Evolution Is In Trouble - Detailed - Why So Many Scientist Are Saying So

[Scut Farkus]

I'm a liberal, and I believe in objective morality and absolute right and wrong. I have routinely challenged moral subjectivists to defend their position. I do not think anyone can live out moral relativism to it's logical conclusion.

We seem to be uniquely endowed with access to a moral conscience, not seen in other animals. There in nothing rational or logical about a Marine intentionally throwing himself on a grenade or a German industrialist risking his life to save thousands of Jewish strangers. There's nothing in a DNA molecule that requires that kind of moral action. Those moral actions defy rationality, self-preservation, and the laws of Darwinian evolution.

its seen in some degree to other animals, we do it MORE.

morality and our ability to cooperate with each other is our true strenght, and yes it depends on intelligence to role play as other parties in society in order to derive win win scenarios and enhance trust and further cooperation.

we are animals too, on the same continuums.

you just like to keep morality tethered to organized religions so you can warp it for warhawk purposes.

 

[Cypress]

its seen in some degree to other animals, we do it MORE.

Thanks for echoing, corroborating, and confirming my post that humans are unique in having access to a moral conscience that can result in us taking a wider range and scope of actions, even if they are outside the natural boundaries of Darwinian evolution and self-preservation.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Thanks for echoing, corroborating, and confirming my post that humans are unique in having access to a moral conscience that can result in us taking a wider range and scope of actions, even if they are outside the natural boundaries of Darwinian evolution and self-preservation.

we're further allong a continuum.

it's not like an on off switch, that only happend because of moses. <--religionist dunce-cappery.

enhanced cooperation can be seen increasing, expecially in to mammals and into primates.

 

[Cypress]

we're further allong a continuum.

it's not like an on off switch, that only happend because of moses. <--religionist dunce-cappery.

enhanced cooperation can be seen increasing, expecially in to mammals and into primates.

You literally said that in 3.5 billion years of evolution and out of tens of millions of species, humans are uniquely capable of more, a wider range, a deeper scope of actions; aka humanity is unique.

 

[Scut Farkus]

You literally said that in 3.5 billion years of evolution and out of tens of millions of species, humans are uniquely capable of more, a wider range, a deeper scope of actions; aka humanity is unique.

that;s not what I said.

that's what religionists say.

I said we've developed these cooperative capacities MORE THAN other animals.

it's still a visible continuum to increasing cooperation.

 

[Into the Night]

Most of those who claimed to have refuted Thomas of Aquina's Five Ways have to re-define terms he used, i.e. just rewriting his words and meanings and refuting their own strawmen. Ideologues of all stripes have to do so as well.

All formal logic is circular reasoning, it's a function of definitions.

Logic is not definitions.

That's useful in narrow areas, like math and empirical methodologies,

Logic is not mathematics, but like mathematics, is a closed functional system.

but it fails badly in most others, like social and political controls and acceptable behaviors, none of which is 'logical' in any formal sense.

Thomas of Aquina did not create mathematics or logic. He was trying to prove God. That is a circular argument fallacy, an error in logic.

 

[EdwinA]

Logic is not definitions.

Logic is not mathematics, but like mathematics, is a closed functional system.

Thomas of Aquina did not create mathematics or logic. He was trying to prove God. That is a circular argument fallacy, an error in logic.

Didn't say it was, but changing the meanings of words doesn't refute anything, it doesn't address the original premises. Formal logic requires both arguments' language to have the same meanings.

 

[EdwinA]

Logic is not definitions.

Actually it is, as a function of arguments addressing the same meanings, otherwise it's just gibberish.

Logic is not mathematics, but like mathematics, is a closed functional system.

Never said it was, and it is indeed a necessity for mathematical theorems and proofs.

Thomas of Aquina did not create mathematics or logic. He was trying to prove God. That is a circular argument fallacy, an error in logic.

Never said he did, and was he was indeed a master of logic. And, all formal logic is circular reasoning. Whether one realizes it or likes or not is irrelevant. He wrote one of the great teaching texts of western theology and rational arguments. 1+1 is always going to equal 2. Definitions have to change for it to be otherwise, like changing to binary from base 10.

 

[Into the Night]

Didn't say it was, but changing the meanings of words doesn't refute anything,

So don't change the meanings of words. Word games don't work, EdwinA.

it doesn't address the original premises. Formal logic requires both arguments' language to have the same meanings.

Words don't change meaning on convenience, dude, unless you are using the Liberal language, where words have no meaning. Word games does not cancel your fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually it is, as a function of arguments addressing the same meanings, otherwise it's just gibberish.

Logic is not definitions. It is a closed functional system like mathematics.

Never said it was, and it is indeed a necessity for mathematical theorems and proofs.

Mathematics is not definitions. It is a closed functional system. No proof in either logic or mathematics require any further definition than the axioms forming that system.

Never said he did, and was he was indeed a master of logic.

No, he wasn't. Committing a circular argument fallacy is a FALLACY, an error of logic.

And, all formal logic is circular reasoning.

WRONG. Logic is a closed functional system like mathematics.

Whether one realizes it or likes or not is irrelevant.

You cannot get away with word games.

He wrote one of the great teaching texts of western theology

Since he was trying to use logic to prove the existence of God, I will agree with this statement to a degree; but it is not possible to prove and god or gods exist.

and rational arguments.

A fallacy is not a rational argument.

1+1 is always going to equal 2

He did not create any axiom of mathematics.

Definitions have to change for it to be otherwise, like changing to binary from base 10.

Mathematics is not definitions.
Common notation is base 10. If base 2 is used, it should be notated.

 

[EdwinA]

So don't change the meanings of words. Word games don't work, EdwinA.

Words don't change meaning on convenience, dude, unless you are using the Liberal language, where words have no meaning. Word games does not cancel your fallacy.

Ah, the old ' uh ... uh .. yur a librul!!!' comeback. That means you're lost and now need those strawmen I mentioned earlier.

You keep trying to pretend you're refuting stuff while actually agreeing with what I said. Who knows why, probably confusion.

 

[EdwinA]

So don't change the meanings of words. Word games don't work, EdwinA.

Words don't change meaning on convenience, dude, unless you are using the Liberal language, where words have no meaning. Word games does not cancel your fallacy.

Now you're just confused.

 

[EdwinA]

Since he was trying to use logic to prove the existence of God, I will agree with this statement to a degree; but it is not possible to prove and god or gods exist.

He defined what he meant by the meaning of 'God' according to Aristotelian logical definitions. So yes, it is possible; just because it's over your head doesn't mean it isn't possible.

 

[EdwinA]

No, he wasn't. Committing a circular argument fallacy is a FALLACY, an error of logic.

Since all formal logic is circular reasoning, as I said, you just agreed with me. Of course you don't realize that.