That Boat Don't Float!!

[AV1611VET]

Put yourself in their shoes, how would you like to spend your life trying to defend the indefensible? I would not be very happy I can tell you.
I liken creationsts to gamblers who have invested most of their savings gambling, they have too much invested to stop now even if they know it doesn't make sense to continue.
The saddest thing of all is that they are throwing more and more of their lives away for creationism and all for (as everyone else knows) nothing.

Ya -- just talk back and forth to yourselves.

Forget I'm here asking very good questions.

Maybe I'll go away after awhile?

 

[pgp_protector]

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

What does "we are animals, we are also human" mean?

I'm familiar with animals going feral.

I've paid the price of being in the vicinity a couple of times when they have; and I'll never forget the look in their eyes when they do.

Makes perfect sense.
You are Human, you are also Male would be another example.
This Sets & Sub Sets & Overlapping Sets

 

[Skaloop]

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

What does "we are animals, we are also human" mean?

It's analogous to someone saying "I am a human, I am also a man".

Or, "I am a Christian, I am also an Independent Baptist."

Or, "I am an American, I am also a Texan."

The second part is a subset of the first.

 

[Belk]

I don't see the correction, BS.

All I see is rhetoric.

"We are animals, we are also human" and "we don't go feral" are two statements that mean nothing to me by ways of explanation.

I've asked why we are immune to going feral and am still waiting for an answer.

So far, all I hear is: "We just don't".

But we do.

FeralChildren.com | A list of isolated, confined and feral children

 

[AV1611VET]

Makes perfect sense.
You are Human, you are also Male would be another example.
This Sets & Sub Sets & Overlapping Sets

It's analogous to someone saying "I am a human, I am also a man".

Or, "I am a Christian, I am also an Independent Baptist."

Or, "I am an American, I am also a Texan."

The second part is a subset of the first.

Neither one of you mentioned the word 'animal', so I'm going to take these two posts with a grain of salt.

Now you're trying to sneak 'animal' out of the conversation, and I'm not going to but it.

Please explain the following statement, if you want to play disrespectful games:

I am a human, humans are also animals.

Domestic animals can and do go feral -- humans don't.

Any reason why they don't?

 

[AV1611VET]

But we do.

FeralChildren.com | A list of isolated, confined and feral children

Why are you telling me this, Belk?

Tell these feral-deniers here, who seem to think we're immune to going feral for some odd reason.

 

[Belk]

Why are you telling me this, Belk?

Tell these feral-deniers here.

Sorry, was not really following the conversation so I just grabbed your post as an easy segue into saying that we do find feral humans.

 

[Skaloop]

Neither one of you mentioned the word 'animal', so I'm going to take these two posts with a grain of salt.

Now you're trying to sneak 'animal' out of the conversation, and I'm not going to but it.

That's exactly why I said it was analogous, so you wouldn't try to spin it like this. But I'll stick to animal if I must.

"I am an animal, I am also a human" means the same thing as "That is an animal, it is also a peacock."

Please explain the following statement, if you want to play disrespectful games:

Any reason why they don't?

I never said they don't. But I would argue that the two guys you mentioned as having gone feral were not actually feral. They could have gone, and ended up living off of roots and berries in the woods, but they didn't.

But back to your statement:

I am a human, humans are also animals.

Domestic animals can and do go feral -- humans don't.

I am a man. Men are also humans.

Female humans can and do get pregnant -- men don't.

I said above that I don't believe that humans are immune from going feral, in a certain sense. But since you brought up domesticated animals, well, I would say that humans are not exactly domesticated animals.

 

[Montalban]

The "actual sense of moral responsibility," as you put it, is indeed a product of those chemical reactions. It's like saying "Then milk is governed by chemistry and is not an actual liquid that we can drink for nutrients." And I guess there's no such thing as a human, then, since we're bunch of cells, which in in turn are a bunch of chemical reactions.

If you think that 'emotions' are as physical as milk is, then you'd have a great analogy.

 

[Montalban]

Cold is not the absence of heat.

Some really basic science for you...

Cold refers to the condition or perception of having low temperature; it is the absence of heat or warmth
Cold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is always hear present.

Like in absolute zero?

At some point along the scale you can decide what you like and say 'hot" is above that and 'cold' is below it.

No. That's my reaction to how much heat, or lack thereof.

if god is love btw that would be a fine way to express the truth that god is a construct of the human mind, as is love; it is however a poor definition.

No. It's my argument that we only know love because of God

 

[Montalban]

Err, no. Here is your quote:
(my emphasis)

Er yes! I explained what I meant.

And how does the absence of God cause this feeling/desire/whatever?

I explained this by way of analogy.

Most importantly you and others are getting away from the issue of 'good' by talking about how we perceive real things around us - such as a glass of milk.

If you think 'goodness' exists externally in the same way physical/material stimulii do, please show me what scientific experiments exist to prove the existence of 'goodness'. What measure is used in dealing with 'goodness'.

This is what I was aiming at earlier: you are assuming a baseline. Something as it would be "without God". But you - and no one else I know of - has ever given a reason for why this baseline would be that way.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What 'baseline'?

External and internal both. For example, external informations reach my brain via the eye: your words. The internal system of my brain connects these informations - light patterns - with known forms that make up letters and words. Also internally these are connected with concepts, ideas, feelings, lead to conclusions and result in commands given to my fingers typing this response.

No. The 'external' only reaches your brain because of the 'internal'.

If I took out your ears (internal) then you'd not have external sources of sound being perceived

Again you think to (sic) simple. A person is not a bunch of chemicals. A person is a bunch of chemicals (and other physical components) reacting and interacting in a very specific way.

So how does that negate getting a bag of chemicals reacting a certian way not being a person?

Basically, it doesn´t matter if it is "chemical" or some immaterial "mental processes". What matters is that the processes, whatever they might be, are consistent.

What makes them consistent? Define consistent

Is there a difference between "chemicals are making you think so" or "free will is making you think so" or "God is making you think so"? No. (You might say now that God making you think so would mean you are thinking right, because God would only make you think right things, but this thought is only God making you think so.

There's a difference to me because I don't think I'm solely a bunch of chemicals (reacting in a certain way).

No, you cannot evaluate "truth" by these means. But you can check for consistency. Checked against what, you asked. Checked against all the other though processes. Yours and those of others.

Consistancy doesn't equal truth. Consistancy can be wrong...
Take for example, you're working in a lab, and you want to describe a newly discovered bacteria. You look into the microscope, you see the little bugs moving around in an 'agitated' manner. You publish your findings. Months later other labs around the world read your work. There is some doubt. Other scientists have samples of the bug. Each conducts their own observations under similar conditions, and lo! they agree with your description. Your paper then enters the main-stream of thought as a 'truth' concerning an aspect of this bug.

BUT WAIT... it's not as simple as that. To observe the bacteria, you used a microscope. You used light shining up on a little mirror so you could see the bugs. The bugs may have reacted to the unwanted concentration of light. What you described as how they acted, was only how they acted while you were observing them!
(a paraphrasing of an example from "Chaos" by Gleick)

Did you just read this sentence? Did you read latin letters and english words? Did you understand them? Do you think about positing an answer to my questions? Then your thoughs work similar to mine. Consistency.

What if I didn't understand the question. "Meaning" which you can't find physically within the brain matters.

No need to get snarky. Just consider my questions. If you don´t think it is a "delusions of chemicals"... what is it?

I've already explained this. I cited two quotes that show my beliefs as being beyond ourselves. Did you read latin letters and english words? Did you understand them? Where's the consistency

 

[Montalban]

Because humans don't normally 'go feral.' Humans cheat, lie, etc, but it's rare when a human will kill another human in a very savage manner. I am not saying it doesn't happen, which it does, but it is not the normal human behavior. Therefore, we should find out why it happens. Or are you against this kind of research?

What is the scientific basis for doing that research?

Can you show, using science that basis?

 

[Hespera]

Some really basic science for you...

Cold refers to the condition or perception of having low temperature; it is the absence of heat or warmth
Cold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like in absolute zero?

No. That's my reaction to how much heat, or lack thereof.

No. It's my argument that we only know love because of God

If it amuses you to say that someone's perception of cold IS cold, they are the same thing, fine. Cold is not the absence of heat because there is always some heat present.

While you are playing Mr. Science you should be aware that absolute zero exists only in theory and could not be achieved within the universe.

You can assert that we only know love because of god if thinking that has some sort of importance to you. I dont accept that, and my opinion is at least as valid.

But then, "god" is just a construct of the human mind, and as such is not itself the likely source of anything,

 

[Montalban]

If it amuses you to say that someone's perception of cold IS cold, they are the same thing, fine. Cold is not the absence of heat because there is always some heat present.

Thank you for
a) repeating your just-so
and
b) not addressing evidence I presented.

While you are playing Mr. Science you should be aware that absolute zero exists only in theory and could not be achieved within the universe.

It doesn't matter regarding evidence I presented about the nature of cold.

Next you'll be telling me about the properties of dark

You can assert that we only know love because of god if thinking that has some sort of importance to you. I dont accept that, and my opinion is at least as valid.

If both opinions are equally valid, but mutually exclusive then I take it you don't believe in absolute truths?

 

[Hespera]

Thank you for
a) repeating your just-so
and
b) not addressing evidence I presented.


It doesn't matter regarding evidence I presented about the nature of cold.

Next you'll be telling me about the properties of dark


If both opinions are equally valid, but mutually exclusive then I take it you don't believe in absolute truths?

What i said deals with your "evidence".

What would you consider to be an "absolute truth"?

 

[Montalban]

What i said deals with your "evidence".

No. I presented evidence, albeit from Wikipedia. You counter with your own personal opionion, backed up by you repeating your personal opinion

What would you consider to be an "absolute truth"?

A truth that is true, absolutely

 

[Montalban]

If it amuses you to say that someone's perception of cold IS cold, they are the same thing, fine. Cold is not the absence of heat because there is always some heat present.

The problem here, I believe is you confuse the following...

abscence with total abscence

More correctly cold is a condition of less gyroscopic massergies or (electromagnetic energy) (which we call heat) in Matter.

Cold is not a force, nor can it be measured. It is simply the lack of something that can be measured - heat.

If you don't believe me, check it out next time with your teacher.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't agree with this statement.

You are assuming we are immune from going feral.

Why are we immune?

Or are you just guessing?

I'm not saying we're immune. I am simply stating this simple fact: Not all animals are alike. So, just because some, or maybe most, animals can go feral, doesn't mean we have to. Now, even if we do go feral, then that's fine too. I don't see how this would affect us being human in any way.

 

[Montalban]

I'm not saying we're immune. I am simply stating this simple fact: Not all animals are alike. So, just because some, or maybe most, animals can go feral, doesn't mean we have to. Now, even if we do go feral, then that's fine too. I don't see how this would affect us being human in any way.

Much of what you two are discussing I don't get, at all

 

[sandwiches]

If you think that 'emotions' are as physical as milk is, then you'd have a great analogy.

It's irrelevant but I'll indulge you. Thoughts are as information flowing in a cable or stored in a hard drive. Are you saying that simply because this information is 'merely' electrical impulses that it can't be information? Or that a photograph in your hard drive can't be a photograph because it's made of electrical impulses?

Now, I get that you're trying to separate thoughts from other things in existence and give them a special (as in special pleading) place in the hierarchy of things, but the cold truth is that thoughts are simple electrochemical impulses.