objective about individual political parties in those countries. Felons arenít particularly objective to the judicial system, even if they are more objective about whether Steve robbed that bank than Steve is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Point is, lots of religious people, on the order of 1/3-2/3, do not believe in the basics of evolution.
    This missed the point of my response which is that the whole point of the Pew finding was that the survey wasnít accurate. So it isnít clear what people actually hold. Nor is it clear what the ďbasics of evolutionĒ are that are being asked. People (including those who subscribe to it) have so little knowledge of the field outside of its politicization that a yes or no answer doesnít really mean objectively much.
    Youíll notice that in the poll, when asked more coherently, that the religious answer the questions in generally the same way as the general US population. So the issue doesnít seem to be religiosity so much as it is something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Well, ya, they would see "differentiation", but would they keep the same groupings/classifications as humans or would they see a different way to group/classify/ differentiate.
    Why would I expect them to keep the exact same differentiations? We donít. Humans have come up with several different taxonomical structures over the years. It has nothing to do with being alien, it has to do with not having a clear definition of speciation and a shifting view on what evolutionary mechanisms actually exist. It is objective fact (alien viewing or not) that there is a categorical difference between the organism ďseastarĒ and the organism ďbuffalo.Ē They are not gradations of the same basic thing they are different things with gradations within their category.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Which fallacy is it again to attack the source of info instead of the info? Unless your are saying Credit Donkey actually came up with the numbers and were not quoting another source?
    Well in this case it wouldnít be a fallacy since Iím pointing out that this is an appeal to authority fallacy. Credit Donkey is not a reliable source of information on this topic and, as such, it would be fallacious to accept their claim based on them issuing it.
    Youíll also notice that they donít actually cite any sources. They simply reference them. There is no way to trace down where they got that info from in those sources. It would be like me saying ďclimate change has been shown to be non-existent. -NOAA, IPCCĒ That isnít a reference and we shouldnít accept it as such.
    Nor should we, from a definitional point of view (even if we accept their numbers as factual and representative) believe that those numbers represent something other than modern American secular culture since that is what is being polled. Human traits and American culture are not 1:1 equivalent, which is a categorical fallacy. That is why I reference a broader field of research from Robert Wright.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Oh,..hmmÖ.
    I thought you were going to support that humans were basically monogamous???
    I thought that is what that was saying. Afterall I did point out that non-monogamous societies are rare and fleeting (in historical time perspectives). That would indicate that we are basically monogamous. The point of the survey was to show why those societies were so fleeting. The non-monogamous based societies introduce significant amounts of instability that makes them far less competitive with more stable societies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Anyway, again I will say, there was no first chicken nor egg, nor first human, so I don't see as "...it results in the same absurd conclusion with your position (purely natural selection)."
    Ö
    No first human, nor chicken, nor chicken egg.
    No line to draw.
    You are speaking of human constructs, not an objective reality.
    This is fair, but then we are sort of abandoning the idea of speciation right? That, really, there is no dividing line between us and say Homo Erectus?

    Separate question. If we follow this back, youíd argue I think that it is just a spectrum of gradual change, right? Setting aside that this differs with punctuated equilibrium, what does this mean when we get to the very earliest organisms? Wouldnít your rejection of this categorization also mean that we would need to reject the distinction between life and non-life?


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    True you are consistent that when I disagree with you it is always a fallacy!
    I have two snarky responses. 1) Whose fault is that, mine or yours? 2) But isnít that reply just so much easier than a long response to your post?
    I kid of course, I do think that you are hitting one of the lowest fallacy responses of anyone I discuss with (perhaps with Ibelsd or a few old timers aside). To the rare extent you are engaging in a fallacy they are ones that I only realize after thinking about it for a while because they are subtle. And after all, who doesnít engage in a subtle fallacy once in a while.
    [Seriously, I hope I am not too engaging in fallacy responses here; I want to engage your posts rather than deflect them.]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    No one but you is trying to speak of "religious vs biological" definitions here. I use mostly simpler words because I am trying to focus on the idea, not the semantics...
    You are correct that I invoked that distinction explicitly. My point was that you were invoking it implicitely. You are using examples both from biblical literature and from biological literature as if they were obviously talking about exactly the same thing. Iím not sure they are (I feel pretty confident they arenít) and it is worthy to point out before we draw any conclusions.

    I donít think it is semantics to point out that the underlying ideas are different. That is what I am getting at here, not that there is some subtle linguistic point we need to be aware of, but that you are talking about the ratio of the length of sides in a parallelogram while looking at one person talking about a square and another talking about a rectangle. Both are parallelograms, but each author is talking about something quite different and the differences are germane to the point you are making.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I know you like distinction, but the article obviously meant the first humans as the same as homo sapiens. You are really stretching here. Sure separate terms, but describing the same thing.
    I would certainly hope the article isnít trying to make that connection since it is an article about biology. That would be pretty far afield from its subject matter expertise. Nothing in that article would lead us to believe it means human beings in that sense. It is talking about DNA and the biological structure of our genetic evolution. That it would draw a conclusion unrelated to the purely mechanical underpinnings of our genetic development seems unlikely. Unless we are presuming gross incompetence by the researchers, which seems unwarranted given the peer-review.
    Likewise, clearly Genesis isnít talking about the purely mechanistic structure of human beings. It certainly could have done so. Greek, Sumerian, and importantly Egyptian origin stories were biologically oriented. They talked about how the hands and feet were formed, why we had organs, etc. They were far more oriented on the physical aspects of humanity than the spiritual aspects of it. That aspect doesnít get really discussed until their afterlife stories.
    Genesis rather, specifically talks about being formed in the image of God (which clearly isnít physical since God isnít physical in Genesis), and that we receive the breath of life, unlike other animals. Most of the Genesis account is about how we are intellectually and spiritually different than other material creations and what the implications are for that. There is virtually no discussion of our physical needs, limitations, etc (as is common in origin stories). Even the downfall is about our intellectual capacity and our knowledge of wrong and right rather than something like our strength or capabilities (Sumerian).
    I donít think it is stretching at all to point out that the Genesis account has a different focus and different vision of humanity than a geneticistsí purely biological account.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #626
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1 however doesn’t really make sense from a process point of view. The asteroid is external to any biological process involved with evolution that I’ve heard of.
    A misinterpretation of the terms "life's evolution on Earth".

