Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[W_I_N_N_E_R]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by W_I_N_N_E_R

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]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

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]

<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]

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]

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.

[RandomPscho]

Wait, is that probability of life supposed to be accounting for the chance WE are here or the start of the first cell?

[shadowraikiri]

rofl not the evolution arguments again.. jesus

[OmegaSyrus]

Well the videos account for the arrising of any specific trait through natural selection. The probability for the beginning of life and for us are both very believable if you do the research.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
that explains how probable abiogenesis is, i implore you to investigate. Also, while you're at it, read the whole site. Its healthy to know both sides of a debate. For example, people say "how could the eye EVER come into existence!?", well, do the research, and you will know.

pssst, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4 has eye-evolution explained in it. Or at least one possibility, but im assuming the best one?

**EDIT**
In response to devonins next statement: if thats how you view my arguments, then i apologize. I'll try harder to be more concise in the future. Sorry, i just tend to go off into tangents and then try to jump from the tangent back to my main point... Through addressing non-static points i try to give a general concept. I'll try to be more concise.

[devonin]

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.

I don't mean it quite so basically and elementary as all that, I just mean if you go on for a whole paragraph making several points, later on going back to an earlier point and so forth, it just makes what you're trying to say very difficult to understand, and so people have to either, dissect what you said to get your point, or just take a stab at addressing everything at once from your one block quote.

Both of those are pretty messy. It is much easier and simpler if people just make an effort to spell out their point in a clear and straightforward way that is easy to understand and respond to.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by OmegaSyrus

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.

The questions weren't rhetorical. If you can't provide an answer for them then that's your failing. The tone I use in this conversation has no bearing on the content of the post. Please address the implications of what I say rather than the manner in which I say it. To be honest though I'm not sure I made more than one remark which could be considered "snyde".

Anyway, its a creationist method ive seen quite often, and only creationists or religious apologists have used that method that ive seen

I'm an Athiest.

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

I did it primarily because the format worked for that particular post, not to please you.

Anywho, Kilroy, perhaps they disagree with a "lower class" (assuming you can call someone as such...)

People do it all the time. The basis of my claim isn't that the people are "lower" in any sense except income. Please don't waste time on equivocation.

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).

Yes, I agree. So much in fact that this was the point I wished to convey with my previous post.

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.

Correct. Despite the fact that goodness is a subjective evaluation, there are still mechanisms in place which select for a higher proportion of certain evaluations by means of natural selection. However in human society people survive even with the dispositions you're speaking of, so human being's perception must serve to stigmatize and select for certain traits in individuals as a different mechanism for natural selection. One which is rooted in cognition rather than genetics. Perhaps it could be framed in terms of memetics, if you're a fan of the concept.

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

Actually, it isn't. As I've said before I'm an Atheist.

>>"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've never said this. By the way, the lower classes represent the larger part of the human race, not the smaller part. The point is that society has a tendency to reject behaviors when the manifest in portions of society correlated with perceived negative attributes or wellbeing, not that the behaviors are actually bad or that the individuals associated with them even engage in them.

^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.

I actually think the main problem with your post wasn't format, but rather the fact that you missed my main point, then read into my post something which wasn't there, then tried to criticize me by saying something which is more or less identical to my main point.

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

To reiterate, I am not a religious person or a Creationist. I also don't particularly care if people insult my person or my form of address, as long as they don't do it to the exclusion of addressing my points. Besides, Slipstrike mostly insulted what he perceived to be my behavior, not my character.

Anyways, I hope we can get over this format nonsense and continue the actual debate. This is a very interesting subject.

[RPGFREAK]

A critical thinking thread on acceptable argument styles would be a little off. Unless it were some kind of Sticky to help people learn to write better.

Also, I did kinda laugh a bit to myself when it was suggested that Kilroy was a creationist.

[OmegaSyrus]

I did try to get back into the debate... look 2 posts above ur newest one. Discuss probability or something.

Scroll up.
"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."

you said that. dont deny it. im sorry for looking like i lied, i dont know how to quote.

Now im sorry for the creationist mentions, you are the first non-religious to do it in that form. Take note of this apology because ive been trying to be polite... Now when i say "creationist method" its a label i give that method based off of the trend i have observed, its for my purposes only.

When i say it annoys me, i mean u redundantly quoted me to say ur an atheist 3 times. Redundant. I used the ad hominem thing to show my neutrality in defending you when i considered you being wrongfully considered. I was hoping you would notice that attempt. Politeness is key in showing respect...

In relation to my quality = quantity statement, i meant in reference to societal power, forgot to mention that. You obviously missed my point in that the "upper" class dont reject the "lower" class JUST BECAUSE they are lower, but because of observable evidence that their lifestyle is logically undesirable due to negative repercussions.

Two things, one: of course dispositions and detrimental genes survive, if they didnt why would we have inheritable dystrophies? I said "But since those people often die early or have difficulty getting offspring, their alcoholism has difficulty becoming mainstream." I use the word 'often' to show that the majority of the cases, not the absolute. Dont ignore my uses of "often" and "rarely" as i use them to show that i recognize the lack of absolution. Second: Im aware that goodness is subjective, hence the quotations around it, i defined "goodness" in that exact quote for you, and used that specific definition just like you like me to. I meant my definition when i referred to "goodness". I find ur second references difficult, elaborate if you can. Most cognition is based on genetics from what ive researched. One can only perceive as far as their memory and limitations allow.

Anyway, Originally Posted by slipstrike0159 View Post
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.

Scroll up, you said that, to me thats snyde, not meaning to be rude but: dont be ignorant of yourself and your actions.

PLEASE return to debate NOW. Evolution is plausible and has been proven time and time again in all fields of science cooperatively. The mounds of evidence make is compelling. And creationism employs confusing circular logic and logical fallacies, for the most part.

<can someone tell me how to quote? i know i suck for being unable to, and it detriments the professionality of my responses>

[RPGFREAK]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_X

To be honest though I'm not sure I made more than one remark which could be considered "snyde".

Originally Posted by OmegaSyrus

Anyway, Originally Posted by slipstrike0159 View Post
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.

Scroll up, you said that, to me thats snyde, not meaning to be rude but: dont be ignorant of yourself and your actions.

Find another one. I'm too lazy to look.

Originally Posted by OmegaSyrus

PLEASE return to debate NOW.

I'd love to. Just need something to effectively respond to.

<use quote tags or click the quote button in bottom of post.>

[OmegaSyrus]

Ya, i guess even considering remarks snide (actual spelling it turns out, my bad) can be subjective, because upon looking further back, i can see how his other points can be viewed as not a derogatory or superior tone of response.

I posted some videos earlier, watch them and respond if necessary. Otherwise, someone bring in some creation proof, or even thoughts on the matter so we can discuss that, because i've supplied enough evolution proof for now.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by OmegaSyrus

Scroll up.
"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."

you said that. dont deny it. im sorry for looking like i lied, i dont know how to quote.

How is this creationist or wrong in any way? It simply suggests human beings adapt individually and socially instead of merely genetically. There's nothing remotely creationist about this, nor is there anything wrong with it to my understanding.

When i say it annoys me, i mean u redundantly quoted me to say ur an atheist 3 times.

I did so because you accused me of being a creationist at least as many times. It may have been redundant but it was relevent, and hopefully it got the point across.

Politeness is key in showing respect...

I don't intend to be disrespectful in my responses, but also, respect isn't exactly key in the truth or falsity of an argument.

In relation to my quality = quantity statement, i meant in reference to societal power, forgot to mention that. You obviously missed my point in that the "upper" class dont reject the "lower" class JUST BECAUSE they are lower, but because of observable evidence that their lifestyle is logically undesirable due to negative repercussions.

Now I'm not sure you're paying attention at all...

Two things, one: of course dispositions and detrimental genes survive, if they didnt why would we have inheritable dystrophies? I said "But since those people often die early or have difficulty getting offspring, their alcoholism has difficulty becoming mainstream." I use the word 'often' to show that the majority of the cases, not the absolute. Dont ignore my uses of "often" and "rarely" as i use them to show that i recognize the lack of absolution.

I didn't intend to ignore your use of these words, but it seemed you were taking issue with the notion that human beings adapt societally to change based on perception of social ills. By pointing out the fact that genes which lead to subjectively bad behaviors continue to exist in the human populace I only meant to suggest a reason for why human beings have developed this level of adaptation, not to argue about how populations of individuals with given dispositions might find themselves in the majority or minority.

Second: Im aware that goodness is subjective, hence the quotations around it, i defined "goodness" in that exact quote for you, and used that specific definition just like you like me to. I meant my definition when i referred to "goodness".

For crying out loud, there was never a disagreement here...

I find ur second references difficult, elaborate if you can.

On Memetics? Memetics are a concept toyed with by sociologists as well as evolutionary scientists/philosophers like Richard Dawkins. They attempt to explain the transfer and survival of ideas in terms of evolutionary perspective by reducing them to hypothetical units known as memes. It's primarily a heuristic device, but it leads to interesting perspectives nonetheless.

Most cognition is based on genetics from what ive researched. One can only perceive as far as their memory and limitations allow.

Memory and limitations are based on Biological factors, not solely Genetic, Hereditary factors. Genetic and Hereditary factors play a large part, but you don't get your entire sense of reality from your parents. Instead you get a basic set of abilities in perception, rooted in (in at least some cases highly changeable and dynamic) biological factors, and then you expand your own consciousness based on environmental conditioning.

Scroll up, you said that, to me thats snyde, not meaning to be rude but: dont be ignorant of yourself and your actions.

I didn't intend to. I stated that I could think of only one instance in which I was truly snyde, and that was it.

PLEASE return to debate NOW.

I will when the debate returns to me.

Evolution is plausible and has been proven time and time again in all fields of science cooperatively.

I agree.

The mounds of evidence make is compelling.

I agree.

And creationism employs confusing circular logic and logical fallacies, for the most part.

I agree. Except for the confusing part. There's nothing especially confusing about circular logic, there's just a fair bit untestable, because circular logic is an instance in which an assumption is used to support a conclusion which also happens to be the assumption.

It's like asking why the sky is blue and being told it's because of physical causes X, Y, and Z, and then asking why X, Y, and Z are the physical causes and being told it's because they correspond perfectly with the blueness of the sky.

It's technically circular, but if the correspondence is perfect and the model works then it isn't neccessarily wrong.

Creationist models, however, aren't perfect, don't really work, and are therefore likely wrong.

i know i suck for being unable to, and it detriments the professionality of my responses>

I suggest discarding your worries about format and focusing on content, but if you really want to know how to quote you just type bracket QUOTE end bracket , then whatever you want to quote, then bracket /Quote end bracket.