Church Is Not Enough?

NoNukes, I actually don't know what you're talking about. I have no arguments based on relativism. And your assertions about what I'm "fully aware" of is simply false. I have given you the required information on my position on this. To ignore it is not a fault of mine.

quote:

---

Would I? Unlike you, I would not be relying on self-evident remarks. I would actually explain myself.

---

Of course, I DID explain how you were affirming the consequent. Twice.

quote:

---

1. If negative mutations did not have an effect (P), then we would be here (Q)
2. We are here (Q)
3. Therefore, negative mutations did not have an effect.

---

Of course this is not my reasoning. So I guess the difference between us is that I am honest and do not invent a strawman.Try this reasoning.1) If there were nothing to counteract the accumulation of detrimental mutations we would not be here.2) We are here.3) There is something to counteract the effect of detrimental mutations(i.e. the form "if A then B" "not B" "therefore not A", which is valid).

quote:

---

It is disingenuous to just claim that what I say is wrong without first asking my reasons for doing so. (Yeah, throw that back at me )

---

Of course, since I knew I had valid argument I was in a perfect position to say that it did not affirm the consequent. Therefore I did not need to hear your argument to know that you were wrong. On the other hand you did not wait to hear my argument before you declared it logically fallacious. So in fact, not only can I turthfully turn your accusation back on you, I - unlike you - have a good reason to declare my innocence of the charge.

quote:

---

Humans are primates? See my conversation with, was it, ringo?

---

Last time you claimed to have answered my points elsewhere it was a lie. So I decline to do your work for you. If you claim to have an answer elsewhere, link to it. The forum software allows links to other messages to be produced quite easily with, for example the mid tag.
(e.g [mid=674507] will link to the message I am replying to - the message id is the number in grey in the header.)The fact is that humans are classified as primates. Every time a human baby is born it is bred from primates.

quote:

---

Microevolution is change that is incapable of bringing a microbe to a man. Microevolution uses all that you have described to change maybe a canine ancestor to their varied types of the current age.

---

This makes no sense as a definition. I prefer the standard definitions where macroevolution is any evolution at or above the level of species (i.e. a speciation event is an example of macroevolution - so newts and salamanders having a common ancestor would be an outcome of macroevolution)

quote:

---

Of course this is not my reasoning. So I guess the difference between us is that I am honest and do not invent a strawman.
Try this reasoning.
1) If there were nothing to counteract the accumulation of detrimental mutations we would not be here.
2) We are here.
3) There is something to counteract the effect of detrimental mutations
(i.e. the form "if A then B" "not B" "therefore not A", which is valid).

---

Argument from silence. No such mechanism has been observed. If it evolved in the first place, why isn’t it still present to counteract the present degradation?How am I to know your reasoning if you do not share it? Is the reasoning I gave invalid? No, because not only did you fail to give me your reasoning, when I gave you perfectly logical and valid reasoning from what you said, you dismissed it immediately as false.

quote:

---

Last time you claimed to have answered my points elsewhere it was a lie. So I decline to do your work for you.

---

It was not a lie. It was an explanation you refuse to accept.

quote:

---

If you claim to have an answer elsewhere, link to it. The forum software allows links to other messages to be produced quite easily with, for example the mid tag.

---

EvC Forum: Church Is Not Enough? thereabouts. And, no, your mid tag don’t seem to work

quote:

---

This makes no sense as a definition. I prefer the standard definitions where macroevolution is any evolution at or above the level of species (i.e. a speciation event is an example of macroevolution - so newts and salamanders having a common ancestor would be an outcome of macroevolution)

---

Then it appears that there are some parts of evolution that I agree with and others that I don’t.Having said this, and your continued assertion that I lie, even though I have given you perfectly valid and logical reasons for what I said, I refuse to continue.

quote:

---

Argument from silence.

---

Now you're just lying. There's no argument from silence there at all. We DO exist. That is evidence, not an absence of evidence.

quote:

---

No such mechanism has been observed. If it evolved in the first place, why isn’t it still present to counteract the present degradation?

---

Now THAT is an argument from silence. And given that this is a long-term problem, how do you know that the mechanisms involved in counteracting it are not equally long term, and more subtle in their effects. Consider the suggestions in the paper you cited for a start.

quote:

---

How am I to know your reasoning if you do not share it?

---

If you are incapable of working it out you could ask.

quote:

---

Is the reasoning I gave invalid?

---

What reasoning ? The invalid reasoning you tried to put in my mouth ?

quote:

---

No, because not only did you fail to give me your reasoning, when I gave you perfectly logical and valid reasoning from what you said

---

I have no idea what you are talking about.

quote:

---

t was not a lie. It was an explanation you refuse to accept.

---

No. I had to ask for the post, and when you told me the number I found that there was no answer to my points at all. I gave you the opportunity to explain - and you did not.

quote:

---

EvC Forum: Church Is Not Enough? thereabouts. And, no, your mid tag don’t seem to work

---

That post isn't even one of yours. It's by jar. And the mid tag works quite happily - I used the noparse tag so you would see the text, not the link. Cutting and pasting the text, gives this: Message 96 Oh look at that it DOES work.

quote:

---

Having said this, and your continued assertion that I lie, even though I have given you perfectly valid and logical reasons for what I said, I refuse to continue.

---

You know, the only bit of that that even might be true is your assertion that you're going to run away. And even that is doubtful.

Yes, it is my fault, I suppose. In my zeal to skewer an inconsistency in a poster's reasoning, I pursued a point far off on the periphery. Sorry about that.