    I didn't mean it in a "process" kinda way. I was speculating about witnessing the changes in Earth's life over time. Again, the scenario offered, the observer was witnessing dead Earth, to "simple" life to more complex, and from Dino's (for instance), going from rags to riches, back to rags, and mammals taking over. I didn't mention the identifying the processes behind this "evolving life".
    Humans don't yet know what actually happened for sure in Earth's history, our observer would (the mechanics of how not withstanding).
    Was it an asteroid or not that ended the dino's domination?
    Was the moon a product of a collision?

    My original point (some time back...) was to show these observers would see lots of other life on Earth for a long time and then man "suddenly appeared" if Genesis were true. Now that I understand you are saying humans evolved from another ape ancestor the point seems more academic than part of a rebut...


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I’m not sure why 2 would be the case.
    Cause they have knowledge about Earth's life humans are unable to acquire (witnessing the actual events).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This missed the point of my response which is that the whole point of the Pew finding was that the survey wasn’t accurate.
    I understood, but no matter how the question is asked there is always a significant % that don't believe in evolution, though I personally think it is common for the term to be misunderstood (even between us...).
    It seems fairly common for religious people to say things like "we don't have ape ancestors" or something similar when evolution comes up.

    How about show me most religious people believe all life on Earth has a common ancestor (kinda my personal definition of evolution as used in typical conversations as this).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why would I expect them to keep the exact same differentiations?
    Because it would show us more likely to be objectively correct in how we describe life on Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It has nothing to do with being alien, it has to do with not having a clear definition of speciation and a shifting view on what evolutionary mechanisms actually exist. It is objective fact (alien viewing or not) that there is a categorical difference between the organism “seastar” and the organism “buffalo.” They are not gradations of the same basic thing they are different things with gradations within their category.
    Exactly, would they even try to separate life by "species" or would some other criteria come into play?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well in this case it wouldn’t be a fallacy since I’m pointing out that this is an appeal to authority fallacy.
    I intended that as humor, but...

    Just because the Nat'l Inquirer was first to say Rush Limbaugh was hooked on opiates didn't make it false nor a fallacy....


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I thought that is what that was saying. Afterall I did point out that non-monogamous societies are rare and fleeting (in historical time perspectives).
    I know you thought that. I was pointing out you were incorrect

    Ok, so making non-monogamy a point of the society doesn't work too well. No kidding, so ???

    You countered nothing I said. People are NOT monogamous in general and never have been as far as anyone can tell.
    Please show me any data supporting that the vast majority of humans have one sexual partner for life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is fair, but then we are sort of abandoning the idea of speciation right? That, really, there is no dividing line between us and say Homo Erectus?
    Objectively perhaps not as much as "we" give credit to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Separate question. If we follow this back, you’d argue I think that it is just a spectrum of gradual change, right?
    I don't know if the changes were gradual or not.
    Glaciers come and go we know that. We don't know how fast they do this in the past. Is there a "norm" or are today's receding glaciers happening dramatically faster than in the past?

    But I think you mean life changing/adapting to local environments over time, I would say yes?
    (isn't that evolution?)


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Setting aside that this differs with punctuated equilibrium, what does this mean when we get to the very earliest organisms?
    Ok professor, that is not a common term in my circles...

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Wouldn’t your rejection of this categorization also mean that we would need to reject the distinction between life and non-life?
    Why would life and non life have no distinction in this scenario?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I have two snarky responses. 1) Whose fault is that, mine or yours? 2) But isn’t that reply just so much easier than a long response to your post?
    1. Yours OBVIOUSLY Skippy
    2. Yes, but not as much fun or informative.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I kid of course, I do think that you are hitting one of the lowest fallacy responses of anyone I discuss with (perhaps with Ibelsd or a few old timers aside). To the rare extent you are engaging in a fallacy they are ones that I only realize after thinking about it for a while because they are subtle. And after all, who doesn’t engage in a subtle fallacy once in a while.
    [Seriously, I hope I am not too engaging in fallacy responses here; I want to engage your posts rather than deflect them.]
    BTW, why do you think you are the sole judge of what is a fallacy in reality (not just ODN)?

    I appreciate the kind words. For those that haven't read my posts long, I never debated on any other site prior to ODN and tried to learn from people here prior to posting myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are correct that I invoked that distinction explicitly. My point was that you were invoking it implicitely. You are using examples both from biblical literature and from biological literature as if they were obviously talking about exactly the same thing. I’m not sure they are (I feel pretty confident they aren’t) and it is worthy to point out before we draw any conclusions.
    Not intentionally I assure you. I never devote enough time to properly address my concerns I think. American is not the easiest language to express your thought either perhaps. Plus posts would be 1/2 book long. We take short cuts in language, we get misunderstood....


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would certainly hope the article isn’t trying to make that connection since it is an article about biology. That would be pretty far afield from its subject matter expertise...…………………………………...
    How is this a response to my point:
    " Your "attendant consequences" only appear AFTER God grants us sentience, so per you, nothing actually special about humans, except God picked us out of the other "great apes"."
    Last edited by Belthazor; May 8th, 2019 at 07:22 PM.

  7. #627
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    My original point (some time back...) was to show these observers would see lots of other life on Earth for a long time and then man "suddenly appeared" if Genesis were true. Now that I understand you are saying humans evolved from another ape ancestor the point seems more academic than part of a rebut...
    I moved this section to the top because I think it supersedes the next two quotes (feel free to ignore them since I think you are correct that they are moot in this conversation). You are correct here that I am not talking about a young or old earth creationist account. https://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2019...t-origins.html
    I also wouldnít say I necessarily follow an evolutionary creationism (or theistic creationism) either, but that is a bit of inside baseball. Sufficed to say, you are right, I donít hold that poof HomoSapien appears absent any earlier ancestors.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belathazor
    I didn't mean it in a "process" kinda way. I was speculating about witnessing the changes in Earth's life over time. Again, the scenario offered, the observer was witnessing dead Earth, to "simple" life to more complex, and from Dino's (for instance), going from rags to riches, back to rags, and mammals taking over. I didn't mention the identifying the processes behind this "evolving life".
    Ah, ok. But that really isnít ďevolution,Ē its just a chronology. You are including solar dynamics, geological dynamics, fluid mechanics, and a whole host of other stuff into that story that arenít really part of the evolutionary process. Just as with the children in the example, those are exogenous shocks to a system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Cause they have knowledge about Earth's life humans are unable to acquire (witnessing the actual events).
    That doesnít make them more objective, just better informed. Likewise we have knowledge they are unable to acquire (the experience of having been part of the process). I donít think this criteria reflects on objectivity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I understood, but no matter how the question is asked there is always a significant % that don't believe in evolution, though I personally think it is common for the term to be misunderstood (even between us...).
    Agreed, I think a core point of the discussion is that I am arguing that it shouldnít be held against religious folks that they are skeptical of macro-evolution given how unclear it is what the actual processes being proposed are.
    Also importantly, while there are a large portion of them that answer ďnoĒ (or however based on the question construct) that is true for the US population as a whole, including the non-religious.
    The more explanatory option here to me seems that the proposed concept is unclear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Because it would show us more likely to be objectively correct in how we describe life on Earth.
    Iím not sure that is the correct standard though. I think we agree that there is an objective difference between starfish and manatee. If I draw the line at one point and you at another it doesnít mean we arenít objective, it just means either our definitions arenít refined enough or the data is sufficiently ungranulated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Exactly, would they even try to separate life by "species" or would some other criteria come into play?
    Iím not sure that criteria wouldnít be just a different variant of speciation. What kind of criteria wouldnít fall into that broad category?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Just because the Nat'l Inquirer was first to say Rush Limbaugh was hooked on opiates didn't make it false nor a fallacy....
    True, but a fallacy doesnít mean the claim is wrong. A fallacy means that holding the conclusion as true because of its fallacies is incorrect. IE we shouldnít hold that Rush Limbaugh was hooked on opiates because the National Inquirer made the claim and they are a reliable source of that truth. We could hold it as true because of the evidence they claim, but not because of the claim and reputation. Fun discussion on that by the way: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l-to-Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    You countered nothing I said. People are NOT monogamous in general and never have been as far as anyone can tell.
    Please show me any data supporting that the vast majority of humans have one sexual partner for life.
    Your objection only works if we assume that societies are not collections of individuals. And that societal norms are not emergent from collections of individual behavior. It isnít that a society would form a norm around monogamy in 98.9 percent of cases if that wasnít the norm in behavior.
    Obviously we donít have survey data for the vast majority of human history. What we do have is the next best thing; how that behavior manifested itself into social norms. (This was also covered in the link I referenced). Unless we hypothesize some kind of artificial, external law giver that was able to impose their will upon these societies for long, long periods it seems far more likely that monogamy as a social practice is an outcome of that being a norm in social behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Objectively perhaps not as much as "we" give credit to it.
    The amount of the difference isnít the relevant point I think here. The point is that there is an objective difference between Homo Sapien and Homo Erectus. As long as we can agree on there being an objective difference there has to be some form of speciation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    But I think you mean life changing/adapting to local environments over time, I would say yes?
    (isn't that evolution?)
    Ok, so if this is just gradual change along a spectrum, what is the difference between, say, an oxidation reaction, and biological reproduction? Is there one?

    My point being, if we reject the kind of classifications that we seem to be doing in some of your earlier argument (no chicken and egg question), then Iím not sure under what rationale we are saying that life is different from other random chemical reactions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    BTW, why do you think you are the sole judge of what is a fallacy in reality (not just ODN)?
    Well I definitely donít think Iím the arbiter of fallacies, though I imagine the robe and gavel would be awesome. I think fallacies, even informal ones, are objective in nature. Reason is something objectively true, not based on our individual impression of it. So violation of logical rules, imo, would be an objective measure, not a subjective one. That is how I generally approach it at least (notice my Chesterton quote in the signature for example).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I appreciate the kind words. For those that haven't read my posts long, I never debated on any other site prior to ODN and tried to learn from people here prior to posting myself.
    I was exactly the same when I came here. You really should if you can go back and read my 2007 posts. Hot garbage man, hot, flaming garbage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Not intentionally I assure you. I never devote enough time to properly address my concerns I think. American is not the easiest language to express your thought either perhaps. Plus posts would be 1/2 book long. We take short cuts in language, we get misunderstood....
    It would be a fun digression to discuss Englishís suitability for detailed thought and why it is the most widely used language in the world (if you consider first and second language spoken) for that very reason. But, it is a digression.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    How is this a response to my point:
    " Your "attendant consequences" only appear AFTER God grants us sentience, so per you, nothing actually special about humans, except God picked us out of the other "great apes"."
    It wasnít. That is why I didnít quote that section. Rather I quoted:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I know you like distinction, but the article obviously meant the first humans as the same as homo sapiens. You are really stretching here. Sure separate terms, but describing the same thing.
    And responded with:
    I would certainly hope the article isnít trying to make that connection since it is an article about biology. That would be pretty far afield from its subject matter expertise. Nothing in that article would lead us to believe it means human beings in that sense. It is talking about DNA and the biological structure of our genetic evolution. That it would draw a conclusion unrelated to the purely mechanical underpinnings of our genetic development seems unlikely. Unless we are presuming gross incompetence by the researchers, which seems unwarranted given the peer-review.
    Likewise, clearly Genesis isnít talking about the purely mechanistic structure of human beings. It certainly could have done so. Greek, Sumerian, and importantly Egyptian origin stories were biologically oriented. They talked about how the hands and feet were formed, why we had organs, etc. They were far more oriented on the physical aspects of humanity than the spiritual aspects of it. That aspect doesnít get really discussed until their afterlife stories.
    Genesis rather, specifically talks about being formed in the image of God (which clearly isnít physical since God isnít physical in Genesis), and that we receive the breath of life, unlike other animals. Most of the Genesis account is about how we are intellectually and spiritually different than other material creations and what the implications are for that. There is virtually no discussion of our physical needs, limitations, etc (as is common in origin stories). Even the downfall is about our intellectual capacity and our knowledge of wrong and right rather than something like our strength or capabilities (Sumerian).
    I donít think it is stretching at all to point out that the Genesis account has a different focus and different vision of humanity than a geneticistsí purely biological account.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #628
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ah, ok. But that really isnít ďevolution,Ē its just a chronology. You are including solar dynamics, geological dynamics, fluid mechanics, and a whole host of other stuff into that story that arenít really part of the evolutionary process. Just as with the children in the example, those are exogenous shocks to a system.
    I think you are more caught up in a particular definition of evolution to get the idea I am trying to express. In this conversation to me "evolution" is describing the changes we see in life on Earth and if asteroid would not have hit and killed the Dino's we wouldn't be talking, so it does seem apropos to our conversation. The particulars of how a single cell life became multi cell is not what I am discussing here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That doesnít make them more objective, just better informed. Likewise we have knowledge they are unable to acquire (the experience of having been part of the process). I donít think this criteria reflects on objectivity.
    Define "objective for me please.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Agreed, I think a core point of the discussion is that I am arguing that it shouldnít be held against religious folks that they are skeptical of macro-evolution
    Please support that there is a distinction between macro vs micro evolution. One appears to be the natural unavoidable consequence of the other.
    If humans can take a plant and thru selective breading, end up with cauliflower, broccoli, and kohlrabi all coming from the same ancestor/parent plant, why would this process stop?
    IOW, when does micro cease to be so it does not become macro?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Iím not sure that is the correct standard though. I think we agree that there is an objective difference between starfish and manatee. If I draw the line at one point and you at another it doesnít mean we arenít objective, it just means either our definitions arenít refined enough or the data is sufficiently ungranulated.
    Ah, yes there is a difference, but is that how life would be looked at by an objective observer? The star fish and manatee both have the same ancestors and fairly similar DNA of course. IOW, no I don't think our silicon based observers would conclude that there were homo sapiens vs all the other homo's (for instance). Why would they? We try to determine this by skull size and other physical traits. Neanderthals mated directly with "modern humans so they really aren't very different are they? Different "species" can't mate ya know. So black, white, Asian, Neanderthal don't really need their own "categories" do they except for their human construct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Iím not sure that criteria wouldnít be just a different variant of speciation. What kind of criteria wouldnít fall into that broad category?
    Perhaps the human idea of "speciation" is a bit near sited.

    If you lived under the ice of a frozen world you may never know there are worlds and galaxies beyond.

    ---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your objection only works if we assume that societies are not collections of individuals. And that societal norms are not emergent from collections of individual behavior. It isnít that a society would form a norm around monogamy in 98.9 percent of cases if that wasnít the norm in behavior.
    My objection works cause it is true Scooter
    Your counter ONLY works if we believe because Dem's say they want fiscal responsibility in Gov't that it is true.
    SURPRISE!
    Humans say they desire monogamy but it doesn't work that way in practice does it? Talk is cheap, actions are real.
    Humans are NOT monogamous and it appears never have been.
    Your support of monogamy is feeble at best and just plain goes against known truth of the matter to the contrary....

    ---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The amount of the difference isnít the relevant point I think here. The point is that there is an objective difference between Homo Sapien and Homo Erectus. As long as we can agree on there being an objective difference there has to be some form of speciation.
    Really? How do we know this?

    Some differences yes, but enough that an objective source would classify it as different enough to warrant "species"?
    Could both "species" mate successfully? That seems a major human criteria.
    Would it be an objective criteria? This you have yet to support.

    ---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It would be a fun digression to discuss English’s suitability for detailed thought and why it is the most widely used language in the world (if you consider first and second language spoken) for that very reason. But, it is a digression.
    And I Belt, King of tangents suggests that:

    American "power" derived from borders that need little (comparatively) defense and an economic engine of unprecedented power, coupled with a smattering of democracy, changed the world. If we spoke Klingon, most of the world would too.

