Why is there a correlation between understanding evolution and accepting it as valid science?

[pitabread]

Kind of like your take on God...right.

You show me a patent that utilizes God and then we'll talk...

 

[pitabread]

Still claiming something substantial without saying exactly what it is? lol

So, what was that point? And please don't evade this question too, else I can only conclude you're all talk.

I've learned the hard way there is no point in trying to have a real conversation with you. Thus here we are.

 

[juvenissun]

I really dont think you grasp the people i work with, severe dementai, severe alzheimers, imagine a person who has no personality. Ideas of good and evil are beyound them.

If that is your profession, I do believe that your patients would still can tell good and evil on something when they are awake. For example, if you strip them naked in public, would they be offended?

 

[tas8831]

I like this explanation better.

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Is Not Evidence of Poor Design

LOL!

You 'like' it because you are as ignorant of anatomy and biology as Luskin is.

Weird that you ignored the substance of this:

Why is there a correlation between understanding evolution and accepting it as valid science?

In favor of dopey musings of a creationist lawyer and a plant breeder.

 

[jacknife]

If that is your profession, I do believe that your patients would still can tell good and evil on something when they are awake. For example, if you strip them naked in public, would they be offended?

Offff bad example people with heavy dementai often strip naked in public, some of them are brought in by police woundering around without clothes.

 

[juvenissun]

Offff bad example people with heavy dementai often strip naked in public, some of them are brought in by police woundering around without clothes.

You do not have advantage on that. Among 10,000 of them, even ONE feels shame, I win.

 

[jacknife]

You do not have advantage on that. Among 10,000 of them, even ONE feels shame, I win.

Actually by your defenition only that one person would be human. The 9,999 would be non human since you went by abilities rather than charchterostics. Which is the problem with your idea i wanted to adress, psychopaths, people in comas, amongst others would be non-human. While its an intresting idea it wouldnt be usable in the real world.

 

[Shemjaza]

You do not have advantage on that. Among 10,000 of them, even ONE feels shame, I win.

No. You don't.

You specificity stated that your definitions work on individuals... so if that individual doesn't feel shame, then, using what you stated as your definition, they aren't human.

Do you see the flaws in you stated ideas yet!

 

[juvenissun]

Actually by your defenition only that one person would be human. The 9,999 would be non human since you went by abilities rather than charchterostics. Which is the problem with your idea i wanted to adress, psychopaths, people in comas, amongst others would be non-human. While its an intresting idea it wouldnt be usable in the real world.

If one patient is human, then all the rest are human. Just like if we determined one Neanderthal is human, then all Neanderthals are human.

 

[juvenissun]

No. You don't.

You specificity stated that your definitions work on individuals... so if that individual doesn't feel shame, then, using what you stated as your definition, they aren't human.

Do you see the flaws in you stated ideas yet!

No, in terns of anthropology, I do not have any flaw. That is how people practiced now. There is no other better way to do it. Among all populations, I just need ONE positive case.

 

[jacknife]

If one patient is human, then all the rest are human. Just like if we determined one Neanderthal is human, then all Neanderthals are human.

So your defenition does not work on individuals even in that case you still have problems, 0% of babies understand good and evil and 0% of psychopaths understand good vs evil. By ypur defenition these people are not humans.

 

[juvenissun]

So your defenition does not work on individuals even in that case you still have problems, 0% of babies understand good and evil and 0% of psychopaths understand good vs evil. By ypur defenition these people are not humans.

Some (if not all) psychopaths do understand good vs evil. At least, they have their standard. That is good enough.

As far as baby, I have addressed that. All parents treat them as human. Is that enough?

 

[Shemjaza]

Some (if not all) psychopaths do understand good vs evil. At least, they have their standard. That is good enough.

As far as baby, I have addressed that. All parents treat them as human. Is that enough?

No. Your definition seems incoherent and inconsistent.

How does it spread between individuals in a population without using genetics of morphology to know what the population is.

What level of technology is needed in situations where we can't know moral attitudes?

 

[jacknife]

Some (if not all) psychopaths do understand good vs evil. At least, they have their standard. That is good enough.

As far as baby, I have addressed that. All parents treat them as human. Is that enough?

Are you expanding your defenition from "a being able to tell good from evil" to "a being able to tell good from evil, or a being treated as human by other members of society." Either way it has problems. But id prefer to know before I point them out.

 

[46AND2]

Some (if not all) psychopaths do understand good vs evil. At least, they have their standard. That is good enough.

As far as baby, I have addressed that. All parents treat them as human. Is that enough?

What does knowing good and evil even mean? There are easy ones of course, murdering and giving, for example. But there is a lot of gray area that even Christians can't agree on. Drinking alcohol? Using birth control? Obtaining riches? Etc. Etc.

 

[jacknife]

What does knowing good and evil even mean? There are easy ones of course, murdering and giving, for example. But there is a lot of gray area that even Christians can't agree on. Drinking alcohol? Using birth control? Obtaining riches? Etc. Etc.

Thats a good question, did you know tribes of certain monkeys habe thier own laws? They even mourn thier dead is that not knowedgle of good and evil? Under this defenition are monkeys humans?

 

[juvenissun]

What level of technology is needed in situations where we can't know moral attitudes?

I gave a few ideas. They could be refined, of course. But that is the way to do it, rather than depends on genetics and morphology.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you expanding your defenition from "a being able to tell good from evil" to "a being able to tell good from evil, or a being treated as human by other members of society." Either way it has problems. But id prefer to know before I point them out.

You just named two. As I said, we can add a few more to it, such as wear clothes and raise fire.

 

[juvenissun]

What does knowing good and evil even mean? There are easy ones of course, murdering and giving, for example. But there is a lot of gray area that even Christians can't agree on. Drinking alcohol? Using birth control? Obtaining riches? Etc. Etc.

It means, a human can say: this is wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

It means, a human can say: this is wrong.