One of many problems with Evolution

[chang50]

Solid scientific fact. You can't even tell me the probability of life being generated randomly. Or express the magnitude of its randomness. You are asking people to jump on the board an idea without understanding the risk. Go sell your goods to people who want them.

I haven't insulted you or used fallacies against you. I wished to be spoken to with logic and respect. I have treated you equally.

And you don't even know the difference between the generation of life and evolution.Nobody knows how abiogenesis happened,only that it did.We know of zero universes where it didn't happen.

[BigBallinStalin]

It takes a leap in morality. I leap in logic would suffice. If it's logical to believe that you and others sprang from randomness and are headed towards oblivion, it would place your own existence before the morality of the acts needed to sustain it.

So, before you run off the rails again, realize that your statement, "A true evolutionist will be a racist, a eugenist, an elitist," is completely false.

kthxbai

[crispybits]

Solid scientific fact. You can't even tell me the probability of life being generated randomly. Or express the magnitude of its randomness. You are asking people to jump on the board an idea without understanding the risk. Go sell your goods to people who want them.

I haven't insulted you or used fallacies against you. I wished to be spoken to with logic and respect. I have treated you equally.

You see a hypothesis begins with an observation. When something is unobservable it's hard to test it.

I have explained that calculating such a probability is beyond complicated. There are thousands or millions of different factors to consider, and I don't have access to the data to come up with a number. From the data set I have available, the probability is above zero, and could be as high as 100%, but between that miniscule jot above zero and 100 I have no idea where it falls. I haven't ever claimed to.

I haven't used any fallacies - please point out where I have used a fallacy and name the fallacy I committed. Insulting you because I think you're an idiot isn't a fallacy by the way. It's disrespectful sure, but then your book warns you to expect that and commands you to turn the other cheek so suck it up sweetcheeks. In my world view telling someone they are being an idiot is a kindness, because TRUTH is what's important, not vanity or pride or whatever ego you have I might do damage to (pride is a sin remember...)

Please also tell me how you intend to present observations about the state of reality before the big bang or the nature of whatever event caused the universe to exist. Without that evidence it's really hard to test your hypothesis....

[crispybits]

It takes a leap in morality. I leap in logic would suffice. If it's logical to believe that you and others sprang from randomness and are headed towards oblivion, it would place your own existence before the morality of the acts needed to sustain it.

And if the quality of your existence is improved by co-operative behaviour with others and learning to live peacefully with others in a social system, a system that grows and develops over time in response to changing environmental factors such as access to resources or societal conditions or technological advancement, well I wonder what would happen then?

Ah yes, we'd get a moral system where some things are considered right and some things are considered wrong and a supernatural sky daddy tyrant is never required for any of it.

[shickingbrits]

An elite has more resources and therefore is more likely to survive. If I were an evolutionist, I would tie myself to an elitist.

In a survival situation it hurts to be different. A tried and true way of differentiating people is through race. Being a eugist is a policy which flows from that.

Hitler stayed true to the concepts imbedded in evolution.

[shickingbrits]

It takes a leap in morality. I leap in logic would suffice. If it's logical to believe that you and others sprang from randomness and are headed towards oblivion, it would place your own existence before the morality of the acts needed to sustain it.

And if the quality of your existence is improved by co-operative behaviour with others and learning to live peacefully with others in a social system, a system that grows and develops over time in response to changing environmental factors such as access to resources or societal conditions or technological advancement, well I wonder what would happen then?

Ah yes, we'd get a moral system where some things are considered right and some things are considered wrong and a supernatural sky daddy tyrant is never required for any of it.

Are we going green or is it time to discuss socialism?

Sure we'd get a nice moral system whose core tenet is the strongest will survive and blame any weakness on those who disagree with that tenet or don't meet the strict guidelines required to be "strong". We will be backing to public hangings in no time. Where's the golden calf, can I be sacrificed to it now or do I have to wait?

[Metsfanmax]

In a survival situation it hurts to be different. A tried and true way of differentiating people is through race. Being a eugist is a policy which flows from that.

Hitler stayed true to the concepts imbedded in evolution.

Hardly. It's a common misconception that natural selection is equivalent to survival of the fittest species. In fact, natural selection is about competition between individuals within species, most of the time (or competition between genes, to possibly be even more precise). The change of a species with time, as the result of the gradual change of individual members within that species, is a side effect.

[crispybits]

No, that post you just made is a fallacy, namely a straw man. You are making a false statement about my argument in order to more easily defeat it. Mr fallacy-man.

Me: the quality of your existence is improved by co-operative behaviour with others and learning to live peacefully with others in a social system

You: the core tenet is the strongest will survive and blame any weakness on those who disagree

Now try again, and maybe actually use your brain this time....

[shickingbrits]

Me: the most peaceful social system is one that holds each existence as equal since we were all created equally.

You: Creationist are wrong, stupid and a waste of resources, they threaten my survival.

In a survival situation it hurts to be different. A tried and true way of differentiating people is through race. Being a eugist is a policy which flows from that.

Hitler stayed true to the concepts imbedded in evolution.

Hardly. It's a common misconception that natural selection is equivalent to survival of the fittest species. In fact, natural selection is about competition between individuals within species, most of the time (or competition between genes, to possibly be even more precise). The change of a species with time, as the result of the gradual change of individual members within that species, is a side effect.

Mets, hate to break it to you, but just because someone is another race, it doesn't make them another species.

[BigBallinStalin]

An elite has more resources and therefore is more likely to survive. If I were an evolutionist, I would tie myself to an elitist.

In a survival situation it hurts to be different. A tried and true way of differentiating people is through race. Being a eugist is a policy which flows from that.

Hitler stayed true to the concepts imbedded in evolution.

Would you use rope to tie yourself to an elitist? And which elitist would you choose? The first one you saw, or that one special elitist which makes you feel giddy inside?

[shickingbrits]

I don't know. let me go and read feudalistic history and get back to you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Me: the most peaceful social system is one that holds each existence as equal since we were all created equally.

What do you mean exactly?

1. we're not created equally. People differ in many ways at t = 0, and even the birthing process differs. Perhaps you meant, "I feel that people are equal on some vague margin(s)."

2. In what way should everyone be 'held equally'? Are people wrong for loving their kids more than serial killers? (If people did that, they wouldn't last long).

[shickingbrits]

Me: the most peaceful social system is one that holds each existence as equal since we were all created equally.

What do you mean exactly?

1. we're not created equally. People differ in many ways at t = 0, and even the birthing process differs. Perhaps you meant, "I feel that people are equal on some vague margin(s)."

2. In what way should everyone be 'held equally'? Are people wrong for loving their kids more than serial killers? (If people did that, they wouldn't last long).

1. We are all created equally, because we were each provided with our existence through God, God resides within each of use and we are all capable of kindness and cruelty.

2. If we treated each other equally, who says that there would be serial killers? Aren't they usually from abusive families?

[crispybits]

Me: the most peaceful social system is one that holds each existence as equal since we were all created equally.

You: Creationist are wrong, stupid and a waste of resources, they threaten my survival.

Riiiight, now show me the post where I claimed that your argument was that creationism is wrong, stupid, a waste of resources and a threat to survival.

For a straw man fallacy I have to misrepresent YOUR argument, not simply state an opposing point of view. Like for example me saying we built ourselves a system based on co-operation and peace and you saying the core tenet of that society is survival of the strongest.

[shickingbrits]

Perhaps you'll be so kind as to illuminate me on how belief in evolution is going to bring about a peaceful society?

[crispybits]

I never said that.

Edit - here's what actually happened:

You: If it's logical to believe that you and others sprang from randomness and are headed towards oblivion, it would place your own existence before the morality of the acts needed to sustain it.

Me: And if the quality of your existence is improved by co-operative behaviour with others and learning to live peacefully with others in a social system, a system that grows and develops over time in response to changing environmental factors such as access to resources or societal conditions or technological advancement, well I wonder what would happen then?

Ah yes, we'd get a moral system where some things are considered right and some things are considered wrong and a supernatural sky daddy tyrant is never required for any of it.

There was nothing about basing a moral system on evolution in my post, just about us working out that co-operation produces mutually more beneficial results than everyone "placing their own existence before the morality of the acts needed to sustain it". In fact, the whole point of this is that socially we worked out that a dog-eat-dog might makes right system does not lead to good societies and rejected it a long time ago. We don't base societal moral rules on evolution.

That doesn't in any way invalidate evolution as a biological explanation, just like the way we don't use the theory of gravity in our exanation of morality doesn't invalidate the theory of gravity either.

[shickingbrits]

Exactly, you haven't said much of anything. I have stated on numerous occaissions that belief in evolution without God is equivalent to:

1. Considering life random,
2. Considering death the end,
3. Thereby justifying any action to maintain one's individual life,
4. Not being accountable for those actions if they succeed.

You took minor issue with the fourth point, saying that it true of someone who believes in God as well, but didn't take much issue otherwise.

I took your silence as a tacit understanding. But you may at any time clarify it. If you choose not to do so, then I will just continue to "misrepresent" a position which you have decided it's better not to disclose.

[crispybits]

1. I don't know whether life is random or directed. I don't have enough information. It appears to be governed only by natural laws, so in this way it is directed, but beyond that I have seen no evidence of intelligent agency.

2. I don't know if death is the end. If it's not then it's a continuation in a way I have never seen evidence of.

3. I explained that in my edit. Morally justifiable actions are those actions that fit whatever the current moral system. It's impossible to give hard and fast rules because these systems change and (hopefully) improve over time.

4. Is a weakness of your proposal just the same as mine - irrelevant point.

[shickingbrits]

Here's my request, give me an example of what that world would look like in practice

Would UC be executed?

Please try to back it up with evolutionary concepts.

[AndyDufresne]

Exactly, you haven't said much of anything. I have stated on numerous occaissions that belief in evolution without God is equivalent to:

1. Considering life random,
2. Considering death the end,
3. Thereby justifying any action to maintain one's individual life,
4. Not being accountable for those actions if they succeed

These are all (for good reason) obviously from the point of view of the individual. As with any existence though (religious or otherwise), a magnitude of existence in varying forms persists (again, spiritual or otherwise).

Also,




--Andy

[shickingbrits]

For example, (let's act like Mets didn't suggest that different race equals different species) with resource constraints which may exist, is it better to send forth our strongest generation? Should there be constraints on who should be allowed to reproduce and safeguards to prevent the less desirable from consuming scarce resources?

[crispybits]

Evolution when properly understood is not about morality, it's not a basis for morality and it shouldn't inform morality beyond the factual understanding of diversity of life. It's a theory about biology which some people in the past mis-used to justify certain moral positions, but they did so on a basis that has since been thoroughly intellectually and philosophically destroyed.

Your constant attempts to conflate the biological validity of the theory of evolution with the moral incorrectness of social darwinism is equivalent to me making arguments against the characteristics of Norse gods in order to prove that christianity is wrong. It's one big fat straw man fallacy (you'd think you'd recognise that given that you hate those and don't want me using them, though it seems when I challenged you to actually point out me using one it got missed - are you still looking for that or do you want to apologise yet for the false accusation of dishonesty?)

In the actual moral system I AM saying exists without God, UC would be mocked and ridiculed maybe for holding idiotic beliefs (assuming you are using UC as a placeholder name for a generic creationist type) but not harmed for his beliefs. He would have the freedom to express them too, just like we'd all have the freedom to call him an idiot. No evolutionary principles would be employed to come to moral decisions.

Oh and look another straw man!

Mets: Hardly. It's a common misconception that natural selection is equivalent to survival of the fittest species. In fact, natural selection is about competition between individuals within species, most of the time (or competition between genes, to possibly be even more precise). The change of a species with time, as the result of the gradual change of individual members within that species, is a side effect.

You: let's act like Mets didn't suggest that different race equals different species.

Where did mets say anything about race? Idiot.

[crispybits]

I was about to post in frustration about wishing I could find just one creatard that would debate honestly,, but then I remembered that such a person is a bit like Santa, or unicorns, or God, they just don't exist....

[shickingbrits]

Me: the most peaceful social system is one that holds each existence as equal since we were all created equally.

You: Creationist are wrong, stupid and a waste of resources, they threaten my survival.

In a survival situation it hurts to be different. A tried and true way of differentiating people is through race. Being a eugist is a policy which flows from that.

Hitler stayed true to the concepts imbedded in evolution.

Hardly. It's a common misconception that natural selection is equivalent to survival of the fittest species. In fact, natural selection is about competition between individuals within species, most of the time (or competition between genes, to possibly be even more precise). The change of a species with time, as the result of the gradual change of individual members within that species, is a side effect.

Mets, hate to break it to you, but just because someone is another race, it doesn't make them another species.

Here Mets states that I am making a common misconception regarding species, he then goes on to clarify that it's competition within genes. Does it look like I was writing anything related to different species? No. Him taking my line and convoluting it to suggest I was would suggest that he considers different races as different species.

Stating that evolution is a biological theory which shouldn't inform morality, is like saying that someone's failures shouldn't inform your choice in them as a mate. If you believe in the theories of evolution without a God, you are suggesting that life is random. If such is the case and there were some problems arising, wouldn't it make since to blame it on the randomness of life through natural selection and knowing this wouldn't we be inclined to make it less random?

It takes a leap in morality. I leap in logic would suffice. If it's logical to believe that you and others sprang from randomness and are headed towards oblivion, it would place your own existence before the morality of the acts needed to sustain it.

And if the quality of your existence is improved by co-operative behaviour with others and learning to live peacefully with others in a social system, a system that grows and develops over time in response to changing environmental factors such as access to resources or societal conditions or technological advancement, well I wonder what would happen then?

Ah yes, we'd get a moral system where some things are considered right and some things are considered wrong and a supernatural sky daddy tyrant is never required for any of it.

I would refer to this as insulting, suggesting that I am stupid.

No, that post you just made is a fallacy, namely a straw man. You are making a false statement about my argument in order to more easily defeat it. Mr fallacy-man.

Me: the quality of your existence is improved by co-operative behaviour with others and learning to live peacefully with others in a social system

You: the core tenet is the strongest will survive and blame any weakness on those who disagree

Now try again, and maybe actually use your brain this time....

Suggesting I'm not using my brain...but you aren't calling me stupid.

Asking me to apologize?

[crispybits]

Stupidity is something you have no capacity to change. It's a factual statement. You are an idiot.

Dishonesty is an actual immoral quality through choice. It's a very different accusation. I think you're being incredibly dishonest too, though I think your stupidity prevents you from realising this much of the time so I don't bring it up too much.

Mets post says nothing about different races being different species. You argue that a way of differentiating people is by race. He says that evolution acts within species rather than between species. If that was a straw man then the right way to counter that is to call HIM out on why he just misrepresented you, not to claim he said something he never even remotely said. That's called being a dishonest little shit.

The first post of mine you suggest is insulting is simply disagreeing. I made precisely NO references to your intelligence, integrity or any other trait, I simply described the system that produces co-operative societies.

The second post of mine where I tell you to use your brain I made because you made an extremely stupid incorrect accusation of dishonesty on my part and I had to correct you.

Every post you make exposes you to lack understanding of basic logic, to be willing to throw around accusations of dishonesty without proper basis, to be willing to deliberately ignore opposing views and fail to adapt your arguments to deal with criticism and, generally speaking, to be a complete idiot. Now, you can either take constructive criticism and learn how this debate thing works, you bumbling half-wit, and stop being dishonest when representing other arguments and actually deal with the criticisms of your unfounded claims. Or you can keep making a complete arse of yourself. I hope you keep this up, it's very entertaining to laugh at your ignorance.

PS - the insults will continue, you moronic buffoon, until you stop earning them.