What Evolutionists Deny

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

Notice the creation account?

All the living things were created according to its likeness bearing fruit with seed in it according to that likeness

Man was created in the image/likeness of GOD but nione of HIS greatest creation ever perfectly mirrored that image/likeness

And certainly did NOT bear fruit with seed in it after the likeness

Adam could tell you all about ot

USincognito · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
I don't think I'm a creationist
I Think I'm a Christian

Which ties nicely back into phylogenies... Christian > Creationist. That you are the latter doesn't mean you are not or no longer the former just as being the former does not prevent you from being the latter.

USincognito · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
Don't worry about it

Well, if you don't wish to talk about something, best no to post it in a discussion and debate forum.

USincognito · Feb 18, 2017

The question of whether something is a member of a category or not has nothing to do with it's purpose or what it's "supposed to do.

miknik5 said:
It's a car period
It does what a car is supposed to do

Some drive people to work or school. Some are for pleasure driving. Some are for transporting goods. Some are ambulances that save lives. Some sit in museums and look pretty. Not sure how they relate to living things though. Also you appear to have missed my point.

miknik5 said:
It's A bird it does what a bird is supposed to do
It's a dog it does what a dog is supposed to do

It's man
He doesn't ALWAYS do what he is supposed to do

That's nice. What does it have to do with the fact that humans are animals regardless of our behavior or reasons for behaving the way we do?

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
Which ties nicely back into phylogenies... Christian > Creationist. That you are the latter doesn't mean you are not or no longer the former just as being the former does not prevent you from being the latter.

Only if the former is FOUNDATIONAL to the latter

Just as I said

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
The question of whether something is a member of a category or not has nothing to do with it's purpose or what it's "supposed to do.

Some drive people to work or school. Some are for pleasure driving. Some are for transporting goods. Some are ambulances that save lives. Some sit in museums and look pretty. Not sure how they relate to living things though. Also you appear to have missed my point.

That's nice. What does it have to do with the fact that humans are animals regardless of our behavior or reasons for behaving the way we do?

I don't know
What does types of cars have to do with humans?

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
Well, if you don't wish to talk about something, best no to post it in a discussion and debate forum.

Huh?!

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
The question of whether something is a member of a category or not has nothing to do with it's purpose or what it's "supposed to do.

Some drive people to work or school. Some are for pleasure driving. Some are for transporting goods. Some are ambulances that save lives. Some sit in museums and look pretty. Not sure how they relate to living things though. Also you appear to have missed my point.

That's nice. What does it have to do with the fact that humans are animals regardless of our behavior or reasons for behaving the way we do?

This is a meaningless post

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
Your response is akin to answering, "Is it a truck or an SUV" with "It's an Ford".

Point of pedantry - that's Linneaus' system. In actuality, it would be - protists (which would include bacteria and archaea), Opisthokonts (fungi and animals), plants and minerals.

It was your post sir

I am sure you meant to stress a point

Unfortunately I do not see He connection between cars and humans

Or you also can just say.
" Don't worry about it"

And I won't

Strivax · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
I'm not sure an economist is the best guide to consult on biology, but that said, it's a poor analogy. Humans actually are apes and thus describing us as apes is generally accurate. Dog, on the other hand, are mammals and animals and not plants like cabbage. The last common ancestor between a human and an ape is their parents. The last common ancestor between a dog and cabbage lived about 1.5 billion years ago.

Yes, but I am not sure I explained the point adequately in that post. I elaborated later, but to save you trawling the thread, the idea is that there is a qualitative difference (an ontological discontinuity, an elevated level of being) between humans and animals, just as there is between animals and plants. I have referenced the book, by all means read it. Schumacher writes cogently and entertainingly, and provides a guide to his world-view with far more erudition than I could. Ultimately, though, in this instance, he was making a philosophical, rather than biological, point.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Speedwell · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
Your response is akin to answering, "Is it a truck or an SUV" with "It's an Ford".

Point of pedantry - that's Linneaus' system. In actuality, it would be - protists (which would include bacteria and archaea), Opisthokonts (fungi and animals), plants and minerals.

I was thinking of the game Twenty Questions, in which the only non-yes or no question allowed is, "Is it animal, vegetable or mineral?".

Speedwell · Feb 18, 2017

Strivax said:
I still think therefore, there is a qualitative, not merely quantitative, difference between human consciousness and that of any other animal.

Best wishes, Strivax.

What if there wasn't?

USincognito · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
Only if the former is FOUNDATIONAL to the latter

Just as I said

Non sequitur. Here is what you wrote:

miknik5 said:
I don't think I'm a creationist
I Think I'm a Christian

You're a Creationist, regardless of what you think.

Strathos · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
HE didn't come to redeem a rock

All of lower creation recognizes HIM except what was HIS OWN

The point is if rocks were a living, thinking species with souls instead of humans, He would have incarnated as a rock to redeem us. Because He can incarnate in any form He wishes.

USincognito · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
I don't know
What does types of cars have to do with humans?

Nothing. But I wasn't talking about humans, was I. I was referring to classification and subsets.

When you respond to a question framed as 'if we're not animals, are we vegetables or minerals' with "we are humans" that's the same thing (this is called an analogy) as responding to the question 'is it a truck or SUV" with 'it's an automobile.'.

miknik5 said:
Huh?!

I expect responding with reflected, verbatim verbiage from surly teenagers. I expect better from adults who wish to participate in a discussion and debate forum. Would you like to try clarifying your original statement? I can quote it for you if you've forgotten it already:

miknik5 said:
Can you give an example of 5 where a catastrophic event created uniformitarianism (in humans) immediately and instantly

Because it doesn't make any sense grammatically or scientifically and I'd like for you to clarify what you mean.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Feb 18, 2017

Strivax said:
Neither of these, in my opinion, amount to 'thinking about thinking'. Being 'confident' does not suppose this, only that some 'conclusions' may be cognitatively 'stronger' and more urgent than others, and in the absence of certainty, there is a tendency to find a way towards it. This does not require conscious thought, let alone recursively conscious thought, only a sensation of mental dissonance.

I still think therefore, there is a qualitative, not merely quantitative, difference between human consciousness and that of any other animal.

OK. Nevertheless, metacognition is 'thinking about thinking', and the people who study thinking in animals have shown that some have metacognition (albeit a weak form). You may not think it counts, but the people working in the field think it does.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Feb 18, 2017

Strivax said:
I agree that 'the common good' has a lot to do with what is ultimately moral.

That sounds vaguely utilitarian - 'the common good' needs very careful definition if it's not to run into potentially unpleasant consequences (e.g. the good of the many depending on the suffering of a few); making it conditional on rights-based ethics can help with that.

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
Nothing. But I wasn't talking about humans, was I. I was referring to classification and subsets.

When you respond to a question framed as 'if we're not animals, are we vegetables or minerals' with "we are humans" that's the same thing (this is called an analogy) as responding to the question 'is it a truck or SUV" with 'it's an automobile.'.

I expect responding with reflected, verbatim verbiage from surly teenagers. I expect better from adults who wish to participate in a discussion and debate forum. Would you like to try clarifying your original statement? I can quote it for you if you've forgotten it already:

Because it doesn't make any sense grammatically or scientifically and I'd like for you to clarify what you mean.

Sir. I simply responded in the same manner that you did

"Huh?"

USincognito · Feb 18, 2017

miknik5 said:
Sir.

Do spare me the ersatz gentility.

miknik5 said:
I simply responded in the same manner that you did

"Huh?"

Again, repeating words or phrases back to someone verbatim is a tactic I'd expect from a petulant teenager, not an adult wishing to engage in discussion and debate. I see you're still talking about me instead of clarifying what you wrote:

>> Would you like to try clarifying your original statement? Because it doesn't make any sense grammatically or scientifically and I'd like for you to clarify what you mean. <<

Or are you not really interested in engaging in discussion and debate and would rather talk about the participants?

miknik5 · Feb 18, 2017

USincognito said:
Do spare me the ersatz gentility.

Again, repeating words or phrases back to someone verbatim is a tactic I'd expect from a petulant teenager, not an adult wishing to engage in discussion and debate. I see you're still talking about me instead of clarifying what you wrote:

>> Would you like to try clarifying your original statement? Because it doesn't make any sense grammatically or scientifically and I'd like for you to clarify what you mean. <<

Or are you not really interested in engaging in discussion and debate and would rather talk about the participants?

Sir you have one interest
Frustration and anger towards me

You want me to get involved in a personal dispute with you

Move on

What Evolutionists Deny

"Let not your heart be troubled"

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Pilgrim on another way

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

No one important

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Let not your heart be troubled"

a post by Alan Smithee

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency