God the absolute truth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2012, 08:29 PM
RE: God the absolute truth
(16-09-2012 08:19 PM)caffeinesoul Wrote:  That's a leading question, and using leading questions in a debate is a dishonest thing to do, Janus VI.

The question you should be asking is "why can't evolution make mistakes?"; and the answer is because evolution is not a conscious thing that can possess intentions. Evolution is simply a name for a long process of mutations in DNA passed on from generation to generation. It's quite similar to aging, in that it's just something that happens over time; without purpose. Only humans are (to a very limited extent) capable of giving evolution any "purpose" - germ line therapy, for instance.

You say Humans are capable of giving evolution any purpose. Are not humans only a step of evolution in the search of improving?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2012, 08:45 PM
RE: God the absolute truth
Janus VI, as much as we love to have debates with real live theists, your line of argument isn't logical. It's what we call an "argument from ignorance", where you're assuming that if we can't answer these questions then we should assume your answers are correct. And if your goal is to convince us of your point of view, you're going to have to avoid logical fallacies such as this one.

It's entertaining, but hardly a strong argument. I don't say that just to mock or insult you -- I'd like to help you get better at debating. If you're interested, I can help you do that.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
16-09-2012, 08:48 PM
RE: God the absolute truth
(16-09-2012 08:45 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Janus VI, as much as we love to have debates with real live theists, your line of argument isn't logical. It's what we call an "argument from ignorance", where you're assuming that if we can't answer these questions then we should assume your answers are correct. And if your goal is to convince us of your point of view, you're going to have to avoid logical fallacies such as this one.

It's entertaining, but hardly a strong argument. I don't say that just to mock or insult you -- I'd like to help you get better at debating. If you're interested, I can help you do that.

I really appreciate that your taking the time to teach me
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2012, 09:38 PM
RE: God the absolute truth
Quote:Evolution doesn't make mistakes; it can't. There is no purpose, therefore no correct or incorrect path for evolution.

I don't see why it couldn't mistakes please elaborate.

I understand evolution using the green/brown beetle explanation so I'll explain where I'm going with this.

In the green/brown beetle explanation it goes. There are a number of green beetles. Birds eat green beetles. There is a small chance that a brown beetle will be born due to mutation in dna. Birds don't eat brown beetles.
Green beetles get eatten off and brown beetles remain, hence green beetle 'evolved' into brown beetle.
Very basic description.
So it is not hard at all to them imagine that the brown beetle as well as being brown could have negative side effects. Perhaps it is more likely to get certain diseases.
This higher chance of getting certain diseases could be considered a mistake.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
16-09-2012, 09:42 PM
RE: God the absolute truth
(16-09-2012 08:29 PM)Janus VI Wrote:  You say Humans are capable of giving evolution any purpose. Are not humans only a step of evolution in the search of improving?

Leading question, yet again. This isn't a yes or no question, despite how you try to set it up. You want me to say "yes" or "no" because either way, it sounds like I'm making an admission that evolution has a purpose.

If I say yes, I'm saying that evolution itself has a purpose and we're a part of it.

If I say no, I'm not denying that evolution itself has a purpose, I'm simply saying that humans serve no part in it.

It's the equivalent of walking up to a male and saying, "does your mother know you're actually a female?". Answering either "yes" or "no" is taken as an admission to something false by the person asking the question - this is what you're doing, and it's a dishonest way to present an argument.

Once more:

Quote: The question you should be asking is "why can't evolution make mistakes?"; and the answer is because evolution is not a conscious thing that can possess intentions. Evolution is simply a name for a long process of mutations in DNA passed on from generation to generation. It's quite similar to aging, in that it's just something that happens over time; without purpose. Only humans are (to a very limited extent) capable of giving evolution any "purpose" - germ line therapy, for instance.


Not only are you using a dishonest and illogical method of questioning... you're also begging the question. You assume that evolution is a consciousness that seeks to improve itself. Have you ever heard of the Dodo?

In fact, let me illustrate a dilemma that your argument brings about:

• Species A is a small carnivorous land mammal, with habitats in-land.
• Species B is a large carnivorous land mammal, with habitats in-land.
• Species C is an small herbivorous fish, with habitats in the sea.


Species B hunts various species, including species A. Species A, over time, becomes accustomed to habitats by the sea, to avoid species B. However, this means that species A will have to find a new source of food (species C). Members of species A which are more successful at hunting species C can sustain families and continue the species, whereas members of species A who are less able to feed their families die out; not passing on their inferior DNA. You would argue that this is evolution consciously seeking to improve itself. Well, let's continue:

Species A becomes dependent on a source of species C, in order to survive. Unfortunately for species A, species C begins making it's habitats further away from the coast, to avoid it's new land-based predators. As before, members of species C better suited to living deeper and further away from the land survive, and those that don't die out. After a long while, species C is able to thrive far away from species A. This is of no benefit to species A, and your idea of a conscious 'evolution' has just screwed itself. A prey must adapt to it's predator, and thus, a predator must adapt to it's prey. This isn't done consciously. Simply, members of the predator/prey species that can't sustain families, due to biological limitations, die out. This is Darwin's theory of evolution, essentially. Survival of the fittest. Neither prey nor predator has improved. They've simply changed, and that's all that evolution is: a slow process of change.


(16-09-2012 08:23 PM)Janus VI Wrote:  We need to look at the universe and understand, if evolution doesn't make mistakes then who does?

A:__________

Again:
- Begging the question.
- Leading question.

[Image: edgeworth-smirk%28a%29.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes caffeinesoul's post
16-09-2012, 10:55 PM
RE: God the absolute truth
(16-09-2012 09:38 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Evolution doesn't make mistakes; it can't. There is no purpose, therefore no correct or incorrect path for evolution.

I don't see why it couldn't mistakes please elaborate.

I understand evolution using the green/brown beetle explanation so I'll explain where I'm going with this.

In the green/brown beetle explanation it goes. There are a number of green beetles. Birds eat green beetles. There is a small chance that a brown beetle will be born due to mutation in dna. Birds don't eat brown beetles.
Green beetles get eatten off and brown beetles remain, hence green beetle 'evolved' into brown beetle.
Very basic description.
So it is not hard at all to them imagine that the brown beetle as well as being brown could have negative side effects. Perhaps it is more likely to get certain diseases.
This higher chance of getting certain diseases could be considered a mistake.

Thank you earmuffs, small changes can make a big impact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2012, 11:10 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2012 11:14 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: God the absolute truth
Yay Logic 101

May your new found reasoning be free from fallacies and biases.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2012, 11:50 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2012 11:54 PM by Janus VI.)
RE: God the absolute truth
11111111111111111111111111111111111

Fstratzero I want to lead men back to nature, to experience and to reason.

22222222222222222222222222222222222

caffeinesoul
They've simply changed, and that's all that evolution is: a slow process of change.


Do you see human beings as a slow process of change or a being with goals?

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2012, 12:10 AM
RE: God the absolute truth
(16-09-2012 11:50 PM)Janus VI Wrote:  11111111111111111111111111111111111

Fstratzero I want to lead men back to nature, to experience and to reason.

22222222222222222222222222222222222

caffeinesoul
They've simply changed, and that's all that evolution is: a slow process of change.


Do you see human beings as a slow process of change or a being with goals?

.

Then you must embrace the natural world as it is, and do away with the supernatural. IE god/gods

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
17-09-2012, 12:32 AM
RE: God the absolute truth
(16-09-2012 09:38 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I don't see why it couldn't mistakes please elaborate.

I understand evolution using the green/brown beetle explanation so I'll explain where I'm going with this.

In the green/brown beetle explanation it goes. There are a number of green beetles. Birds eat green beetles. There is a small chance that a brown beetle will be born due to mutation in dna. Birds don't eat brown beetles.
Green beetles get eatten off and brown beetles remain, hence green beetle 'evolved' into brown beetle.
Very basic description.
So it is not hard at all to them imagine that the brown beetle as well as being brown could have negative side effects. Perhaps it is more likely to get certain diseases.
This higher chance of getting certain diseases could be considered a mistake.

[Image: bubble-(ani)holdit.gif]

(16-09-2012 09:38 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  This higher chance of getting certain diseases could be considered a mistake.

Nope, here's why:

There was no conscious decision involved in becoming a brown beetle. The green parents of the brown beetle didn't decide to have brown beetle offspring, thus subjecting them to the risk of disease. It's simply probability.

Probability is the only factor involved in the practicality of any mutations of DNA through generations.

Saying that the brown beetle being more susceptible to disease is a mistake on evolution's part, is like saying that me being dealt a bad hand in poker is a mistake on the dealer's part. It's not. It's just probability. Probability can be inconvenient, but it's never intentionally inconvenient, nor is it ever intentionally convenient. It's convenience is subjective. You decided that the brown beetle being more susceptible to disease could be seen as a mistake on evolution's part, however I disagree. The brown beetles have no need to worry about their bird predators. It's simply a trade-off. Evolution is mutation based on probability, not practicality, thus it can't make mistakes (ones subjective opinions are irrelevant).

(16-09-2012 11:50 PM)Janus VI Wrote:  Do you see human beings as a slow process of change or a being with goals?

Stop using this tactic of leading questions. That is not an either-or question, and you've articulated it vaguely. One wonders if the bad articulation was intentional...

Evolution is the slow process of change that affects all organic beings through mutation of our DNA. Humans are affected by it, but they do not control how it takes place. It is possible to alter genes through gene therapy, but that is outside the process of evolution since we are no longer dealing with the probability of mutation for the adaptability of our species.

(16-09-2012 11:50 PM)Janus VI Wrote:  Fstratzero I want to lead men back to nature, to experience and to reason.

Says the guy who uses loaded questions. Also, what Fstratzero said:

(17-09-2012 12:10 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  "Then you must embrace the natural world as it is, and do away with the supernatural. IE god/gods"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes caffeinesoul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: