Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you want me to put up a list of animals that live in societies, or will you just retract that unfortunate bit of gibberish?

[Statler Waldorf]

You just quoted romans to prove that scripture was true. hock: It doesn't matter whether or not you believe that your argument isn't circular. It is. Mr Fucking Math isn't Logic over here. This is embarrassing.

---

I think your comprehension skills are what you should be embarrassed about. I used Romans to explain why people in different societies come up with similiar moral laws. However, quoting scripture to support scripture is not anymore invalid than using my different senses to support my senses as a whole.

Can you give an example of any god who has done so?

I knew you'd dodge that question. Yes I can, but only one.

---

Do you want me to put up a list of animals that live in societies, or will you just retract that unfortunate bit of gibberish?

Again, comprehension, it matters. I didn't say any other animals, I said all animals. Not all animals live in societies, why not? Because evolution favored them not to. How do you know this? Because they don't live in societies. Why not? Because evolution favored them not to.....around and around we go!

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn't ask you for an example of what you believe. You have a persistent habit of assuming that your beliefs are facts, and then refusing to acknowledge that you've made an error when you are shown that they are not. It's endearing in a frustrating way.

(For the record, animals that live in societies have similar situations with regards to their own abilities / the environment. Where it is beneficial to act together, animals do so, evolution doesn't force this)

[Paul the Human]

Well you are always welcome in any discussion Paul. Although I feel you have kind of taken a shot at me with the "magic" comment. So I will take a shot back, why are not all animals living in societies then? Oh let me guess, "Because evolution favored them living solitary"? It's amazing how flexible you guys all make evolutionary theory; it's become nothing more than a "God did it" answer to these questions. It still doesn't solve the transcendent nature of morality that even Kant recognized though.

It was kind of a 'shot', but meant playfully... honest. I think you are mistaken about "us" using the fact of evolution through natural selection the same way believers use 'God did it". I can understand why you might perceive it that way, as it fits your preferred vision of things, but I do not think it is a correct perception.

Not all animals live in societies (although, many do), because living in a society, in that particular animal species' particular circumstances, did not necessarily enhance the chances of survival of the species. In fact, in many cases, the species never reached that point in its evolution, as it survived just fine without it.

I think that your belief in God and your desire that he be real... limits your ability to perceive things fully. That's why you come up with questions like that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Statler has a view of evolution that all creatures are evolving steadily upwards past reliable landmarks until they eventually become more like western scholars.

To him, evolution is some kind of spirit that runs around arranging things. It also bears mention, that his idea of defending his circular reasoning is whining about evolution.

[Statler Waldorf]

It was kind of a 'shot', but meant playfully... honest. I think you are mistaken about "us" using the fact of evolution through natural selection the same way believers use 'God did it". I can understand why you might perceive it that way, as it fits your preferred vision of things, but I do not think it is a correct perception.

Not all animals live in societies (although, many do), because living in a society, in that particular animal species' particular circumstances, did not necessarily enhance the chances of survival of the species. In fact, in many cases, the species never reached that point in its evolution, as it survived just fine without it.

I think that your belief in God and your desire that he be real... limits your ability to perceive things fully. That's why you come up with questions like that.

These sound more like your opinions and story telling than anything having to do with science. Did someone directly observe this? I remember sitting in Advanced Evolutionary Biology in university and listening to the Professor talk about how one day a dinosaur that had developed feathers for warmth ran with its arms outstretched to capture food and accidentally learned how to fly. I rejected that form of story telling just as much as I reject yours here.

“Why do some animals live in groups?” “Evolution did it.”
“Why do some animals not live in groups?” “Evolution did it”

[Paul the Human]

I remember sitting in Advanced Evolutionary Biology in university and listening to the Professor talk about how one day a dinosaur that had developed feathers for warmth ran with its arms outstretched to capture food and accidentally learned how to fly.

You are either lying, remember incorrectly, or your Professor was an idiot.

[Statler Waldorf]

Statler has a view of evolution that all creatures are evolving steadily upwards past reliable landmarks until they eventually become more like western scholars.

To him, evolution is some kind of spirit that runs around arranging things. It also bears mention, that his idea of defending his circular reasoning is whining about evolution.

I recognize evolution for what it really is; a process that preserves downhill change in animals. You claim it can do magic things that it has never been observed to do. I am not the one who brought evolution up anyways.

Given your worldview, why should people not use circular arguments? This should be fun.

---

I remember sitting in Advanced Evolutionary Biology in university and listening to the Professor talk about how one day a dinosaur that had developed feathers for warmth ran with its arms outstretched to capture food and accidentally learned how to fly.

You are either lying, remember incorrectly, or your Professor was an idiot.

He was a staunch Darwinist and Atheist so it is probably the third option.

You never answered my question though, how do you know that is why people live in groups and some animals do not? Did anyone observe these things to happen? Why do some people not live in groups then? Is it because evolution favored these people at the same time it was favoring the people who lived in groups? Sounds like your theory is far too flexible.

[Paul the Human]

He was a staunch Darwinist and Atheist so it is probably the third option.

Heheh! Well... if he really said that, he was being facetious or grossly generalizing. Natural selection is not difficult to understand (though you seem to have a spot of trouble), but it is a long, drawn out, and complicated process.

Anyway... you have strengthened my belief that your perceptions are skewed by your desire that your god be real. I'll back out of the way now and let you get back to your previous discussion.

---

You never answered my question though, how do you know that is why people live in groups and some animals do not? Did anyone observe these things to happen? Why do some people not live in groups then? Is it because evolution favored these people at the same time it was favoring the people who lived in groups? Sounds like your theory is far too flexible.

'Evolution' is not some mysterious force that goes around changing things at will. You really do not get it.

[Statler Waldorf]

He was a staunch Darwinist and Atheist so it is probably the third option.

Heheh! Well... if he really said that, he was being facetious or grossly generalizing. Natural selection is not difficult to understand (though you seem to have a spot of trouble), but it is a long, drawn out, and complicated process.

Anyway... you have strengthened my belief that your perceptions are skewed by your desire that your god be real. I'll back out of the way now and let you get back to your previous discussion.

You should teach a course in back-handed insults. You did just commit the old natural selection = evolution equivocation fallacy.

You have strengthened my view that your own depravity has blinded you from seeing what is so obvious in life. Cheers Paul, at least we both love Iced Earth, that's one thing we've got!

---

'Evolution' is not some mysterious force that goes around changing things at will. You really do not get it.

Your inability to defend the theory leads me to believe you don't get it either.