Evolution Confusion

[The Saint James Islands]

Do you have a scientific hypothesis that can replace the current one?

I reject your underlying premises and the validity of your question.

Congratulations! You have just rejected the very foundation by which science operates. I must now confiscate from you everything that owes its existence to science. We’ll start with your computer and the electricity used to power it.

[Mega City 5]

Yeah, don't care.

You don't care that you are basing your beliefs on an invalid form of reasoning?

[Mavorpen]

Again, it isn't. It's an informal fallacy.

Again, it isn't. It's just not a formal proof.

False. That's not what "consistent" means.

I didn't say anything about what "consistent" means.

But, I have an idea. I reject your definition of consistent. And I'm not interested in debating words. Any attempt to debate definitions means you're trying to talk past me.

Consider the following modalities:

A is necessarily true.
A is possibly true.
A is possibly false.
A is necessarily false.

Skip.

Are you talking about the origin of man?

What?

Again, you simply don't grasp the point that I am making.

No, I grasp it. It's just bullshit and I have no reason to accept it being true.

Let us assume two propositions:

A is the case.
B is the case.

You have a piece of evidence C.

C is evidence for B if and only if C would be true if B is true and A is false.

If C is true and both A and B could still be true, then C is not evidence for B.

Skip!

I am considering making a thread on this at some point. Would you be interested?

No, I don't think I could take you being a blatant hypocrite by using a tool that is only possible because science supplanted philosophy as the primary mode of obtaining knowledge while claiming metaphysics is superior to it for the length of an entire thread.

How do you understand natural science? What does it do? What is it about?

More than you. Stuff that you aren't interested in. Obtaining knowledge.

[Mega City 5]

Yes, I am accepting the null hypthesis. And?

What you are doing is begging the question. In fact, I am willing to go a step further.

If the question of abstract thought is a question of natural science, then you need not even prove your case. I freely admit that, in such a case, abstract thought would be reducible to bodily states.

But again, I deny the premise. For you simply to reaffirm that it's true is to beg the very question at issue.

Actually, I don't have to do anything. It's not my job to prove the null hypothesis. It's yours to give me a reason to reject it. And, well, that's something you utterly fail to do because let's face it, you don't know anything about this subject, and you don't WANT to.

Let's try it this way.

How would you "prove" that the number 5 falls under the inquiry of arithmetic? You'd tell me, I suppose, that arithmetic is the "science" of numbers, and five is a number.

Why should I believe that abstract thought falls under natural science?

[Mavorpen]

Yeah, don't care.

You don't care that you are basing your beliefs on an invalid form of reasoning?

I'm not. I'm basing my beliefs on a superior form of reasoning. What I don't care about is your shitty gibberish that has no relevance to the topic.

I feel like I'm talking to one of those quacks who believe that humans were better off before we had technology. You know, those people who, despite this, use the internet to present these claims to me.

[Mega City 5]

I'm not. I'm basing my beliefs on a superior form of reasoning. What I don't care about is your shitty gibberish that has no relevance to the topic.

Because apparently invalid arguments, as we as formal and informal fallacies, are superior forms of reasoning.

Spoken like a true dogmatist.

This just goes to show you: for atheists, scientism is a kind of religion. What Mavorpen is saying here is no different from the Muslim shouting: "Allujah akhbar!"

[Mavorpen]

What you are doing is begging the question.

No, I'm accepting the null hypothesis.

In fact, I am willing to go a step further.

Good for you?

If the question of abstract thought is a question of natural science, then you need not even prove your case. I freely admit that, in such a case, abstract thought would be reducible to bodily states.

But again, I deny the premise. For you simply to reaffirm that it's true is to beg the very question at issue.

Again, I'm just accepting the null hypothesis. You're free to beg the question yourself by claiming that I'm begging the question and refusing to give me a reason to accept your claim that the premise is false, but, I'd need an actual reason to reject the null hypothesis. And you're not willing to do that because, well, you don't have one.

Let's try it this way.

I'm going to bet you're not going to actually say anything of worth that matters in this discussion.

How would you "prove" that the number 5 falls under the inquiry of arithmetic? You'd tell me, I suppose, that arithmetic is the "science" of numbers, and five is a number.

Oh, I was right.

Why should I believe that abstract thought falls under natural science?

I mean, I don't care if you do or not. You're entirely free to reject the null hypothesis. My question is why you refuse to give me a reason why.

[Mavorpen]

Because apparently invalid arguments, as we as formal and informal fallacies, are superior forms of reasoning.

I didn't call your forms of reasoning superior, so no.

Spoken like a true dogmatist.

Why yes, I agree that your statement is spoken like a true dogmatist.

This just goes to show you: for atheists, scientism is a kind of religion.

Something that doesn't exist can't be a religion.

What Mavorpen is saying here is no different from the Muslim shouting: "Allujah akhbar!"

I like that you've just abandoned arguing and are now just huddling up in your corner trying to use the poisoning the well fallacy shouting, "YOU'RE NOT ANY BETTER!" as though it's an actual argument.

[Mega City 5]

So, you're saying scientific breakthroughs have not happened as far as neurobioloyy is concerned since the 13th century? What conclusive evidence, do you think, is actually required? Opening up a brain and seeing electrical impulses, an act which is virtually impossible?

I fully grant that there have been tons of scientific breakthroughs since the 13th century. Modern science is positively marvelous when properly understood, utilized, etc. I have no quarrel with science. My quarrel is entirely with atheist scientism, which is just another form of unscientific dogmatism.

My point is that none of these scientific breakthroughs have substantially changed the problem since the 13th century. St. Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, knew that there was some kind of relationship between the brain and thought. Brain injury inhibits thought, at least in some way.

The question is not whether there is a relationship (which I fully grant). The question is what the relationship is.

The atheist wishes to assert that thought is reducible to brain activity. That's simply not deducible from the evidence.

Furthermore, Gim, aren't you a Christian? You understand that you are making are inconsistent with Christianity?

[Mavorpen]

Furthermore, Gim, aren't you a Christian? You understand that you are making are inconsistent with Christianity?

Spoken like a true dogmatist.

[Mega City 5]

I mean, I don't care if you do or not. You're entirely free to reject the null hypothesis. My question is why you refuse to give me a reason why.

At this point, there's simply no point debating with you. You are simply dogmatically asserting that you are right and are completely unwilling to support your claim. I can reject your claims with the same facility wherewith you make them.

At this point, the debate can't progress past you saying "I'm right" and me saying "No, you aren't."

[Uxupox]

So, you're saying scientific breakthroughs have not happened as far as neurobioloyy is concerned since the 13th century? What conclusive evidence, do you think, is actually required? Opening up a brain and seeing electrical impulses, an act which is virtually impossible?

I fully grant that there have been tons of scientific breakthroughs since the 13th century. Modern science is positively marvelous when properly understood, utilized, etc. I have no quarrel with science. My quarrel is entirely with atheist scientism, which is just another form of unscientific dogmatism.

My point is that none of these scientific breakthroughs have substantially changed the problem since the 13th century. St. Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, knew that there was some kind of relationship between the brain and thought. Brain injury inhibits thought, at least in some way.

The question is not whether there is a relationship (which I fully grant). The question is what the relationship is.

The atheist wishes to assert that thought is reducible to brain activity. That's simply not deducible from the evidence.

Furthermore, Gim, aren't you a Christian? You understand that you are making are inconsistent with Christianity?

No. Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Depending on the denomination.

[Immoren]

I am still not sure how you'd boil either evolution or neuroscience into this.

[Mega City 5]

No. Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Depending on the denomination.

I fully grant that evolution is compatible with Christianity. Even if 3 were true, this is consistent with Christianity. I just think it's unlikely and unfitting.

What's inconsistent with Christianity is reducing abstract thought to brain activity.

1. Consider Jesus' words to the good thief.

2. Consider Lazarus and the rich man in Hell.

[Mavorpen]

At this point, there's simply no point debating with you.

Indeed, there's no point in debating me if you aren't willing to make good arguments.

You are simply dogmatically asserting that you are right and are completely unwilling to support your claim.

I haven't made a claim when it comes to the topic we're discussing in this specific line of debate. I'm also not asserting I'm right in a "dogmatic" way. If I were, I wouldn't be asking you for reasoning to reject the null hypothesis. My position is as "agnostic" as you can get in science, and I'm not claiming it's "true." It could very well not be. But I need actual evidence to substantiate that it isn't.

I can reject your claims with the same facility wherewith you make them.

No, you can't. My position is the null hypothesis. Yours isn't.

At this point, the debate can't progress past you saying "I'm rightI accept the null hypothesis" and me saying "No, you aren'tYou're wrong. You want evidence? No thanks."

Fixed.

I'm just as baffled at your inability to debate as you are.

[Mega City 5]

No, you can't. My position is the null hypothesis. Yours isn't.

This claim, depending on what you mean by "null hypothesis," begs the question.

Before you answer, wiki "petitio principii."

[The Saint James Islands]

I mean, I don't care if you do or not. You're entirely free to reject the null hypothesis. My question is why you refuse to give me a reason why.

At this point, there's simply no point debating with you. You are simply dogmatically asserting that you are right and are completely unwilling to support your claim. I can reject your claims with the same facility wherewith you make them.

At this point, the debate can't progress past you saying "I'm right" and me saying "No, you aren't."

The proper response to this statement happens to be contained within your own words:

At this point, there's simply no point debating with you. You are simply dogmatically asserting that you are right and are completely unwilling to support your claim. I can reject your claims with the same facility wherewith you make them.

[Mavorpen]

This claim, depending on what you mean by "null hypothesis," begs the question.

No, it doesn't. Well, it might beg the question for you because your understanding of science would cause an elementary school student to lose hope in humanity.

That doesn't mean it begs the question for anyone with an understanding of science past the elementary school level.

[Mega City 5]

No, it doesn't. Well, it might beg the question for you because your understanding of science would cause an elementary school student to lose hope in humanity.

That doesn't mean it begs the question for anyone with an understanding of science past the elementary school level.

1. Define null hypothesis, just so we are on the same page.
2. Explain to me why it's the "null hypothesis."

[Mavorpen]

1. Define null hypothesis, just so we are on the same page.

The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that you're testing against for the purposes of establishing whether we should accept your hypothesis or not.

2. Explain to me why it's the "null hypothesis."

See above. By its nature, the null hypothesis is that two variables are not related. To use an example I've used before, if I wanted to find out what happened to my lost pair of socks, and I come up with the "hypothesis" that it was stolen by a unicorn, the null hypothesis would be that it was NOT stolen by a unicorn.

[Mega City 5]

The proper response to this statement happens to be contained within your own words

In a debate, in which two parties disagree, the proper "methodology" is as follows.

If I say A and my opponent disagrees, then I should support A with premises B and C, the premises being of the kind that my opponent is willing to accept. If my opponent does not agree that B and C, then I should support these premises with further premises D and E (for B) and F and G (for C), and keep going until one of the following is true:

1. My opponent accepts these premises and I am able to deduce the point of disagreement from those premises.
2. I reach an indemonstrable first premise that my opponent does not accept.

If 2 happens, one of two things must happen:

1. I can give a dialectical argument that my opponent actually presupposes the indemonstrable first premise.
2. The debate must end.

If my opponent disagrees that through any two points there runs a line, it will be difficult (read: "practically impossible") to have a geometrical debate.

[Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ]

Evolution is true, as St Thomas Aquinas demonstrated in the Summa.

"Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning."

[Mega City 5]

The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that you're testing against for the purposes of establishing whether we should accept your hypothesis or not.

As stated, I'm not entirely sure what this means.

See above. By its nature, the null hypothesis is that two variables are not related. To use an example I've used before, if I wanted to find out what happened to my lost pair of socks, and I come up with the "hypothesis" that it was stolen by a unicorn, the null hypothesis would be that it was NOT stolen by a unicorn.

I think I understand.

So if I want to make some claim A, the null hypothesis is not A?

[Empire of Narnia]

Evolution is true, as St Thomas Aquinas demonstrated in the Summa.

"Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning."

General is OOC.

[Mega City 5]

Evolution is true, as St Thomas Aquinas demonstrated in the Summa.

"Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning."

1. What's the place in the summa?

2. He likely has in mind things like the following:

A. Mules are begotten from horses and donkeys.
B. Maggots are (so goes the old hypothesis) produced from rotten meat.

His point is that their appearance was already contained in the active powers of their causes (whether be the active generative potencies of horses and donkeys, in the latter case, or the influence of the sun, in the latter case).