Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #294]

F

or the 3rd time:
I'm being very specific here and am talking about an activity I hold dear for myself, but you, you for some imagine reason I'm going to claim you don't qualify and cannot hold this activity that I value so much for myself. This thinking is evil IMO.

Is what you do an activity or is a an act done out of love?

Is it an act done for self-satisfaction or is it done for the benefit of the other person?

Intimacy is not an activity it is the communication of a lifelong committed relationship. When intimacy ceases being the communication of a lifelong committed relationship then intimacy is no longer intimacy but the fulfillment of someone's lust no matter what gender you are intimate with.

Pardon my intrusion into your conversation, but I just gotta say - There is no such thing as a selfless act.

Thanks.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #299]

It doesn't need to be defined. What ever the concept is, or however I define it, it would be wrong for me to hold it dear for myself, yet to restrict it from others for the reasons I have already mentioned.

Ok do you agree with my definition of love?

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres

It's like you are ignoring my explanations. Why it that?
Again - Copy/paste: I really appreciate this thing here and I enjoy it.
You don't deserve to have this thing that I enjoy, because gay, or because Muslim, or because of skin color.

This is not explaining anything. You are trying to equate groups that are not equitable.

It is not just evil to restrict love, however one defines it. It is wrong to restrict anything I hold dear for myself from another qualifying human being.

It can be loving if to restrict love if it is better for someone else's health and well-being if love is restricted.

What quantifies a person to receive this affection from someone else?

You're only focusing on affection due to being gay and not allowing yourself to be who you are IMO. You're missing the forest for the trees.
I hold dear that I'm able to obtain a drivers license. It would be wrong to restrict gays, Asians or blue eyes humans from driving, even if they may speed more often then another group one might try to compare them to. No love involved, just compassion and empathy.

This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. What quantifies a wife to receive more affection from a husband than he shows to anyone else? (or at least that is the way it is supposed to be)

Is there a difference in your level of love between someone that you marry, visit in the hospital or go watch play sports? If there is a difference how would you quantify it?
What does that have to do with getting a drivers license for example.
You are trying to obfuscate here I'm afraid.

Not at all. I am simply trying to point out how we have different levels of affection for people in our lives and you seem to be equating all relationships on the same level.

I hold dear being with the one I feel I love:

So you are defining love as a feeling, something you can fall into or out of.

the ability to vote and I hold dear being able to drive.

I am sure most loyal husbands would not equate their love for their wife, with their love voting or being able to drive. Their love goes way beyond either of those activities. That is because love is not an activity or a feeling but love is a commitment to another person to always look out for the others' best interest.


You deserve the same IMO.

IMO?

You can try to convince me that you don't deserve what I deserve and hold dear, but my compassion and empathy will make it hard for me to accept admittedly.

No idea what you are trying to communicate here.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Kenisaw in post #302]

Pardon my intrusion into your conversation, but I just gotta say - There is no such thing as a selfless act.

Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

Love is never what you get. Only about what you give and what you are willing to sacrifice for the one you love. Have you never seen the end of Casablanca?

"Of All The Gin Joints In All The Towns In All The World, She Walks Into Mine."

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #300]

My argument is not that Gay, Muslim and skin color are equal. It would be wrong to restrict something I hold dear from someone else for such reasons though. That is my argument.

Gay, Muslim, and skin color are not equal. Being Gay and Muslim involves worldview choices and skin color is a morphological trait.

And yes someone should think twice about choosing to love someone with a different worldview, especially if the worldview you have is important to you.

(The other two are chosen charateristics.)
One can't choose to be gay from my experience. I do not have the ability to walk in to a male strip club and get aroused. I cannot choose such a thing. Therefore, it cannot be a choice. If it were a choice, why wouldn't you choose to be straight?

This is just entirely false. If a husband is faithful to his wife he will choose not to go into a strip club out of respect for the commitment that he has made to his wife. If he meets someone that he is attracted to and can talk with, he will limit his exposure to that person out of respect for the commitment that he has made to his wife.

Attraction does not have to equate to action.

If homosexuality is a destructive behavior as statistics seem to imply then attraction can be changed by different actions. I have known many men who have changed their attraction by different actions.

Is it an act done for self-satisfaction or is it done for the benefit of the other person?

Depends. Am I on my way to eat a delicious steak or driving a homeless person to a food shelf?
I like steak and being fed. I would not seek to restrict such things from another human.

You seem to like to try to equate things that are not equitable to make your point. This type of error usually indicates a fallacy in the original premise.

Restricting a relationship is not like eating. A person can survive without having a relationship with a particular person. A person cannot survive without eating.

[Diagoras]

And yes someone should think twice about choosing to love someone with a different worldview, especially if the worldview you have is important to you.

One can't choose to be gay from my experience. I do not have the ability to walk in to a male strip club and get aroused. I cannot choose such a thing. Therefore, it cannot be a choice. If it were a choice, why wouldn't you choose to be straight?

This is just entirely false. If a husband is faithful to his wife he will choose not to go into a strip club out of respect for the commitment that he has made to his wife.

I suggest there’s a point to address in that example of a husband going into a strip club:

Firstly, Clownboat was making a point about homosexuality not being a choice. It’s unclear in your example of the husband and wife whether the husband is actually supposed to be gay or not. If not, then the whole example isn’t really addressing the point Clownboat is making, and would be straw manning. However, if you are intending to make a point that a gay married man can - by his actions - choose to remain faithful, then the example still has problems. By the first quoted point you made above, the husband should have ‘chosen’ not to love his wife. His worldview (homosexual) is different from his wife’s, and presumably shouldn’t have entered into a commitment with her in the first place.


I’m not sure what this has to do with the original debate topic, but by now I’ve grown used to seeing inapposite tangents.

[Dimmesdale]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

I don't see any evidence on the left side. Just data. Data is not a statement of fact. You need an interpretation (and an accurate one) for data for it to mean something, i.e, be "true" or "false." Otherwise, it's just information. You can do anything you want with information. People have been known to "spin" the data for millennia.

This picture proves nothing. It is a rhetorical trick. That's all.

[Tcg]

I don't see any evidence on the left side. Just data. Data is not a statement of fact. You need an interpretation for data for it to mean something, i.e, be "true" or "false." Otherwise, it's just information. You can do anything you want with information. People have been known to "fudge the data" for millennia.

You start off by agreeing that the left side presents data. Then you seem to imply that it is fudged data. Which one is your counter argument?


Tcg

[Dimmesdale]

I don't see any evidence on the left side. Just data. Data is not a statement of fact. You need an interpretation for data for it to mean something, i.e, be "true" or "false." Otherwise, it's just information. You can do anything you want with information. People have been known to "fudge the data" for millennia.

You start off by agreeing that the left side presents data. Then you seem to imply that it is fudged data. Which one is your counter argument?


Tcg

Actually, it's good you corrected me. By "fudged" data I meant "spinned data". The data itself may be accurate, but people can spin it any which way they choose. That seems to sum up much modern scientific theory in my view.

This is why, without an interpretation of said data that is actually accurate, you can have data, without it amounting to anything like "evidence."

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

I don't see any evidence on the left side. Just data. Data is not a statement of fact. You need an interpretation (and an accurate one) for data for it to mean something, i.e, be "true" or "false." Otherwise, it's just information. You can do anything you want with information. People have been known to "fudge the data" for millennia.

This picture proves nothing. It is a rhetorical trick. That's all.

Data IS fact.

da·ta
/ˈdadə,ˈdādə/
noun: data
facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.
(Source: Oxford Languages)
________________________

data
da·​ta | \ ˈdā-tə
, ˈda- also ˈdä-
\
1: factual information (such as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation
(Source: Merriam-Webster)
_______________________

data
noun [ U, + sing/pl verb ]
us
/ˈdeɪ.t̬ə/ uk
/ˈdeɪ.tə/
B2
information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, or information in an electronic form that can be stored and used by a computer:
(source: Cambridge Dictionary)

And obviously the picture isn't meant to prove anything. All it's meant to do is show the vast difference in evidence for each position: the pro-evolution position consists of an abundance of factual evidence (data), whereas the Christian anti-evolution evidence consists of stories.


.

[Dimmesdale]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

I don't see any evidence on the left side. Just data. Data is not a statement of fact. You need an interpretation (and an accurate one) for data for it to mean something, i.e, be "true" or "false." Otherwise, it's just information. You can do anything you want with information. People have been known to "fudge the data" for millennia.

This picture proves nothing. It is a rhetorical trick. That's all.

Data IS fact.

da·ta
/ˈdadə,ˈdādə/
noun: data
facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.
(Source: Oxford Languages)
________________________

data
da·​ta | \ ˈdā-tə
, ˈda- also ˈdä-
\
1: factual information (such as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation
(Source: Merriam-Webster)
_______________________

data
noun [ U, + sing/pl verb ]
us
/ˈdeɪ.t̬ə/ uk
/ˈdeɪ.tə/
B2
information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, or information in an electronic form that can be stored and used by a computer:
(source: Cambridge Dictionary)

And obviously the picture isn't meant to prove anything. All it's meant to do is show the vast difference in evidence for each position: the pro-evolution position consists of an abundance of factual evidence (data), whereas the Christian anti-evolution evidence consists of stories.


.

Data is only fact in relation to itself alone. It is a type of signifier. It may signifiy findings that our senses uncover. What it can't do, sans an interpretation, is provide support for any other fact besides itself, i.e. a factual conclusion (like evolution).

Just like, if we have evidence admitted in a court room. We may know, for instance, that the accused who killed a black man had a long history of racist behavior, that he had bought a gun a week prior to the killing, etc. We may bring that to bear on the verdict. But it may so happen that his alibi proves true, and renders all the other evidence irrelevant by that sole fact. Unless we can consistently and coherently put together all the facts in a type of argument or narrative that makes sense, the individual data points can't yield any sort of definitive conclusion. We may introduce bias of course, but that is not even data. That's when data appeals to us so strongly that we willfully jump the gun. This is what has happened with evolution in my view.

So, the picture still has nothing to do with evidence. Only the appearance of evidence, which isn't demonstrated in the least.