Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,446 Year: 6,703/9,624 Month: 43/238 Week: 43/22 Day: 10/6 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 102 (184821)
02-13-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by PecosGeorge
02-12-2005 10:29 PM


you are correct, soul means breath also in scripture. Isms have placed a meaning on this it does not possess.
made from dust, add breath, equals living soul. remove breath, equals dead soul. and never never immortal soul.
spirit also falls into that category, it is no more than air.
Interestingly simple, ain't it?
Umm, so animals do have souls, because they breath? I wouldn't dare disagree with theological definitions of soul or spirit based on established belief systems, but I was thinking along the more everyday, commonplace idea of a soul that most people seem to have. When people use the word "soul", it seems to mean "essence", some intangible yet crucial quality of people that makes them alive, intelligent, and feeling. Consider the word "soulless", which implies an unfeeling nature (not a non-breathing nature). At the same time, people seem to generally think that it's the soul that goes to heaven or hell. Ghosts for example are referred to as "lost souls" or "wandering souls." I couldn't begin to say what a philosopher or theologian of whatever faith would define these terms, but this is how I think ordinary, everyday people understand the term.
This message has been edited by Aximili23, 02-13-2005 08:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-12-2005 10:29 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2005 11:28 AM Aximili23 has replied

  
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 102 (184827)
02-13-2005 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by PecosGeorge
02-12-2005 10:39 PM


quote:
My question is, does this research pose a problem for theists in general, and creationists in particular? If not, how does one reconcile such research with their religious beliefs?
the serpent spoke to Eve in fluent English.
Can you elaborate? Umm, are you saying that animal intelligence research supports the biblical references to talking animals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-12-2005 10:39 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-13-2005 9:12 AM Aximili23 has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 7124 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 18 of 102 (184834)
02-13-2005 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Aximili23
02-13-2005 8:40 AM


quote:
Can you elaborate? Umm, are you saying that animal intelligence research supports the biblical references to talking animals?
I was making a joke. Certainly, the serpent did speak to Eve and she understood what he said.
What can exist without even the simplest form of communication.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Aximili23, posted 02-13-2005 8:40 AM Aximili23 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1657 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 102 (184868)
02-13-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Aximili23
02-13-2005 8:16 AM


or soul just means breath and nothing more? there is a hill in england that has a long name to it, each word means hill in the previous language ... so it is hill hill hill hill when translated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Aximili23, posted 02-13-2005 8:16 AM Aximili23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Aximili23, posted 02-13-2005 12:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 102 (184884)
02-13-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
02-13-2005 11:28 AM


or soul just means breath and nothing more?
Perhaps. But the most useful definition, and the one that's relevant to this thread, is the definition that people actually believe and use.
I knew I shouldn't have inserted that bit about "What is a soul?" Now people aren't paying attention to my original post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2005 11:28 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by AdminJar, posted 02-13-2005 1:18 PM Aximili23 has not replied
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2005 6:25 PM Aximili23 has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 102 (184891)
02-13-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Aximili23
02-13-2005 12:32 PM


Let's move from the issue of soul back towards the main topic.
Everybody, if you want to talk about what a soul is or means let's propose a new topic.
Thanks.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Aximili23, posted 02-13-2005 12:32 PM Aximili23 has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 102 (184918)
02-13-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aximili23
02-12-2005 7:29 AM


My question is, does this research pose a problem for theists in general, and creationists in particular? If not, how does one reconcile such research with their religious beliefs?
I don't have to reconcile it in the first place. Infact, evolution is more easy to swallow than saying we are just another animal.
For me, it's a double standard, and is incredulous to deny how much more consciously endowed we are as conscious beings. (And is therefore denying the inductive and vast amount of evidence, and it's proper conclusion)
Now usually I'm told of some vague ability that an animal may or may not have, but never have I been shown the equivalent. For example, show me an animal that could paint the Sistine chapel ceiling, to look like how the animal sees it (the equivalent).
Show me an animal that has created an engine, or has any kind of written language. Show me an animal that can reason, and do science, and that can understand the various concepts of relativity.
Thje truth is - that your ignoring a HUGE amount of inductive reality pertaining to just how far above them we are.
So I'm far from reconcling anything, because I'd be denying reality to believe that we are just another animal.
Untill I see the animal's equivalent of New York - a city humans built, and animals probably live in, this just isn't convincing.
Slothful induction.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-13-2005 15:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aximili23, posted 02-12-2005 7:29 AM Aximili23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-13-2005 6:38 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 30 by Aximili23, posted 02-13-2005 11:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1657 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 102 (184955)
02-13-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Aximili23
02-13-2005 12:32 PM


scale
what I see is a vast number of very "dumb" creatures and fewer and fewer more intelligent ones.
if we could honestly rate the intelligence of each animal I would not be surprised to see a typical decay type distribution, with human (for now) intelligence at the y intercept and then more numbers of species with lower intelligence levels.
(from http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/...rt/lectures/lecture2/sld023.htm)
this would have to do with the relative benefit of intelligence from an evolutionary point of view: are very intelligent creatures necessarily better adapted than ones just more intelligent than their {predator\prey} relationship requires?
I would also expect this distribution to hold within subcategories, ie primates would have their distribution, and cetacians would have theirs.
certainly it is easy for us to see intelligence in other primates, but that may just be more a matter of our understanding it than the actual levels.
another one for your list is the snow macaque in japan, where inventive behavior has been observed a number of times (and in one female in particular):
Blue Planet Biomes - Japanese Macaque
(I love that picture)
also see
http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/...v/dautenhahn/node4.html
for a discussion on intelligence in other animals.
{edit spelling}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 02-13-2005 18:27 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Aximili23, posted 02-13-2005 12:32 PM Aximili23 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Aximili23, posted 02-13-2005 11:51 PM RAZD has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6274 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 24 of 102 (184957)
02-13-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
02-13-2005 3:25 PM


quality vs. quantity
Now usually I'm told of some vague ability that an animal may or may not have, but never have I been shown the equivalent. For example, show me an animal that could paint the Sistine chapel ceiling, to look like how the animal sees it (the equivalent).
True, but this is an argument about quantitative differences, not qualitative differences. There's no uniquely human characteristic that cannot be found in some degree in a non-human animal.
Show me an animal that has created an engine...
I cannot. But I can show you an animal that uses a hammer and anvil.
...or has any kind of written language.
I cannot. But I can show you animals with "spoken" language.
Show me an animal that can reason,...
I can. Many animals use problem-solving as part of their every day life.
...and do science, and that can understand the various concepts of relativity.
I see these as extensions of reason.
The truth is - that your ignoring a HUGE amount of inductive reality pertaining to just how far above them we are.
Untill I see the animal's equivalent of New York - a city humans built, and animals probably live in, this just isn't convincing.
This is an absurd argument to me, since there are so many animals that do things so much better than humans. I could easily counter:
Until I see the human's equivalent of long-range navigation...
or
Until I see the human's equivalent of identifying hundreds of poisionous vs. non-poisionous plants...
or
Until I see the human's equivalent of echo-location...
Not that humans cannot do these things, but they generally need technology, and they represent trained skills of a few individuals within our species. This is little different from the chimpanzees that communicate by sign language and paint impressionistically when given the opportunity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 02-13-2005 3:25 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 02-13-2005 7:36 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 25 of 102 (184965)
02-13-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by pink sasquatch
02-13-2005 6:38 PM


Re: quality vs. quantity
Until I see the human's equivalent of long-range navigation...
As in binoculars/telescopes?
The fact is, that the traits you mention don't particularly show consciousness at our level. They just don't. Animals may have abilities but to say we are the same requires a leap of imagination. I expect the reason why I am sitting on a PC, and the animals aren't is that I am consciously endowed beyond they are.
The fact is that the amount of evidence for us being different from the other trillion species - is seen all around us. Look around - you made it all, from your chair to your ceiling.
We shape the world around us and produce technology, and are aware of ourselves, more than any other critter on the planet. Do you deny this in favour of a chimp messing with paint?
Even babies can mess with paint.
Not that humans cannot do these things, but they generally need technology, and they represent trained skills of a few individuals within our species. This is little different from the chimpanzees that communicate by sign language and paint impressionistically when given the opportunity.
It doesn't matter, because what Genesis says is true - we will become as gods, and we do have dominion. I know you don't like it - but this argument really does favour Genesis, and Ive always known it. In the same way evolution has far more evidence than anything else, this just does favour the bible I'm afraid. Now I'm being very honest.
I have seen all the examples of how animals have intelligence - and are to some point aware of themselves. Do I deny this? No. DO I think they are conscious beings, that can create technology and communicate with us at a completely conscious level, that they could pray to God and be a conscious person like him? No.
Now in small numbers, we might not do aswell, but I'm sure there must be species that have been around for the same amount of time as us. For example, if we share a common ancestry with chimps, then they've been around a while - and where is their technology?
I'm afraid there isn't an easy counter - because the obvious conclusion is that Genesis is right, and your argument is slothful induction, because you have to ignore the vast amount of evidence that shows just how different we are. But deep down - I think you know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-13-2005 6:38 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-13-2005 8:17 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6274 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 26 of 102 (184980)
02-13-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
02-13-2005 7:36 PM


special vs. different
Until I see the human's equivalent of long-range navigation...
As in binoculars/telescopes?
Probably not, unless you have some method of determining a course from Argentina to the Equator using a pair of binoculars; but that is besides the point, since I conceded that humans use technology to boost their skills to the levels of animals.
Animals may have abilities but to say we are the same requires a leap of imagination.
I never said "we are the same" - did you even read my post? I said we were quantitatively different, but qualitatively the same.
The fact is, that the traits you mention don't particularly show consciousness at our level. I expect the reason why I am sitting on a PC, and the animals aren't is that I am consciously endowed beyond they are.
What do you mean by "consciousness"? Do you mean "self-awareness"? Because extensive behavioral studies have shown that some animals have self-awareness. Then again, that may be a moot point, since you seem to state that animals are conscious, just that you are conscious to a greater extreme than they are.
Like I said, quantitative, not qualitative.
The fact is that the amount of evidence for us being different from the other trillion species - is seen all around us.
I said humans are different than all other animals. So are humpback whales, and echidnae, and chihuahuas, and my favorite, the naked mole rat. We're all different than all other species, otherwise we wouldn't be different species.
Your problem doesn't appear to be with us being "different" or not, it appears to be with us being "special" or not.
Look around - you made it all, from your chair to your ceiling.
I didn't make my chair or my ceiling.
We shape the world around us and produce technology, and are aware of ourselves, more than any other critter on the planet. Do you deny this in favour of a chimp messing with paint?
Chimps produce technology such as hammer and anvil. Of course this is quantitatively different from a Boeing 777, but is it qualitatively different? If you had to crack a nut in the jungle, what would you use?
I don't deny we are different; but there is more than a chimp "messing in paint" when a chimp representatively paints an object and then names it as such with sign language.
I know you don't like it - but this argument really does favour Genesis, and Ive always known it. In the same way evolution has far more evidence than anything else, this just does favour the bible I'm afraid.
Your argument of "difference" doesn't favor Genesis, since no one would argue that humans are the same as all other species. You are arguing that humans are "special", and if you had any evidence that humans were "special" other than a book written by humans that wanted to feel "special", you might have a case.
Your argument from "obviousness" and labeling your opponents' arguments as "slothful induction" doesn't stand as evidence.
DO I think they are conscious beings... that they could pray to God and be a conscious person like him?
I guess I didn't realize that God was a person. In any case, you likely have hit upon the only qualitative difference between humans and other species, and that is that some humans worship gods. (Truthfully this may be occurring in other species and we may not be able to detect it.)
For example, if we share a common ancestry with chimps, then they've been around a while - and where is their technology?
You're genuinely misconstruing evolution here. Evolution theory would not predicted that chimps, or any other species, would develop technology at the same rate as humans. (Though chimps do have culture, technology, and adornment in the wild.) Chimps may not have accumulated a set of mutations to permit them the capacity to do so, or there may not have existed selective force for the maintainence of technology abilities (especially with humans already filling that niche), or perhaps chimps are too damn wise to spread their culture across the planet in such a destructive fashion. In any case, you might as well have asked why sharks haven't developed interstellar travel yet, given that they've been on the planet longer than we have. Absurd.
I'm afraid there isn't an easy counter - because the obvious conclusion is that Genesis is right, and your argument is slothful induction, because you have to ignore the vast amount of evidence that shows just how different we are.
Like I said before, perhaps you should reread my post you responded to. I'm not saying humans aren't different from all other species, so essentially your whole post is a strawman argument. Your real argument is that humans are "special", not different.
You really need to provide some meat to your argument that humans are the "special" species. Saying it is "obvious" doesn't cut it, and neither does your incorrect "slothful induction" counter.
Perhaps to me it is "obvious" that God doesn't exist, and I simply find anyone believing so to be suffering from "slothful induction" because they fail to see the reality of an absolute absence of evidence for His existence. Or maybe it is "obvious" to me that the Creation account of another religion is the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 02-13-2005 7:36 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 02-13-2005 8:47 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2005 9:14 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 102 (184990)
02-13-2005 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by pink sasquatch
02-13-2005 8:17 PM


Re: special vs. different
Like I said before, perhaps you should reread my post you responded to. I'm not saying humans aren't different from all other species, so essentially your whole post is a strawman argument. Your real argument is that humans are "special", not different.
Erm, now who's strawmanning? My real argument, is exactly what I said, thanks. And now I'll explain the logical differences.
You say that " I said humans are different than all other animals. So are humpback whales, and echidnae, and chihuahuas, and my favorite, the naked mole rat "
Humans are not different from other animals, in an equivalent way as these other organisms.
A difference we have, which no other organism shares equivalently, is that we create a world in which other animals live in. Humpback wales, don't create their own environment, nor echidnae or chihuahuas. Therefore, show me an equivalent difference.
This means we are a unique species.
You really need to provide some meat to your argument that humans are the "special" species.
I really don't, because when I type, look at the screen and press send, I'm completing my argument. If you cannot see the unique difference of humans, when compared with whales and such - then you are ignoring evidence all around you.
I said we were quantitatively different, but qualitatively the same.
And that's false. You can't teach a chimp to write, paint, create engines or MOST of what we do. (Most). Also - I've shown that chimps have been around as long as we, and I didn't mention evolution. My point is that if we are different in quality - then where is the quality of crucial difference, in the chimp world? They remain without technology. Please show their tools with a link.
Chimps produce technology such as hammer and anvil. Of course this is quantitatively different from a Boeing 777, but is it qualitatively different?
[emphasis mine]
Lol. Erm, I really think this proves my point about that fallacy I mentioned. If you can't see this difference then I'm very shocked.
Your argument from "obviousness" and labeling your opponents' arguments as "slothful induction" doesn't stand as evidence.
No, but my chair, clothes, PC and human world I'm sitting in, certainly does show we're unique, and how all this evidence has to be ignored(hence the fallacy). Simply show one organism that has produced anything as bizarre as a PC, television, or even one piece of technologically advanced equipment - after being on earth - in large numbers, for millions of years.
My argument from obviousness, is simply what it is.
-- Also, we know right and wrong, and think logically, in a way far beyond any other species can, when compared to all other species.
What does a dog do which is overwhelmingly unique compared to other animals, in a way which is equivalent to that of a human creating cities on earth? Please answer.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-13-2005 21:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-13-2005 8:17 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-13-2005 10:49 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 58 by Tusko, posted 02-16-2005 7:35 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 102 (184992)
02-13-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by pink sasquatch
02-13-2005 8:17 PM


Re: special vs. different
Pink, Mike, I'd say there is about zero chance of you settling this.
At present you are both doing the equivalent of "It's obvious". Well, it isn't to the other side.
If there is any hope of making progress it might be in difining terms, especially "special" and "different".
good luck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-13-2005 8:17 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6274 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 29 of 102 (185003)
02-13-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
02-13-2005 8:47 PM


my iPod makes me aGod
Your real argument is that humans are "special", not different.
Erm, now who's strawmanning? My real argument, is exactly what I said, thanks... his means we are a unique species... see the unique difference of humans?
Gee whiz, I'm sorry... I totally misconstrued your argument when I used the word "special", when I should have said "uniquely different". (Have you looked up the meaning of the word "special" lately?)
we will become as gods, and we do have dominion
Sounds like "special" to me...
A difference we have, which no other organism shares equivalently, is that we create a world in which other animals live in. Humpback wales, don't create their own environment, nor echidnae or chihuahuas. Therefore, show me an equivalent difference.
This means we are a unique species.
Not unique. It may be "obvious" to you, but I don't see city-building as making humans "uniquely different". First, many species build "cities", from ants to bees to prairie dogs to naked mole rats. And yes, other species inhabit these "cities". Some ants even keep another species, aphids, as a sort of domestic livestock:
The common meadow ant Lasius flavus has a particularly close relationship with the root aphids it uses and even collects their eggs in the autumn and early winter and stores them in its nests, then in spring the eggs are moved to suitable chambers so that plant roots are available for them as soon as they hatch. In effect these ants treat the aphids as well as they treat their own brood. The interaction between Aphids and ants has been going for a long time and some ants are almost dependant on aphids for food while some aphids such as Protrama spp. are obligate myrmecophiles, and do not excrete honey-dew unless stimulated to do so by ants. Species of aphids which have intimate associations with ants, particularly those that live in their nests are of necessity monoecious. The aphid Paracletus cimiciformis is practically only found in the nests of Tetramorium caespitum where it is fed and cared for by the ants despite the fact that it rarely if ever secretes honey-dew, it is in fact a parasite and gains most of its food from the ants who offer it nectar.
More here.
Other species "create their own environment", and even keep and tend livestock. Environment building as a uniquely human feature has been refuted.
They remain without technology. Please show their tools with a link.
Here's a layman's article on Chimp Culture that discusses termite fishing and hammer/anvil, as well as other tool use. Some excerpts:
Researchers have counted 39 separate regional chimp habits of dining, social grooming, attracting mates and using tools. Welcome then, chimpanzee, to the once exclusively human culture club.
"All in all, the evidence is overwhelming that chimpanzees have a remarkable ability to invent new customs and technologies, and that they pass these on socially rather than genetically," wrote anthropologist Frans B. M. de Waal, of Yerkes Regional Primate Center at Georgias Emory University, in the same journal.
Commenting in the journal Science, McGrew wrote, "We have enough data in enough populations that we can start doing the sorts of comparisons that cultural anthropologists do across human populations." And already there is enough evidence of behavioral differences among chimp communities that anthropologist Frans de Waal can boldly conclude, "Biologically speaking, humans have never been alone; now the same can be said of culture."
The tool use is not passed on genetically, it is passed on culturally, and therefore qualifies as technology. The article is based on a large body of research, including giving captive, naive chimps tools that are used by wild chimps. These chimps do not develop tool use unless taught. Technology is not uniquely human.
Chimps produce technology such as hammer and anvil. Of course this is quantitatively different from a Boeing 777, but is it qualitatively different?
[emphasis mine]
Lol. Erm, I really think this proves my point about that fallacy I mentioned. If you can't see this difference then I'm very shocked... my chair, clothes, PC and human world I'm sitting in, certainly does show we're unique, and how all this evidence has to be ignored(hence the fallacy).
I do not think it is a fallacy for a couple of reasons:
First, you haven't established that a hammer and anvil are qualitatively different from a PC, you've only said it is "obvious".
Second, if you, a human being, were raised in isolation of contemporary society, would you be conceive, design, and manufacture, a chair, clothes, PC, car, and a Boeing 777? Or would you be cracking nuts with a hammer and anvil? Truthfully, can you make any of those things now?
Would you be able to conceive of any of these things if you were born just 200 years ago?
You speak as though the manufacture of all of these are an inherent human ability, when if separated from modern human civilization by space or time, the ability breaks down.
So, when you argue it is "obvious" that humans are "uniquely different" because you are sitting at a PC, you are also stating that you are uniquely different from humans from a century ago, let alone humans during the time of Genesis.
Simply show one organism that has produced anything as bizarre as a PC, television, or even one piece of technologically advanced equipment - after being on earth - in large numbers, for millions of years.
Right. According to your logic, not a single person in the Bible was uniquely different from other animals, because they were unable to produce "a PC, television, or even one piece of technologically advanced equipment."
-- Also, we know right and wrong, and think logically, in a way far beyond any other species can, when compared to all other species.
Perhaps. Again, you describe a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative difference. I'm not arguing against quantitative differences.
What does a dog do which is overwhelmingly unique compared to other animals, in a way which is equivalent to that of a human creating cities on earth? Please answer.
Dogs engage in interspecies pack behavior, to the point that they will sacrifice their own life for a member of another species.
My argument from obviousness, is simply what it is.
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 02-13-2005 8:47 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2005 9:28 AM pink sasquatch has replied

  
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 102 (185006)
02-13-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
02-13-2005 3:25 PM


reliability of inductive reasoning
For me, it's a double standard, and is incredulous to deny how much more consciously endowed we are as conscious beings. (And is therefore denying the inductive and vast amount of evidence, and it's proper conclusion)
Thje truth is - that your ignoring a HUGE amount of inductive reality pertaining to just how far above them we are.
Thing about inductive reasoning is that the conclusions are not really proven by the premises/arguments. It can depend on personal interpretation, and on which bits of the evidence one would like to focus on. And very often, the inferred conclusion can exceed beyond what the evidence says. Inductive reasoning is like pattern recognition - you look at the data and make a generalization. But the only valid conclusion is a statement/description of the observed pattern. You can't use inductive reasoning to state what the pattern means. In this case, you can use inductive reasoning to say that humans are vastly more intelligent or sophisticated than animals. But it doesn't follow from this that humans are therefore qualitatively different or special compared to animals.
Even in the link your provided on slothful induction, it states that "About all you can do in such a case is to point to the strength of the inference."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 02-13-2005 3:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024