Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

German

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Well tough, it is now. Roll with it.



Ok. That's a reasonable starting position. If we made this the central point of our discussions we could make a lot more valid judgements about the claims in contention a lot quicker.



Subjective, needs further definitions.



Subjective, needs further definitions.



How would we determine this? You've just said "People who do X and have Y end up doing Z, therefore these people > than people who think A and take pride in B".

Please solve this algebraic sentence you've just given us.



Sure I can.



This is a subjective valuation. Many people would prefer our current labor structure, with its social effects. As an example, this would include feminists, as womans rights from anthopological understanding has grown out of the progress of new forms of production and economy.



What do you mean, specifically?



Why are these things bad? Also, this second part can easily be taken issue with.



Medicine is surely something most people value. I'm also not sure why your mind went straight to entertainment technology.

Oh goodness... i cant believe that you claim to be adept in the areas of logical thought but you still need almost literally EVERY WORD or PHRASE spelled out for you.

Ill put it simply for you, the person who doesnt go around swearing and sleeping with everyone generally ranks higher in the minds of any random person than a person who does. This is purely because they show that they have more self control and when you ask a person who knew the first person they will most likely give you a nice report of how their actions were at least somewhat inspiring, and in contrast the other person would be described as a person that no one liked because they did not have any self control. Therefore, higher morals = more self control = bigger impact through being an example, also, lower standards = more prone to losing self control = bad influence and poorer evaluations of character. So if both people have equal accountability, then Person A > Person B considering person A was a good influence on the community that surrounded them which showed a more meaningful life because his actions affected a lot of people in a positive way. This lifestyle can bring unmeasurable forward progress of the community while the other lifestyle brought only temporal and self pleasure which only helped one person. I dont really know how to better describe it than that.

On to the next problem, you cant say that life is better now because you havent lived back then to make the proper comparison.

Also, you would normally say that when you have to work hard that you generally become at least a little more humble would you not? Sure some people would prefer working today rather than working back then but medicine aside, i believe hard manual labor works out better on a persons ego giving them reason to be more humble. Dont forget to take into consideration that with the new styles of work comes many more and different types of stresses.
Being specific, morals were higher because there was less opportunity to do horrible things such as cheating, lying, stealing, etc. namely because there wasnt much of a way to do it. Children didnt have the opportunity to cheat because they didnt go to school in the first place. Parents couldnt cheat easily because their neighbor lived really far away and they didnt have much of transportation assurances. Stealing was also more difficult because there wasnt a store on every corner or a house you could rob that was really close. Point is, with less opportunity comes less crime which brings higher morals.
Modesty is important because dressing immodestly promotes immoral thoughts bringing motive to go through with things like rape and prostitution. Enough said.

I went straight to entertainment and media technological breakthroughs because for the most part i see them as being the most pointless. The level of expectation constantly grows everytime someone sees something cool in a movie because they expect it to get better. I can almost certainly say that back then most of the general public was fine with black and white movies because it was new for them and they didnt think it would get much better.

[RandomPscho]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Slip,
A good influence and a bad influence are both subjective.
Good morals and bad morals are both subjective.
Not sleeping with everybody and swearing reflects being more conservative, in my mind, than having more self control. Sex is normal, too. You are equating having sex as being immoral. I do not agree with this, so does that make me a terrible person morally? It is entirely subjective. I think you are also basing your own moral values on those provided by the bible. Not everyone agrees with these.

You are trying to describe YOUR ideal person, and that perfect image changes dramatically from person to person. Besides, you are using morals solely to judge a person. I hate that.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Oh goodness... i cant believe that you claim to be adept in the areas of logical thought but you still need almost literally EVERY WORD or PHRASE spelled out for you.

Actually you're just a bad speller.

Ill put it simply for you, the person who doesnt go around swearing and sleeping with everyone generally ranks higher in the minds of any random person than a person who does.

This much may be true, however this doesn't make this value judgment non-subjective, it just makes it popular.

This is purely because they show that they have more self control and when you ask a person who knew the first person they will most likely give you a nice report of how their actions were at least somewhat inspiring, and in contrast the other person would be described as a person that no one liked because they did not have any self control.

The perception is of self-control, yes, among other things. This isn't particularly relevent to the subjective nature of the value judgements though, it just explains the reasoning behind the judgements.

Therefore, higher morals = more self control = bigger impact through being an example, also, lower standards = more prone to losing self control = bad influence and poorer evaluations of character.

You're defining morals entirely as popular ways of behaving then? That seems sort of silly. I'm not sure there is such a thing as lower standards, there isn't a hierarchy of standards, just a variance of standards. Being an example isn't really neccessary if the vast majority of people already know and value the way of behaving that is being exhibited.

You've come face to face with your own value judgements as the basis for your evaluations, but it seems you refuse to accept that they are just value judgments, not objective concrete things rooted in external reality.

So if both people have equal accountability, then Person A > Person B considering person A was a good influence on the community that surrounded them which showed a more meaningful life because his actions affected a lot of people in a positive way.

Subjectively

This lifestyle can bring unmeasurable forward progress of the community while the other lifestyle brought only temporal and self pleasure which only helped one person. I dont really know how to better describe it than that.

That's a fair enough description, however I'm not sure it's accurate. As I've stated before, scientists actions create plenty of things which improve quality of life, including medicine, technology, etc. And these things do so on a lasting basis. Even if selfishness is the drive of these scientists it can still be said they have made lasting contributions.

On to the next problem, you cant say that life is better now because you havent lived back then to make the proper comparison.

In that case I guess you can't say one lifestyle is better than another because you haven't experienced them all. By the way, this way of thinking would make the study of history, society, theology, and many others pointless.

I can make a comparison based on available information, personal and professional interpretation, and subjective valuation, and this is good enough for me in this or any subject in contention because it's all anyone could possibly have.

Also, you would normally say that when you have to work hard that you generally become at least a little more humble would you not?

Actually, I think working is often a great way to build a sense of self rather than selflessness, although it can likely do either.

Sure some people would prefer working today rather than working back then but medicine aside, i believe hard manual labor works out better on a persons ego giving them reason to be more humble. Dont forget to take into consideration that with the new styles of work comes many more and different types of stresses.

People seem willing to tolerate these stresses though because they subjectively judge the benefits of the work to outweigh the cost of the type of work.

Being specific, morals were higher because there was less opportunity to do horrible things such as cheating, lying, stealing, etc. namely because there wasnt much of a way to do it.

People were too busy to do wrong, then? That's your argument? This is less hard labor specific and more generally about work and dedication of any sort. "Idle hands are the devils plaything". It doesn't matter if you're reading or farming, if you're busy you probably won't have an opportunity to do things which are subjectively wrong.

Children didnt have the opportunity to cheat because they didnt go to school in the first place. Parents couldnt cheat easily because their neighbor lived really far away and they didnt have much of transportation assurances. Stealing was also more difficult because there wasnt a store on every corner or a house you could rob that was really close. Point is, with less opportunity comes less crime which brings higher morals.

Interesting. I imagine the most efficient way to have high morals then would be to die, since that wouldn't allow you the chance to do anything. Beyond that I suppose you could sit in a hospital in a coma.

Modesty is important because dressing immodestly promotes immoral thoughts bringing motive to go through with things like rape and prostitution. Enough said.

I somehow doubt manner of dress alone has any causitive effect on rape or prostitution.

I went straight to entertainment and media technological breakthroughs because for the most part i see them as being the most pointless. The level of expectation constantly grows everytime someone sees something cool in a movie because they expect it to get better. I can almost certainly say that back then most of the general public was fine with black and white movies because it was new for them and they didnt think it would get much better.

At the same time, entertainment surely keeps people busy. People can't commit crime when they're doing something else, after all.

[W_I_N_N_E_R]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Considering something good is subjective. But if you take the word good as something that causes beneficial outcomes, then defining good it easy and desirable. Even animals practice reciprocal altruism, and live to help eachother to survive, and we see it as "good" because it results in beneficial results to many. Wiki it. If we rate things by how helpful it is in total, often good morals are derived. Such as my refusal of alcohol, i see it frivelous and damaging in many areas, i dont like that it kills me, that it embarasses those im with (if drunk), and that i have the possibility of losing control or becoming dangerous or insulting. Therefore i derive being sober as "good" because its a helpful thought process. I come with these conclusions through logic. Because i ignore the emotional need to fit in with my friends if they were all to drink, not because i hate them for it, i just dont see the point.

i mean societies FAR from the bible from its conception were highly moral and "good" as one would call them. Not because a book written by a deity said it, but because someone can understand beneficial outcomes through reasoning through situations, aiming for the most beneficial outcome. There are setbacks to this tho...

Random, you saying that to slip only reinforces my point. Slips views are derived to his own personnal thoughts, which dont match yours, because you derived your moral systems from other areas. Perhaps slip was subject to knowing someone who whored around and it caused serious unhealth in this person, so now he notices that rampant sex is dangerous, therefore detrimental, ergo "BAD". Much like you probably saw that people who had sex alot seemed happier or something, and so you saw it as "good" because "good" things came from it.

[W_I_N_N_E_R]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

FOR THE LOVE OF SATAN KILROY, stop doing your analysis like that, just answer in paragraph form. Picking apart people's arguments like that is an easy way to try and refute them. It's quasi-strawman to do that, because for us paragraph writers, we dont define a single argument in one sentence.

[RPGFREAK]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

If you address different points with different ways of thinking and smash them together in one paragraph, it would make your thoughts seem unclear and not to the point. Sometimes it makes more sense not to go 0 to 60 in one fell swoop. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't paragraphs meant to separate points or thoughts? And "you are wrong" doesn't seem like a valid point.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Of course one is left to wonder why the bible and other such writings describe drinking, prostitution, and other such things as "bad" long before the logical reasonings were set in place. Interestingly enough, some of the faithful church-going people found it expedient not to participate in such things not necessarily because they were bad for you but it was what they believed to define what "high standards" meant and it was only later that health issues concerning such actions were brought up.

For the most part i think Kilroy is just trying to feel superior by trying to pick apart other peoples ideas through single sentences instead of gaining respect through revealing his own thoughts and justifications on the matter. Perhaps kilroy is just afraid that someone will do the same thing to him that he is doing to others if he writes a paragraph trying to describe in detail his point of view. Although, i am being a little bit presumptuous and judgemental, this is the impression i get.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Right. He's afraid.

Or, he's like me and just likes to address different points with different sentences. Quotes are the easiest way to set off a different point while still assuring that the focus of the point is in the right places; it's easier for the reader. On top of that, it makes replying to his points even easier because they're already broken up! You don't even have to search for the end of his points and insert returns because they're already there!

Winner: there's nothing stopping him (or you) from quoting every part you address and still writing a paragraph on it.

@slipstrike: I ignore SO MANY of your posts simply because they're walls of text with no breaks. Large paragraphs are NOT forum-friendly. If you don't break them up with a line inbetween points or a quote when you shift focus, it's just plain annoying to read.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

You know a side is thrashing about in desperation when they're reduced to complaining about the structure of response posts.

Where did Reach go?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

t's quasi-strawman to do that, because for us paragraph writers, we dont define a single argument in one sentence.

It would only be a strawman if by breaking them up I changed the content of what I was responding to. I'm actually just choosing what parts of the content to address. Besides, if you really understood logic you would realize that every individual component of an argument has to be in place for it to be perfectly valid, you can't just take a bunch of invalid assumptions and derivations and mash them together to get a full, sensible argument.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Of course one is left to wonder why the bible and other such writings describe drinking, prostitution, and other such things as "bad" long before the logical reasonings were set in place. Interestingly enough, some of the faithful church-going people found it expedient not to participate in such things not necessarily because they were bad for you but it was what they believed to define what "high standards" meant and it was only later that health issues concerning such actions were brought up.

What you're describing can be explained by any number of mechanisms. Sociologically, we find in the study of deviance a possible cause and at minimum a relationship behind why a great bulk of people who think and believe certain things will reject an action such as drinking or smoking. It has to do with what type of people engage in these behaviors. Typically, as in close to 100% of the time, social rejection of drugs of any kind happens when the people doing the drugs belong disproportionately to the lower classes.

In turn, this type of rejection could be understood as a natural evolutionary inclination. If a behavior has advantages, the genetic factors responsible for it stay on in a populace. If not, they die out. Human beings, however, have different mechanisms of adaptation which lessen the neccessary generation gap between adaption. Society likely rejects behaviors of any sort when they manifest predominately in lower classes for the precise reason that they manifest predominately in lower classes.

Human beings perceive a lack of benefit from the actions correlated directly with the perceived wellbeing of the actions participants. Whether the actions cause a lack of wellbeing or the lack of wellbeing causes the actions, or even if there is no causal relationship at all, is irrelevent to this social adaptation because the social adaptation is driven solely by perception.

These are two, non-exclusive explanations which taxonomize your perspective.

For the most part i think Kilroy is just trying to feel superior by trying to pick apart other peoples ideas through single sentences instead of gaining respect through revealing his own thoughts and justifications on the matter. Perhaps kilroy is just afraid that someone will do the same thing to him that he is doing to others if he writes a paragraph trying to describe in detail his point of view. Although, i am being a little bit presumptuous and judgemental, this is the impression i get.

Why would I feel superior by doing that, and more importantly why does brevity exclude expression? You can feel free to "pick apart" my posts by quoting only what you need to, and I will respond appropriately based on my judgement of your understanding of what I've wrote and the content of the response itself.

[OmegaSyrus]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

<This is W_I_N_N_E_R, i dont like the W_I_N_N_E_R name because it seems pompous and arrogant to me. I apologize for it, i thought it up years ago in starcraft because i was out of ideas :P >

Now, quoting is alright, and a great argumentative mechanism. Kilroys last post did it pulchritudinously, but, his prior method was annoying because he would address single sentences often with rhetorical questions or snyde remarks. Anyway, its a creationist method ive seen quite often, and only creationists or religious apologists have used that method that ive seen.

I do notice a change in your response method kilroy, and i appreciate is more than you know, thank you .

Anywho, Kilroy, perhaps they disagree with a "lower class" (assuming you can call someone as such...) because they perceive that the lower class does actions and methods that cause self-destruction (theft, pride, mental instability, lying, etc.). Because these lifestyles are a danger unto themselves, one could look at those methods as undesirable (for example, there are many stories dating back to greek times and earlier where undesirable actions such as usurping and rape are made out to be evil, creating a societal maxim).

Also, alot of people dont like to think this but humans are often disposition'd to different things in life. Such as some people are born disposition'd to alcohol. But since those people often die early or have difficulty getting offspring, their alcoholism has difficulty becoming mainstream. I use this example to show that bad actions beget bad actions, good actions beget good actions, but bad is related to some sort of destruction, and good is related to beneficial outcomes and rewards. Therefore, bad begets bad, but often doesnt survive, and good begets good, and often survives. This explains crudely how natural selection even in humans can cause "goodness" as a common practice.

here's an example of kilroys earlier "creationist" responses:

>>"Society likely rejects behaviors of any sort when they manifest predominately in lower classes for the precise reason that they manifest predominately in lower classes."

You are assuming that quantity = quality. What most people believe doesn't make the majority correct (crusades?).

^i dont like this method because its too short and ruins other peoples arguments, such as kilroy had much more meaning in his argument, and i butchered it. Go read his post if u require his view, or make sure u quote entire arguments, dont destroy someones points.

**EDIT**
Slipstrike, avoid AD HOMINEMS, insulting Kilroys character is not a good tactic for debating. I dont think he was trying to be superior, there are probably other reasons. Like i say, religious people/creationists follow the same patterns, i notice this, im not saying they do it for any specific reason, i just notice a trend... sorry if it offends

[devonin]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

Your argument is made up of your points. Taking your argument point by point is a perfectly legitimate and methodological way to carry out a debate.

The reason many people seem to be having difficulty with Kilroy's method of debate is that their points aren't especially clear or concise.

Generally, you should make one point per statement, such that statement=point.

This allows for people to easily digest what you are trying to say, and forces them to account for all of your logic.

When you make a point in one sentence, but then carry on in the same sentence to make another point, you invite someone to take your sentence and only reply to part of it (with the one point) and ignore the other (with the other point) which will seem to some people like they are ignoring what you say.

To be very blunt, if answering to each of your points, individually and in order destroys your argument, then it wasn't a very strong argument.

[OmegaSyrus]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

You are kind of right, but point per sentence seems a little rudimentary. Also, even if point per sentence is followed, the point can be taken out of context.

But this debate on form is silly, Kilga is right. I'll just end it with saying I dont like the creationist method of quoting, if your are gonna quote, quote the argument, not the point. Single points do not make entire arguments.

I'm gonna throw something in here. People say evolution is impossible due to chance? that would be correct if one were to assume that evolution was a completely random process. But with Natural Selection and Genetic Drift and other mechanisms, it becomes much MUCH easier to understand, and infinitely more possible. I direct you to these videos:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xx5t5_trnuU

Hopefully at least these are presented in a digestable fashion for the intellectually lazy.