    IOW, I believe at a NATO meeting a representative of a European country said:
    "why must we all know how to speak/understand English? The Americans know no other language"

    The response was:
    "at WWII the Americans arraigned it so you don't have to speak German exclusively"

  9. #629
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I think you are more caught up in a particular definition of evolution to get the idea I am trying to express. In this conversation to me "evolution" is describing the changes we see in life on Earth and if asteroid would not have hit and killed the Dino's we wouldn't be talking, so it does seem apropos to our conversation. The particulars of how a single cell life became multi cell is not what I am discussing here.
    Well then I’m glad we went down the rabbit hole a bit because we’ve been able to clarify the disagreement a bit. We can set the whole concept of evolution aside a bit here and discuss more your objection here.
    Can you elaborate a bit on what about the possibility of an asteroid not hitting the earth applies to what we are discussing?
    I mean, in one sense you are clearly correct; I’m just not sure what it matters. What about our ability to imagine what would have happened if the asteroid had missed is relevant here?
    In another sense you are unfortunately wrong. If we assume no God (which I’m assuming you are doing here) and thus materialism, then there never really was a possibility that the asteroid wouldn’t hit the Earth. It was purely governed by inevitable, mechanical forces. The only chance of it not hitting Earth is some kind of external intervention. (I fully recognize that I might be missing your point here, but that, in part, is because I’m not sure what that point is)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Define "objective for me please.
    Objectivity is being used here to refer to connection between an observer and the observed system. Generally, we aren’t considered objective over systems that we are involved in or have a bias towards/against. I would not be an objective observer on the American military, even if we are talking about someone in the service I am unfamiliar with.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/s...c-objectivity/

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Please support that there is a distinction between macro vs micro evolution. One appears to be the natural unavoidable consequence of the other.
    As for support for the distinction. Here is a link to the Berkley evolutionary biology department’s page discussing the distinction: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...e/evoscales_01
    Your question related to the Brassicas family is a good one. We can absolutely make selective changes to species. Canines are another good example of that. I would point out that humans probably didn’t create any of the examples you mentioned, but cultivated and altered things like broccoli and cauliflower.
    The important point goes back to speciation and what the definition of that term is. Macro-evolution is generally a change in a group of organisms such that they form a new species, incapable of breeding with the prior species. (Again this definition isn’t perfect since we do know of fertile cross-species breeding). The changes you reference above within plants and dogs don’t actually create new species. They press the limits of a species, usually with all kinds of problems (dogs have lots of genetic disease now), but we haven’t really selectively bred across the species line.

    Of course, that last point is somewhat debatable because the definition of species is under debate. Which was my main point. The academic discussion in this field is bountiful, so we shouldn’t hold it against the religious (or as I pointed out the large portion of the non-religious who answered “no”) that their beliefs reflect a similar lack of consensus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ah, yes there is a difference, but is that how life would be looked at by an objective observer? The star fish and manatee both have the same ancestors and fairly similar DNA of course. IOW, no I don't think our silicon based observers would conclude that there were homo sapiens vs all the other homo's (for instance).
    Well if they were actually interested in life on Earth, yes they would have made some kind of objective differentiation between Starfish and Manatee. They might categorize it differently. They might not even do it by ancestry at all, it would depend on their ontological systems. But to say they wouldn’t recognize some form of speciation is undoubtedly incorrect. Any species capable of interstellar travel would have to have basic ontological references for distinction.
    To apply your position a little bit further, we could make the same argument for our silicon based lifeform in not recognizing different minerals or materials. Why should the recognize the difference between silica and carbon? They are only a tiny bit different after all. But we know that, in order to have gotten here, they would have to be far more discerning than that. In order to have developed technology or even a complex society they would have needed to recognize the difference.
    The same applies to speciation. In order to have a sufficiently advanced understanding of biology (well for them exobiology) that they would actually be observers, they would have had to develop a differentiation and categorization schema.
    It also seems a bit odd that they wouldn’t be able to distinguish us, as you seem to indicate, from Neanderthal. Neanderthal sometimes buried their dead, had some rudimentary artistic expression though no real abstraction, hunted without projectile weapons, and didn’t possess a complex vocal language. HomoSapienSapien however has landed on the moon, developed nuclear energy, has complex cities and trade networks and has more than a hundred fully formed languages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Perhaps the human idea of "speciation" is a bit near sited.
    Perhaps, but I think the basic organizational requirement to classify objects is required for any basic scientific (let alone basic cognitive) function. It is entirely possible, as I mentioned earlier, that our visitors could differentiate us by technical complexity, or environment, or biosphere niche, or whatever. That organization might look nearly unrecognizable to us. But it is still organization. It is still speciation of a non-genetic sort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Humans say they desire monogamy but it doesn't work that way in practice does it? Talk is cheap, actions are real.
    The irony here is that you are about to be hoisted on your own petard. ;-)

    My evidence wasn’t about what people say; it was about what people do. It was about how they collectively create a society. Literally nothing about what I posted was based on what they said. And what we know from human actions is that when they are taken collectively into societies and when norms evolve around the collective sets of their actions, those actions are monogamous.

    Now, on the other hand, your evidence was a poll. IE, what people said. And, as you said; talk is cheap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    And I Belt, King of tangents suggests that:

    American "power" derived from borders that need little (comparatively) defense and an economic engine of unprecedented power, coupled with a smattering of democracy, changed the world. If we spoke Klingon, most of the world would too.
    Interesting perspective. Though, I would point out two empirical problems with it and a potential reason why. English took off as a popular second language long before American hegemony. The English, and their empire, were far more responsible for that than Americans.
    The second is that English as a second language has taken off in places where Americans and even the English aren’t very common nor is our business presence very widespread. See isolated China for example, even in places where American and western companies don’t do business (or are prohibited from business) English is very popular.

    I propose that a hypothesis with far more explanatory power is that the structure of English is better suited to business and science than other languages. English is far more direct in structure and precise in vocabulary than other languages. There is a good reason that Indo-European languages make up most of the planet, and I would argue that English is the best of those when it comes to things like science and engineering and law/business. Not so much poetry or art or story telling, it lacks a lot of the structures for the highest forms of those languages.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #630
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Thanks for your responses. I had not had a response since September 14th and thought others had lost interest so I moved on. I will get back to you when I read and ponder your posts.

  11. #631
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Thanks for your responses. I had not had a response since September 14th and thought others had lost interest so I moved on. I will get back to you when I read and ponder your posts.
    Oh my, Squatch and I have been pretty much non-stop on this thread since Jan/2018, post #134, till currently. We also have a separate PM going dealing with similar ideas. He hasn't come around to see it "my way" yet, but I have seen some progress
    I kid of course, I don't have a definition of reality I am defending here.
    I am exploring why some one would put their heart into a specific religion and have to rely on faith you were correct, when the major religions are mutually exclusive and rely totally on the same type of evidence their claims are true.

    Happy to see you back, I have enjoyed talking with you in the past.

    ---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well then Iím glad we went down the rabbit hole a bit because weíve been able to clarify the disagreement a bit. We can set the whole concept of evolution aside a bit here and discuss more your objection here.
    Can you elaborate a bit on what about the possibility of an asteroid not hitting the earth applies to what we are discussing?
    I was trying to get at how life on Earth has changed since it first appeared because you said something like the "asteroid interfered with evolution" and I disagreed, that it was part of the evolution/progression/history/chronology/HOW CURRENT LIFE CAME TO BE on Earth. Certainly a tangent of the Op, but since we are here:
    A. God made the asteroid in question hit Earth (religion)
    or
    B. It was just a natural occurrence due to the nature of how the universe operates (materialism).

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Objectivity is being used here to refer to connection between an observer and the observed system. Generally, we arenít considered objective over systems that we are involved in or have a bias towards/against. I would not be an objective observer on the American military, even if we are talking about someone in the service I am unfamiliar with.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/s...c-objectivity/
    How does this differ from what I said? I thought that was my point...


    Out of time tonight, I will finish responding to your post tomorrow hopefully.

  12. #632
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Oh my, Squatch and I have been pretty much non-stop on this thread since Jan/2018, post #134, till currently. We also have a separate PM going dealing with similar ideas. He hasn't come around to see it "my way" yet, but I have seen some progress
    I kid of course, I don't have a definition of reality I am defending here.
    I am exploring why some one would put their heart into a specific religion and have to rely on faith you were correct, when the major religions are mutually exclusive and rely totally on the same type of evidence their claims are true.

    Happy to see you back, I have enjoyed talking with you in the past.
    I will try and get some time to catch up on the conversation.

    The possibility of all religious worldviews (of which I include atheism and agnosticism because they try to answer the same questions major religious beliefs do), or even two religious worldviews being valid is illogical since they have different views on who or what God is, or also whether He exists. Nevertheless, they all try to explain those fundamental questions like what are we, who are we, why are we here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die. They also are in the present interpreting data from the past, not knowing everything about this data or even if the circumstances were the same or similar in which to determine how things were. They work on models that tend to build up anomalies over time. The more anomalies, the more the tendency to adopt a new approach. Thus, if God has revealed such things to us (which is the biblical claim), we can know the answers to these ultimate questions. I would argue that God is necessary to make sense of such issues.

  13. #633
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As for support for the distinction. Here is a link to the Berkley evolutionary biology department’s page discussing the distinction: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...e/evoscales_01
    Per your source:
    "Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"

    I don't see how this supports that the two are actually different? A narrow view of life vs a broad view.

    IOW, this does not show that microevolution is not a part of macroevolution, like weather in WA ST can be looked at independently of Earth weather as a whole but both are intrinsically related (you wouldn't have one without the other).

    Question:
    are you proposing God made each "species" of animals separate and distinct from the others?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Of course, that last point is somewhat debatable because the definition of species is under debate. Which was my main point. The academic discussion in this field is bountiful, so we shouldn’t hold it against the religious (or as I pointed out the large portion of the non-religious who answered “no”) that their beliefs reflect a similar lack of consensus.
    1. Apparently this way of classifying life is not as objective as you are proposing.
    2. How am I "holding it against the religious"?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well if they were actually interested in life on Earth, yes they would have made some kind of objective differentiation between Starfish and Manatee.
    A bit fast and loose with the def of "species" here


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It also seems a bit odd that they wouldn’t be able to distinguish us, as you seem to indicate, from Neanderthal.
    Where did I say "unable to distinguish"? What if they did not find this distinction meaningful enough to warrant separate "status"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The irony here is that you are about to be hoisted on your own petard. ;-)
    Oh please....


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    My evidence wasn’t about what people say; it was about what people do. It was about how they collectively create a society. Literally nothing about what I posted was based on what they said. And what we know from human actions is that when they are taken collectively into societies and when norms evolve around the collective sets of their actions, those actions are monogamous.
    HUH??
    That is exactly what your "evidence" is/was. Societies claiming monogamy was a goal and the norm.

    My link was more for humor than actual support, however:

    Humans do not mate for life in general and you have not supported that they do.
    Divorce, adultery, incest, prostitutes to name a few clearly show humans are not monogamous. Venereal diseases would not be nearly as common/rampant if you were correct!

    Do you even know any monogamous people??? (I will give my mom a pass, but I don't know more than a few other people that can meet that standard at best).




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I propose that a hypothesis with far more explanatory power is that the structure of English is better suited to business and science than other languages. English is far more direct in structure and precise in vocabulary than other languages. There is a good reason that Indo-European languages make up most of the planet, and I would argue that English is the best of those when it comes to things like science and engineering and law/business. Not so much poetry or art or story telling, it lacks a lot of the structures for the highest forms of those languages.
    Perhaps, though it seems Greek and Latin are pretty common in law and science.
    America influences N Korea's population for goodness sake...

    ---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That might be a stretch. God granting us sentience or imparting upon us His image has a host of attendant consequences that do make us “special” compared to other creatures. Because of that bestowal (is that a word?) our actions take on moral consequences, how we treat and use our body matters, what we do physically has relevance to meaning an morality. This isn’t true of other animals. It might not be the distinction you were thinking about, and it might not matter to where you were going, but I think we should keep it in mind.
    Yet you try to dodge the question of incest (if Adam and Eve were the first two sentient humans) by saying there were other species of humans (Neanderthal etc) they could have mated with or am I misunderstanding your point??

  14. #634
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,620
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Certainly a tangent of the Op, but since we are here:
    A. God made the asteroid in question hit Earth (religion)
    or
    B. It was just a natural occurrence due to the nature of how the universe operates (materialism).
    Presumabely those are the only two options yes. How does that reflect on the argument for God? In either case the asteroid was 'destined' to strike the earth in some sense. In either case an external agent changed conditions resulting in a different evolutionary process than would have happened otherwise. I'm not seeing the challenge to theism inherent in that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    How does this differ from what I said? I thought that was my point...
    Because in your version the aliens were still part of the process they are opining on, even if they weren't part of this particular instance. It is similar to us saying we are objective about the evolution of plants, because we weren't really part of that evolutionary process. Or, more abstractly, that I or one of the boys is objective about Brexit because we don't take place in British elections.

    We still don't meet the definition for pure objectivity any more than our alien observer does for the evolution of life (which it presumabely is categorically within).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I don't see how this supports that the two are actually different? A narrow view of life vs a broad view.
    I don't think I argued the two were unrelated. Rather that there is a distinction between the two. Micro evolution is empirically demonstrated, for example. There are very few fundamental questions about micro evolution that are outstanding. Macro evolution is the natural conclusion of micro evolutionary processes, but isn't observed with anything like the same empirical rigor and has some fundamental questions still outstanding (one of which we've discussed related to speciation).

    This is very similar to micro/macro economics or, as you point out, weather/climate. The latter in both cases are the amalgamated results of the former. In all three fields the former are well understood and relatively uncontroversial. The latter though are generally poorly understood, poorly supported empirically, and often fail to fully express the complexity of the systems they are modeling.

    And, just as in the two fields we used as analogies, the macro version of evolutionary biology has all kinds of political and group identity overtones now. It is just as susceptible to the kind of cultural wierdness that climate science and macroecon is with all the same incentives for bad behavior. We can no more argue that macroevolutionary work is just the summation of microevolutionary work than we could do that with economics (this is a specific point rejected by Keynesians btw), or with climate scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Question:
    are you proposing God made each "species" of animals separate and distinct from the others?
    No. I'm relatively agnostic on the process of speciation and evolution. It doesn't seem to really impact anything at play here imo.

    My only point was that the field of macroevolution is convoluted and controversial enough amongst the experts that we shouldn't expect clear consensus amongst the laiety, which is why we find such disagreement across all social groups as demonstrated in the poll.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    1. Apparently this way of classifying life is not as objective as you are proposing.
    2. How am I "holding it against the religious"?
    I never proposed it as objective; the opposite really. I proposed the fact that some sort of speciation is necessary is objective. There is an objective category difference between a sponge and a leopard. The exact definition of that difference would depend on one's ontology.

    Which is why, when you ask lay persons about macro evolution in a poll you are bound to get odd results. The specific definition that governs whether evolution is macro or micro isn't objectively defined. That was the point of the poll you referenced. Not so much that the religious answer with lower acceptance of macro evolution (which was the point you brought in when you included it), but that across all groups, percentages varied differently based on the wording of the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    A bit fast and loose with the def of "species" here
    How so? They would obviously recognize that there are categorical differences between different sets of life on Earth, so they would need a speciation concept.

    Any culture unable to recognize those kinds of fundamental differences is going to have a hard time understanding the kinds of physical differences that are necessary to develop interstellar travel. That kind of categorization is fundamental to the scientific method. Now, if you are proposing that there are other methods of getting to truth that aren't part of that method... ;-) (JK of course, I am taking a bit of liberty with this topic).

    My basic point is that a technologically advanced species would have to have methods for categorization of things, its part of science. So it would also recognize that there are categories of living creatures. How they define that category would almost certainly be different than us (but who knows we do it differently all the time), but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    That is exactly what your "evidence" is/was. Societies claiming monogamy was a goal and the norm.
    The evidence I presented wasn't of the form of what a society "claimed" for itself, but how it acted. What were its laws and social norms, how did it apply those social norms, etc. The point of the citation I have was that it was a pretty in depth look at how those social norms developed, not from what people said they wanted, but organically out of what they did.

    With that said, the distinction between our two points is primarily based on arguing two different concepts. When I originally brought the topic up it was about what pattern of behavior best fitted human societies and social health. Your objections were about how humans weren't perfect or didn't perfectly comply with what was best for them. No argument there. The existence of twinkies doesn't defeat the concept of a healthy diet.

    One additional side note. Having multiple different partners over a life time isn't a violation of monogamy. Animals that mate for life also find new partners when a partner dies or disappears. So the question isn't do I know anyone that has had multiple partners; it is, do you know many people who are married to multiple people at the same time? Or more generally, that have coincident stable relationships with multiple people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Perhaps, though it seems Greek and Latin are pretty common in law and science.
    Primarily in the taxonomy part of science. IE we name things using greek and latin. No one writes physics papers in greek or latin. There was some use of Russian during the Cold War, but even the best of those physicists wrote in English in parallel. Take a look at the list of academic journals, you won't find many in French or Chinese (you'll find reprints and translations, but not original articles). That could be because America is the home of scientific research in a lot of ways sure, but I think it has far more to do with the value of the language. That is why CERN publishes its articles in English, even though it is predominately non-english speakers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Yet you try to dodge the question of incest (if Adam and Eve were the first two sentient humans) by saying there were other species of humans (Neanderthal etc) they could have mated with or am I misunderstanding your point??
    My point then is the same as my point now; that we need to be very careful not to invoke an equivocation fallacy. When I say Biblical Eve was the first member of our species, I am not using the same definition that I am when I say that Neanderthals are a different species. One of those is a Anthropological definition and one of them is a Genetic definition. Because we use the same word, "species" doesn't mean that we are referring to the same class of things in all contexts. In the same way that a philosopher means something different than a doctor who means something different from an ethicist, who means something different from a lawyer when we ask "what is man?" The same distinctions apply here. We have to understand that there are relevant contexts to the question.

    On a side note: given what we know about genetic bottlenecks in human history, this question isn't a religious one. All the descendents of Mitochondrial Eve also bred with each other, right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.Ē -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #635
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Presumabely those are the only two options yes. How does that reflect on the argument for God? In either case the asteroid was 'destined' to strike the earth in some sense. In either case an external agent changed conditions resulting in a different evolutionary process than would have happened otherwise. I'm not seeing the challenge to theism inherent in that.
    I believe the original point to this tangent was you saying something like "an asteroid disrupted the evolution of life on Earth" and I disagreed and said it was part of how life has changed and evolved over time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because in your version the aliens were still part of the process they are opining on, even if they weren't part of this particular instance.
    In what way are they part of the evolution of life on Earth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We still don't meet the definition for pure objectivity any more than our alien observer does for the evolution of life (which it presumabely is categorically within).
    I never claimed "pure objectivity" professor? I said a source more objective than humans...


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don't think I argued the two were unrelated. Rather that there is a distinction between the two. Micro evolution is empirically demonstrated, for example. There are very few fundamental questions about micro evolution that are outstanding.
    Agreed


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Macro evolution is the natural conclusion of micro evolutionary processes, but isn't observed with anything like the same empirical rigor and has some fundamental questions still outstanding (one of which we've discussed related to speciation).
    Then we agree it is the "natural conclusion"!
    But of course it has not had the same empirical rigor! Humans haven't existed long enough for such study to have happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No. I'm relatively agnostic on the process of speciation and evolution. It doesn't seem to really impact anything at play here imo.
    Curious you feel this way?
    Either species evolve thru "macro evolution" or God has made each new species thru out Earths history!
    Seems pretty relevant!


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    My only point was that the field of macroevolution is convoluted and controversial enough amongst the experts that we shouldn't expect clear consensus amongst the laiety, which is why we find such disagreement across all social groups as demonstrated in the poll.
    Of course it has been convoluted as the historical position of theists cast the theory of evolution as merely a hypothesis.
    A you aware of any reason that micro and macro evolution are not part of the same processes? IOW, is there good reason to discount macro evolution as NOT being a natural consequence of micro evolution?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    How so? They would obviously recognize that there are categorical differences between different sets of life on Earth, so they would need a speciation concept.
    Though they would note differences, I am not convinced they would "identify species" necessarily.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Any culture unable to recognize those kinds of fundamental differences is going to have a hard time understanding the kinds of physical differences that are necessary to develop interstellar travel.
    What about life that lives in open space? Wild concept maybe that life could "fly" thru space like birds thru air, but who knows what might be out there.
    IOW, would all possible intelligent life forms see it this way?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The evidence I presented wasn't of the form of what a society "claimed" for itself, but how it acted. What were its laws and social norms, how did it apply those social norms, etc. The point of the citation I have was that it was a pretty in depth look at how those social norms developed, not from what people said they wanted, but organically out of what they did.
    DNA testing has allowed us to know that people are just not monogamous. I admit in this conversation, being religious based, I take that to mean "mate for life" ("till death do us part") generally, but again, prostitution isn't the "worlds oldest profession" for nothing. There have always been men raising children they thought they were the biological father of but weren't. These are not isolated instances.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    With that said, the distinction between our two points is primarily based on arguing two different concepts. When I originally brought the topic up it was about what pattern of behavior best fitted human societies and social health. Your objections were about how humans weren't perfect or didn't perfectly comply with what was best for them. No argument there. The existence of twinkies doesn't defeat the concept of a healthy diet.
    More like I was pointing out the difference between human ideals and the "reality" of the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    One additional side note. Having multiple different partners over a life time isn't a violation of monogamy. Animals that mate for life also find new partners when a partner dies or disappears.
    "Till death do we part" anyone?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So the question isn't do I know anyone that has had multiple partners; it is, do you know many people who are married to multiple people at the same time? Or more generally, that have coincident stable relationships with multiple people?
    Affairs are rarely a form of "stable relationships" but still somewhat common thru out history...


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Primarily in the taxonomy part of science. IE we name things using greek and latin. No one writes physics papers in greek or latin. There was some use of Russian during the Cold War, but even the best of those physicists wrote in English in parallel. Take a look at the list of academic journals, you won't find many in French or Chinese (you'll find reprints and translations, but not original articles). That could be because America is the home of scientific research in a lot of ways sure, but I think it has far more to do with the value of the language. That is why CERN publishes its articles in English, even though it is predominately non-english speakers.
    Perhaps you are correct, but it doesn't seem a given by your evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    My point then is the same as my point now; that we need to be very careful not to invoke an equivocation fallacy. When I say Biblical Eve was the first member of our species, I am not using the same definition that I am when I say that Neanderthals are a different species. One of those is a Anthropological definition and one of them is a Genetic definition.

    1. You said "mitochondrial Eve" was a "bottleneck" and there were sentient humans before her, now you are back to she was the "first"?
    2. One of them is sentient and one is not (per you). If humans (the God granted sentient ones) mated with other "species" they mated with animals, not a sentient humans.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    On a side note: given what we know about genetic bottlenecks in human history, this question isn't a religious one. All the descendents of Mitochondrial Eve also bred with each other, right?
    1. Was this Eve the first "sentient human" female created by God or not? Can a population billions start from just one male and one female?
    (If there was an Adam and Eve there would be an inbreeding issue over the course of generations.)
    2. The Eve "bottleneck" you cited showed plenty of non-related males to mate with to maintain genetic diversity.

    A "bottleneck" seems loose reading of Genesis...

 

 
Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 22 28 29 30 31 32

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 05:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 08:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 01:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 05:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 07:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •