b. absolve the Creator from being a negligent parent?
Excellent question!!!
Across the span of twenty-years have I endeavored to answer that very question. And yes, I have both answered that question and questioned my answer to that question. However, what I am now questioning is whether or not I can provide an answer which will satisfy your mind like my mind is now mostly satisfied.
Next, I then question whether or not I should provide my answer. After all, the satisfaction that I derive from my answer is founded upon twenty-years of intermittent examination and experience. As a result, that intellectual journey in the pursuit of a logical conclusion is a part of why my answer is satisfactory to me.
So, I must ask: Do you want my answer or would you prefer to know why that question should be answered?
Hello stranger:)
This post evidences receipt of your latest reply.
Shortly, I will address your contentions with an alternative written explanation.
(I need some time to consider your conclusions. I don’t simply disagree for the sake of disagreement.)
Note: Call me stubborn, but don’t call me inconsiderate:)
It is an empirical theory, meaning it is based on experimentation.
Thought experiments and hence not empirical!
You deluded yourself because of preference for a different explanation, is what I'm reading.
Your inference is derived from the imagination of your mind, is what I infer.
Again, why do you waste our time with futility?
If you disagree with my conclusions it is because you believe I am ignorant of the subject. If I examine the evidence you submit, written evidence that is, you assert that I am deluded if I submit a conclusion which contradicts yours. Either way, you are failing to debate the subject and are shifting your argument back and forth betwixt what you call ignorance and/or delusion on my part. This is not how a rational adult conducts logical debate. It is how a religious zealot protects his faith from scrutiny.
(I too can argue ad hominem.)
You missed the point. Evolution causes divergence in populations.
You don’t understand the subject term of your assertion.
Evolution is an abstract term. It is not the cause or effect of that which it describes.
Asserting that evolution causes divergence in populations is analogous to asserting that democracy causes the divergence of government.
Dogs are diverged from wolves, and specifically certain breeds of dogs cannot naturally interbreed with wolves, or other types of dogs due to physical barriers (size difference).
This is not a contradiction of my assertions.
Evolution works because a mutation is selected for, or a specific allele, and this shapes the population.
Mutation shapes the population of what species? You are not providing any evidence that mutations cause genetic incompatibility within a species.
In the case of dogs and wolves, dogs have totally different fur, skeletal proportions, breeding cycles, and behaviour.
So, are you asserting that dogs and wolves can’t interbreed either naturally or artificially because they are not genetically compatible?
If we had no idea where dogs came from we'd assume that each breed was a different species and apart from wolves, due to morphology.
Agreed! Your camp would assume morphology as an alternative theory to protect the theory of Evolution. After all, the theory of evolution is absolutely irrefutable.
Try researching canid evolution for wolf evolution.
Funny!
In a vain effort to direct me to accept, as truth, your evolutionary claims, you are directing me to research evolution for wolf evolution, all of which evidenced by a timeline chart which is nothing more than another theory formulated to conform to the theory of evolution.
Perhaps I should direct you to research the bible of god for the existence of god.
Evolution accounts for diversification, changes in allele frequencies in a population, and speciation. You are mistaken.
Okay, then I suppose that you also think that the theory of evolution does not account for the origin of species; if I am mistaken as you claim.
Whatever you call yourself, you are incorrect on many fronts.
Don’t feel too lowly of yourself because I understand your opinions are rarely correct on any front. Otherwise you would not continue to demonstrate sophomoric inferential skills of deductive and inductive reasoning.
As I said before, denying evolution is like defending a flat Earth. There's just no way that the genetic, molecular, fossil, anatomical, and experimental evidence is all a coincidence supporting the same thing.
Agreed, the absence of evidence for the origin of species!
That's because you don't know much about the subject.
The very beginning of life dealt with primitive protocells and horizontal gene transfer.
Great, an un-testable hypothesis in support of a theory!
There was no breeding to speak of and you could say that we had a soup of mutts. Everything descending from that transitioned to a less hard-to-trace inheritance, and we got to your basic eukaryotic life which at this point had more emphasis on diversification in the way we know now. In other words, live diversifies like branches on a tree, and eventually the branches cannot interbreed due to more and more accumulated genetic differences producing sterile offspring. That's how it works.
While I am chuckling, I must ask the question:
How many theories or hypotheses are necessary to validate a theory of religious proportions such as Evolutionary theory?
Go ahead and include geological, cosmological, and metaphysical theories in your final answer.
The illegal Mexican immigrants who have sought and found refuge in the U.S are not fleeing the debauchery that plagues Mexico. They are spreading the debauchery into the U.S. Consequently, they are debauching, following invasion, the U.S. to make it just like the land they left.
Do they not fly the Mexican flag in the U.S.? Yes, just like the fly it in Mexico, in the front of a vermin infested residence wherein twenty people split the cost of rent of a two room and bath shack which is owned by some moronic liberal seeking to prevent a foreclosure from his favored WallStreet Bank! (There are some conservatives who are equally guilty of the same. Maybe they are closet liberals who are too afraid of being hostile toward foreign invaders. All for the sake of exploiting a gaggle of illegal, Mexican immigrants to protect their social status and a cherished ‘Credit score’!)
What you mean to say is that you know of no empirical evidence for evolution.
No! Evolution is not a sensory experience. It is, however, a theory that is derived from an application of reason.
Of course, if you research it, you'd find that over the last ten thousand years humanity has evolved wolves into dogs, feral cats into kittens, chickens from wild fowl, pigeons, cattle, all manner of animals, and we've taken simple grasses and turned them into corn, rye, wheat, and so on.
Unfortunately, I wasted my time examining a large body of supposed evidence for evolution. Consequently I am aware of the root problem with the theory as well as the fallacious abstractions of the proponents of the theory.
Let’s tackle your examples of the evidence for evolution beginning with wolves and dogs.
Dogs are a variety of wolves; as such, they can interbreed.
Where is the evidence that they, wolves, have slowly and incrementally evolved from some other species which is not genetically compatible for interbreeding?
Should we therefore imagine that the evidence has not been discovered though it must exist?
Btw, the theory of evolution was formulated to explain the origin of species and not the variants of a biological family.
(Consider this a precursor of the logical hurdles you must overcome in order to logically persuade me that the theory of evolution explains, with evidence, the origin of species.)
Reminder: I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. I am however one who is convinced that both camps rely solely upon fallacious arguments to advance their views. None of which means you do as well. It merely means that you must appeal to sound reason in order to validate a conclusion I can accept on the grounds of truth and reason.
Think of it this way, I think that all life originates from one life source. But nobody has yet to explain, with empirical evidence, the how and why of all other forms of life which are not genetically capable of interbreeding with the original source.
Again, it doesn't matter whether my statement comes off as opinion it is still a fact.
Yes, your statement is a fact. But it just doesn’t have any logical connection with reasonable discourse. Specifically:
…trying to refute evolution is like trying to defend a flat Earth.”
The Earth is a tangible object. The theory of evolution is an assertion. One does not analyze the theory of evolution like the Earth is analyzed. Blah, blah blah!
Your analogy would be less illogical if you were to assert:
…trying to refute evolution is like trying to refute a spherical Earth.”
Yet it too is an illogical comparison, despite the modification.
Now for a logical comparison the following suffices:
…trying to refute evolution is like trying to refute the Big Bang.”
I know you believe that the theory of evolution is irrefutable.Therefore why do you waste our time with futility? It is not as though you question your belief. And nor is it as though my belief is known. However you can know this of me: Most Evolutionists and Creationists are prejudicially faithful to their ignorance.
I'm not disputing evolution, like a spherical earth I am saying that it is beyond doubt because so much supports it. Try going to the produce section of a grocery store. That is evolution, with all the cultivars made from totally different native species.
Evolution is not an empirical observation. Furthermore, cultivars denote artificial and not natural selection; unless of course you subscribe to the theory that all species originate from artificial selection.
It doesn't matter how you want to frame what he asked you, trying to refute evolution is like trying to defend a flat Earth. You can't "win" at it because you've chosen the wrong position.
It is purely your opinion that that analogy is valid. None of which is an argument that validates your position or invalidates my position.
Getting back to our Earth example, we've been in space, seen the Earth from afar, sent probes to other worlds, the issue is settled and it is assumed that the evidence speaks well enough for itself that we don't need to explain how seeing Earth from afar validates its spherical nature.
By disputing evolution you're in the same position but simply aren't aware of it yet.
My previous statement still stands.
Are you thinking that evolution is a subject of observation? If so, what are its attributes outside its written definition?
Is this an invite to refute the inferences of which you already believe are irrefutable?
If so, then there is no point in wasting my time attempting to overcome your belief of the irrefutability of evolutionary theory.
You have assumed an absolute and therefore are not subject to considering contradictory propositions.
Essentially, you believe the debate is over. I on the other hand assert that the debate is now rationally impossible because of the absolute nature of your camp’s opinion.
Furthermore, what you are asking me to refute is thus:
The proponents of evolutionary theory believe the theory is irrefutable.
Ergo, that is why you continue to claim that such and such is evidence of evolution without arguing why such and such is evidence of evolution.
In this case I'm talking about beliefs that are held before one hears about evolution, specifically which can affect how a person responds to it.
Then they are, simply, convictions. There is no need to modify the term ‘conviction’ to express your thought.
‘Conviction with prejudice’ is a better term.
It's really not that complicated.
No kidding! But it is a fine piece of sophistry.
Let me now apply your description according to its logical contrary, post-conviction: beliefs that are held after one hears about evolution, specifically which affect how a person responds to it.
Pre-conviction?
This is an excellent example of a hyphenated perversion of both logic and the English language.
It is nearly identical to pre-knowledge. And it is identical with pre-belief.
How can one know today what it is he/she shall believe tomorrow? If this is possible we could use another hyphenated perversion and couple the terms post-belief or post-conviction.
My question was neither hypothetical nor irrelevant.
Then strike the term “if” from your assertion/question. Until you do, it is hypothetical.
Furthermore, strike the terms “then is it”. Until then, it is also a rhetorical question.
Lastly, it is irrelevant because it is does not the answer the question of this debate. Why? We are not debating the purpose of taxation. We are debating whether or not the attribute “legalized theft” is predicable of taxation in truth.
Theft is not a payment, taxes are a payment. If someone breaks into your home and takes your money they are not going to then mow your lawn and take out your garbage afterward. The reason you don't have a choice to pay taxes is because as long as you live in this country you are benefiting from the services provided by the government.
Again, we are not debating the purpose/s of taxation. What do you not understand about debating a proposition?
The reason you don't have a choice to pay taxes is because as long as you live in this country you are benefiting from the services provided by the government.
Perfect, you are now on record of admitting that taxation is theft, by inference. Clearly, you are aware of the fact that taxation is theft. Consequently all you are doing is obfuscating ‘theft’ by renaming it ‘taxation’. How is this so?
Simple, “you don't have a choice to pay taxes”!
Forego your inclination to again argue the purpose of taxation in order to negate ‘theft’ as an attribute of taxation.
The foundation of the U.S. is built upon freedom from taxation, hence the war of independence.
Clearly, the King of England, George, was willing to kill taxpayers in order to benefit the taxpayers. Mind you, all of which was tax-payer funded.
Therefore, he stole from others in order to steal from more.
You are assuming the truth of your conclusion without proving the conclusion. Hence you are “begging the question”.
You must prove that the evidence is proof of something that is not proof of anything else.
Claiming that something is evidence of a claim is not the proof of a claim. If you claimed: “Semi-trucks create craters and therefore some of the craters on the moon were created by semi-trucks”, I would regard that claim with equal contempt on the grounds of logic alone as well.
Here is the inescapable fact: Your camp does not have enough evidence to prove the claim of evidence. Claiming otherwise is again begging the question.
Answer this one question, true or false:
You were taught what to think long before you were taught how to think. ]
I ask that question because I am aware that most proponents of evolutionary biology accepted the premises thereof long before, if ever, they were taught how to logically infer.
Agreed. (Is this an admission that chance exists?)
Yes, artificially, and this is the crux of my contention.
Chance is an attribute that is predicated of our knowledge. Chance is not an attribute that is predicable of any subject other than the knowledge of man. We can’t prove that something exists by chance because our knowledge of its origin is derived from ignorance.
Scientifically, our minds tend to associate cause and consequence. However, there comes a point that that knowledge is based on a purely metaphysical, a priori and not empirical, knowledge. Consequently, if we assert that something exists by chance, we are equally asserting that we do not know the cause of why something exists. After all, all that exists must have a cause. And chance is not the cause of anything.
So yes, we may rightfully use ‘chance’ as a term to describe willful or inescapable ignorance, but we can’t prove that chance is knowledge. Ultimately, chance is equivalent to ignorance. Therefore, chance is the absence of our knowledge.
Whereby shall I infer order?
Nothing which exists is both the cause and consequence of its existence. And in the case of our personal, individuality, every attribute that is predicable of you and I must have a cause that is not predicable of chance.
My conclusion: All things exist as a consequence of a cause; chance is not the cause of any consequence. Rather it describes the limits of our knowledge of cause and consequence and/or our hopes. All of which evidences that ‘chance’ exists only in our minds apart from any external empirical evidence.
I’ll await your reply before I continue…
The whole point of so badly wanting amnesty is because they know they will be able to recruit them to their ideological warfare.
True!
It is as though they are importing the “Mexican ideology”. Perhaps they should deport themselves to Mexico where their ideology is free to debauch and destroy themselves much like the Mexicans have successfully accomplished the same. Like a swarm of locusts, they destroy, devour, and turn to shit everything they land upon.
(Note: Have you noticed that any debate question which requires independent, cognitive thought is void of MSM talking points?)
Btw, thanks for contributing to the debate despite the fact that other’s have yet to receive their talking points.
Mainstream media does not support the illegal-immigration of any people who are opposed to their ideology. But, any people who supports their ideology should be free to enter this country and oppose their ideological counterparts.
Think of it as recruiting illegal foreigners to promote their agenda as long as the same foreigners oppose their ideological enemies.
No. Winning the lottery means winning the money.
To win the money you must have all six numbers.
If you buy tickets for all the possible number combinations you can eliminate the chance of not having the correct numbers.
But if you do that, you will have spent more than the value of the jack pot, so you have not "won the lottery".
That is both true and false. But that is not the reason why I asked the question. Let me now reason from what I think I understand about your position concerning chance.
There are two principal parties of all lotteries, they are: the author/s of the lottery and the lottery players. And of the two there is only one party which does not lose: the author.
So, is the lottery a game of chance or a game of order?
Do we call it a game of chance because there are many losers, or do we call it a game of order because the authors will always derive the benefits of the intended purpose of the lottery?
Obviously, the players are taking a chance that they will win or lose. But the authors are not leaving their benefits of the lottery to chance.
Which is it, chance or order?
(I’ll move on to the question of egg fertilization after we settle the above.)
My taxes go to the army for them to follow the orders. If they lock me up - I have consented to their actions.
That is not consent. It is surrender. One cannot consent to an ultimatum. Shall I explain this in detail?
What I have not agreed to is the government's decision to lock me up. It's the government who I have the problem with not the army.
So, you have a problem with the decision to “lock you up” but you don’t have a problem with being locked up? This is not compatible. Either you have a problem with both the order and its affect, or you have a problem with neither; but you can’t, reasonably, separate cause and effect and then affirm you have a problem with the cause and no problem with its effect.
If I'm not being hypocritical that is. Nobody would truly admit this though. ;)
I hope you can agree with that.
Here is what I agree with:
As long as you pay taxes by consent, taxation is not theft. But, the moment you decide you no longer consent to it, taxation is legalized theft.
Remember, the legalization of an act is not the negation of a criminal act. Furthermore, justice is a natural, universal concept that is common to all men and not subject to a society of criminals who believe that the writ of man establishes justice. After all, this debate can be reduced to one, compound, propositional question:
Justice is not legal or illegal.
Evidence:
Not robbing your neighbor is not legal. There is no law that legalizes the negative action of not robbing your neighbor. This is an evidence of the existence of justice. But contrariwise, just because men can write and obey laws which are thusly legal, does not mean those actions are above and immune to natural justice. See, whether it is legal or illegal, justice is the judge of both.
Have you heard the expression: “Justice is blind.”?
Is this reference to the "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
No!
The currency (fiat) of the United States is the Federal Reserve “Note”; as you full well know. All notes evidence debt.
The creation of all Federal Reserve notes is authorized only by the Fed. No other entity has this authority. The U.S. mint does not have this authority, only the Fed.
Answer this question:
Is there enough money in the system to satisfy all debts, public and private? With interest, the answer is an obvious “no”.
Credit is extended to those who can repay their debts. If the Banks have determined that the debts of this country have exceeded its ability to repay its outstanding debts, then debt is the problem. This is why banks have reduced credit issuance; we are overly indebted to them. I do not think they perceive that additional debt will enable the U.S. to pay its debt liabilities.
(We owe the banks more money than they have created. Borrowing more money from them only exacerbates that problem.)
