I never said Dale was threatening me.
Please dispense with personal attacks such as calling someone ignorant.
I even posted it a second time with evolution bolded, yet you still maintain that I am misrepresenting you and with no explanation how.
1 Like
???
That much is objectively correct, so I’m wondering why you included it in your quote.
Stated as an assumption following an objective statement, the term “ignorant” is not an insult but an assessment.
1 Like
It’s not a personal attack. I am ignorant of many things, such as quantum chromodynamics. At the same time, I’m not going to pronounce to the world that quantum chromodynamics is just speculation and based on opinions.
Evolution is not speculative. It isn’t an opinion. It isn’t an ideology. Evolution, be it cosmic, geologic, or biological, is backed by mountains of evidence. As Todd Wood mentions, there’s gobs and gobs of evidence. So what are we to make of an article that tries to state what is demonstrably not true? It could be the author is just mistaken, which is the assumption that I always start from. If someone was well versed in the evidence they wouldn’t have to ask what is meant by the “relatedness of life” because it is plainly described as common ancestry throughout the scientific literature. It certainly isn’t described as a social construct. It is the same type of relatedness that ties you to your cousins.
Heliocentrism was viewed in much the same way in the past as evolution is now. It was considered heresy and going against what was written in the Bible. If someone were to write an article now stating that a Bible believing Christian has to believe in Geocentrism, and that Heliocentrism was just speculative, based on opinion, and without evidence, how would that look? What if Heliocentrism was described as atheism, an ideology, or something that was dreamt up without considering the Bible? What if gravity was described as putting God in a secondary role because they were replacing a non-Biblical natural process in place of God?
7 Likes
I don’t think that is correct. Thinking what the Bible narrates actually happened is the dominant view in Christianity the last 2,000 years. Some people like to sugar coat things. It was simply wrong.
How would anyone even argue that?
Vinnie
1 Like
The head-spinning thing about this is that there are people now, today that actually are returning back even to that! (which is quite worrisome). When even our obvious go-to examples that one would have thought would be some starting point of agreement for us all turning out themselves to be contested (in the minds of the fringe few who have dedicated and acclimated themselves to alternate, made-up ‘realities’, - at that point it is tempting to despair of being able to reach them with anything. Because if a person can’t even be persuaded, for example, that the earth isn’t flat - then you know they have surrounded themselves with a nearly impenetrable shield of ignorance - and all the evidence that (for all the rest of us) actually counts for something is hand-waved away by them.
That this fringe should in any way be gaining any more of a following is worrisome for all of us, because I’m pretty sure these are the same folks who come already “pre-persuaded” that anything good or right or prudent that any scientifically-based body of experts recommends will be summararily rejected - and I’m betting it’s many of these same people who will then blindly follow the power-hungry despots who know how to take advantage of their gullability. It all really reinforces our national founders’ convictions that every democracy needs an educated base of citizenry. And if they were alive today - they might also acknowledge the need for at least some basic shared reality that is accepted as common to all.
2 Likes
A few days ago, I asked a flat-earther what he thought of the firmament and the pillars of the earth, and he confirmed that he believed the whole three tiered universe, since the Bible said so. I still am uncertain if those people are serious, or just enjoying their fantasy life.
2 Likes
When you accuse someone of being ignorant without merit, that is called ad hominem. It is not an argument on the merits and not appropriate. In terms of identifying it for yourself, that is a self-assessment based on knowledge of yourself. When you launch it against another, it displaces a syllogistic argument and has no merit in argumentation. You need to learn arguments based on logic.
Roymond, you just replied with the fallacy called hasty generalization. You have not made an argument on the merits.
False. When one accuses another of ignorance, that amounts to no more than name-calling or ad hominem argument and is not an argument on the merits. Such an assertion does not depend on any preceding “objective” statements. What actually preceded it was a matter of generalized unsupported opinion. It is also a fallacy of hasty generalization because it has no support from syllogistic argument.
The far more important issue/factor is the increase of cooperation in human civilization which does not halt evolution but transforms it. Instead of being about the development of individuals it becomes the development of communities as it did with the advent of multicellular organisms. We no longer have to be Daniel Boones surviving in the wilderness. Instead we adapt to specialized roles in the human community. The advance of evolution in the community becomes identical to the advance of society and technology. And the important questions become how society and technology are promoting our survival. This includes an increasing awareness of the interdependence of life on the planet and thus the survival of the whole web of life which make our own life possible.
The only role I see for Satan is a scapegoat for people to blame evil on instead of God. We don’t need such a role when we take responsibility ourselves to combat evil habits and do better. The reduction of evil in the world means more cooperation and the greater use of technology and social institutions for the survival of life on our planet.
When you are unaware of or ignore (as in ‘are in ignorance of’) the merits of the argument or refuse to accept their legitimacy, what do you call that?
1 Like
First, your ending pronoun has a vague or no antecedent, making your question incoherent. Let’s consider the terms you use in your question. “When…” lends to hypothetical. “…unaware of or ignore…” lends to circumstance. Several circumstances come to mind for these two scenarios: asleep, dead, comotose, or not in range of involvement. There are many other possibilities, but these come to mind. “Merits” involves contribution. Those in the preceding scenarios cannot judge merits nor can they refuse or accept presented cases. “…their legitimacy…” This phrase is a vague reference with a vague antecedent, making it incoherent. Are you referring to the legitimacy of “the merits” since that phrase is the only plural prescedent for “their legitimacy”? If not, to what are you referring? If a person refuses the merits of an argument, then one must defend one’s position through logical syllogisms.
Therefore, because of the above cited vagueness in your post that lends to its incoherence, an answer cannot be given. Rephrase your question or provide a syllogistic reply to what I originally wrote.
But thank you for demonstrating how far removed you are from the topic with irrationality. Nothing in your subsequent replies demonstrate a command of the English language or logic. Thanks for trying anyway.
1 Like
There is a separate thread for humor (that includes irony).
Good question.
Perhaps St Roymond we might have a reference that explains what the purpose of miracles are to help with your answer (which i kind of agree with)
Am i reading correctly that you believe we will still use resources and technology only in a more harmonious, environmental way?
I find this an interesting concept actually, however i draw the line at any Mormon “Battle Star Galactica” ending.
When I was in university it was probably still possible, but we’ve learned one heck of a lot about the physics of violent storms since then – chaos theory is involved and works fairly well. But we still can’t do an accurate forecast more than about four days ahead because chaos functions veer out of control.
1 Like
On another site just a few days ago I posted a proof that water doesn’t settle “flat”, from when I visited Lake Chelan in Washington state. It involved the fact that we could see the village at the end of the lake when we were standing on shore, but as we waded into the lake the village disappeared starting at the bottom, and by the time we were treading water we couldn’t see any of the village. I expect by now that’s been ‘explained’ away in at least two different ways.
Definitely. Just BTW, that’s something I point out to radical libertarians who want to turn everything libertarian overnight: a libertarian society (if possible at all) requires highly-educated critical thinkers as its citizens; if even 15% can’t do critical thinking then the society will head towards a form of feudalism or at least a patronage arrangement as in ancient Rome.
3 Likes