The following discussion took place due to the video Darwinian Evolution’s Occult, Pagan, New Age Roots.
A certain walkergarya commented
Old world primates have a unique version of color vision with a unique mutation of the genes that control the development of the cones that sense the different wavelengths of light. Most mammals see the high frequency light, the blues to green and the middle, greens to yellow. About 40 million years ago the ancestor to old world primates had a gene duplication of the gene that develops the cones in the retina for greens and yellow and then there was a mutation of the duplicated gene that made the resultant cones sensitive to light at the red end of the visible spectrum. ONLY primates have this gene, we have it because we too are primates and this is a direct example of mutations adding new complexity to the genome and by tracing these genes we can trace our genetic heritage.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Mutations do not add, they duplicate or keep from manifesting.
walkergarya
Wrong again. Most animals do not see in full color. The gene that allows humans to see yellows, blues and reds is only found in one group of animals, primates of which we are a member species. Some 40 million years ago a gene duplication mutation occured doubling the OPN1MW gene sensitive to the yellow/green section of the light spectrum and a later mutation of this resulted in the OPN1LW gene that enables primates having this to see the color red. This mutation is unique to primates and as a primate, we too have this form of color vision.
Nylon-Eating Bacteria and Evolutionary Progress | The …
https://www.icr.org › article › nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress
Aug 25, 2008 – Many supporters of evolutionary theory have claimed that nylon-eating bacteria strongly demonstrate the kind of evolution that can create new …
Ken Ammi
“again”? Anyhow, you are sidestepping the point I made so at this point I will ask how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for truth, logic or ethics, 2) for holding to these and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?
walkergarya
Truth is beneficial because only true data is useful.
If you ask me for directions to the grocery store, only proper directions get you there.
If I lie to you, that is wasting your time and energy and I cannot expect you to be helpful to me in the future.
Logic has it’s only basis in philosophy, there are no fundamentals of logic in your bible or dogma, they are entirely separate from religion.
Morality and ethics are the social guidelines that we use to co-exist in our society. I will move a child’s bicycle off the road but will not steal it. I will try not to infringe on others while doing what I want.
As your bible only really deals with what pisses off your imaginary god, it really does not deal with how to get along with other people. Oh and no book that allows for slavery can be a guide to moral behavior.
Ken Ammi
I am glad I asked because you do not have premises upon which to make any of the statements you have made.
For example, I asked, how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for truth…” and you sidestepped that fundamental issue and opted to begin with a conclusion, again. That you assert that “Truth is beneficial” due to pragmatic reason is not the issue, the issue is whence comes truth on your worldview and, of course, why is adhering to (what on your worldview is accidental) truth an imperative?
Although, you see to attempt to butters your pragmatism by stating that “only true data is useful” but you are again beginning with the conclusion that we should adhere to that which is useful and this is also pragmatic but also inaccurate on your worldview.
If nothing caused nothing or an eternal uncaused first cause piece of matter to explode for no reason and made everything without meaning—then throw in a bunch of accidents that result in life, brains, you, your thoughts, etc.—then untrue data is as useful as true data because in terms of Darwinian survival mechanisms, since life (which came about accidentally) only cares about survival (for some accidental reason) then one could survive by ascertaining empirical truth or being utterly deluded and it matters not via which you survive.
I asked “how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for…logic…” and you merely moved the goalpost to philosophy so, fine then, the question becomes how does your worldview provide you a premise for philosophy.
You also merely committed a tu quoque logical fallacy by referring to the “bible or dogma.”
I asked “how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for…ethics…” and you mashed “Morality and ethics” together and sidestepped the question and opted to provide a dictionary style pragmatic definition of “are the social guidelines that we use to co-exist in our society.” And you pulled another tu quoque and also demonstrated a shocking lack of basic level knowledge of the Bible.
I also asked about “2) for holding to these and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?” regarding truth, logic, and ethics and you sidestepped those as well.
Thus, when you refer to that the Bible “allows for slavery” you merely imply condemnation of that, you merely assert that condemnation on your own self-appointed authority, and you failed to provide your worldview’s premise for condemning it.
Walkergarya (note that this person begins to fragment my statements so as to reply
I am glad I asked because you do not have premises upon which to make any of the statements you have made.
For example, I asked, how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for truth…” and you sidestepped that fundamental issue and opted to begin with a conclusion, again. That you assert that “Truth is beneficial” due to pragmatic reason is not the issue, the issue is whence comes truth on your worldview and, of course, why is adhering to (what on your worldview is accidental) truth an imperative?
If nothing caused nothing or an eternal uncaused first cause piece of matter to explode for no reason and made everything without meaning—
I asked “how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for…logic…” and you merely moved the goalpost to philosophy so, fine then, the question becomes how does your worldview provide you a premise for philosophy.
You also merely committed a tu quoque logical fallacy by referring to the “bible or dogma.”
I asked “how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for…ethics…” and you mashed “Morality and ethics” together and sidestepped the question and opted to provide a dictionary style pragmatic definition of “are the social guidelines that we use to co-exist in our society.” And you pulled another tu quoque and also demonstrated a shocking lack of basic level knowledge of the Bible.
Thus, when you refer to that the Bible “allows for slavery” you merely imply condemnation of that, you merely assert that condemnation on your own self-appointed authority, and you failed to provide your worldview’s premise for condemning it.
Ken Ammi
Friend, are you pro-life?
Now, let us dig into your worldview so that you can see that your supposed premise is no such thing. According to your worldview your “thinking” is accidental, is based on an accidental brain, house within an accidental body, sitting atop an accidental plant, orbiting an accidental sun, in an accidental solar system, in an accidental galaxy, within an accidental universe, and you “think” that your “thinking” is accurately representing an accidental reality/accidental truth. Yet, even if it is: so what? Your worldview has no imperative for accurately discerning reality/truth.
If anything, quite the opposite is the case: if, as many Atheists how demanded, our purpose if to survive (for some accidental non-reason) and reproduce (for some accidental non-reason) then we can do that without regards to reality or truth. After all, most humans have been theist, they have lived just fine, they have been the majority, you subjectively “think” that theism is delusion and yet, so what? It is clearly the most successful Darwinian survival mechanism which has ever been accidented—so why are you attempting to damage people’s ability to survive?
Thus, when someone who believes that they are an ape is pounding their chest at me I hope you will forgive me for not being impressed.
Thus, if you are a consistent “thinker,” which you cannot be on your worldview, you would conclude that the truth, logic and ethics about which I have been asking you are as accidental as you supposed ability to accidentally discern them. But you will not go there because you want you’re your being a mere animal cake and want to eat making demands of others too.
For example, you say “Truth is beneficial” (apparently not to you) but you leave out telling me why that is any sort of premise so that even if it is beneficial to an accentual ape: so what?
Also, I have been referring to ethics and you keep referring to morality so you are moving the goalpost since on a technical level, they are very different.
It is fascinating that you call “nothing caused nothing or an eternal uncaused first cause piece of matter to explode for no reason and made everything without meaning” a “screwed up” “description of Big Bang Cosmology” but you do not even attempt to say why (as per your MO) thus, I will categorize that as another of your emotive reactions.
You then demand that if I “have no clue what you are talking about you should keep your mouth shut…” but you have no premise upon which to demand that I do anything—again, not impressed with your mere chest pounding.
Indeed, “Our understanding of logic has been developed by philosophers” which, as usual, means that you are missing the point: they develop our understanding of something that already existed, that we did not create so whence came it? Like you said, “They did not invent any of it, it was discovered” but you stop there. As per your worldview: it came about by accident as did philosopher’s ability to understand it. So again, you painted yourself into a corner by lacking an imperative, you have yet again not moved from “is” to “ought.”
Now, if you want to discuss slavery I would encourage you to first provide a premise for truth, logic and ethics, then understand the difference between ethics and morality, then understand that the vague English term “slavery” has been used for many things including indentured servitude, then tell me what is wrong with one ape enslaving another, etc., etc., etc.
So when you say “in my world view, all people should be equal before the law and for opportunity” there is utterly nothing in your worldview that would justify that, nothing that would make is a “should,” and is mere speciesism.
walkergarya
Friend,
you are beginning with a conclusion
and are ignoring that creationism, biblical theology, is that upon which the scientific method was established.
<BULL[****]. Science is based on evidence, not the bull[****] dogma of your death cult and dogma. >
Now, in order to keep from jumping to conclusions: how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for truth,
logic
or ethics,
2) for holding to these and
3) for demanding that others do likewise?
Now, you may answer the same questions.
how does your worldview provide you 1) a premise for truth, logic or ethics, 2) for holding to these and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?
Ken Ammi
Please mind your manners.
Indeed, we do not know each other but that is slowly changing.
I appreciate you admitting that “you are beginning with a conclusion” since your worldview fails to provide you a premise for anything so that you are forced to do so—the only problem is that, that utterly discredits you from the get go.
Ironically, you wrote, “The road to truth is paved with evidence NOT assertions” but since you admit to beginning with conclusions then that is a mere assertion and you hypocritically contradicted yourself. This is key since you are not facing the fact that “The road to truth is paved with evidence NOT assertions” is pure assertion and I have been begging you to back up and begin at the beginning. The problem is that cannot do so because you will have to admit that your beginning is that nothing accidentally caused nothing (or an eternal uncaused first cause something) to accidentally explode for no reason and made everything without meaning which, somehow, leads to you making demands.
That “Positive claims require positive evidence” may be true, but on your worldview is it is simply another mere jump to a conclusion of an assertion.
That “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” has the same problems but additionally, it is preposterous: there is no standard of measurement called extraordinariness and besides, extraordinary claims require adequate evidence.
That “claims asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence” may be true, but on your worldview is it is simply another mere jump to a conclusion of an assertion.
Ironically, you begin with a conclusion again in stating “Science is based on evidence” since you are ignoring that there is a premise for science and beside, you moved the goalpost: I referred to the historical facts about “the scientific method” and you referred to “Science.”
You refer to BS “dogma” as a jump to conclusion mere assertion and refer to “your death cult” without a premise to condemn death cults.
Now, you seem unaware of what is meant by premise since you merely provided something like dictionary definitions instead. For example, I ask for your worldview’s premise for truth and you claim “true is established by EVIDENCE AND TESTING YOUR CONCLUSIONS AGAINST THAT EVIDENCE” but that is not the point the point is how did truth come about in the first place and your worldview’s answer, for which you have no evidence, is that truth came about by accident.
Then then ironically claim “ASSERTIONS FROM AUTHORITY ARE WORTH NOTHING AND THAT IS ALL YOUR BIBLE IS” which is a mere assertion.
And I discern that you are finally getting the point since when I ask about your worldview’s premise for logic, all you can say is “Logic simply is.” Now this is a problem for you on many levels including that, indeed, your worldview’s answer is that logic came about by accident. The other problem is that your worldview utterly fails to go from “is” to “ought” so that even if “Logic simply is” you cannot tell me how or why logic is an imperative. For example, that poison ivy “is” does not mean that I “ought” to put it in my salad.
You assert “There is nothing about logic in your bible so you cannot claim any authority on logic from that” which is not only a conclusion without an argument but is a classic case of missing the point, not understanding the issue and being literally ignorant of the Bible’s contents, please see: https://truefreethinker.com/?s=PZ+Myers
Walkergarya
Please mind your manners. You are not my friend? Well, we will have to change that. You condemn those who “misrepresent history and…science” but that is a jump to a conclusion: what is your premise? Do you really thing that the three words “It does not” equates a “substantive reply”? No wonder you believe in evolution—of course, we will have to see what you mean by “evolution” as well as to which of the iterations of that worldview-philosophy you adhere. You say “The ToE is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT STANDS ON EVIDENCE” but you do not tell us why that matters nor what such evidence is.
Ken Ammi
Please mind your manners. You are not my friend? Well, we will have to change that.
You condemn those who “misrepresent history and…science”
but that is a jump to a conclusion: what is your premise?
Do you really thing that the three words “It does not” equates a “substantive reply”? No wonder you believe in evolution—of course, we will have to see what you mean by “evolution” as well as to which of the iterations of that worldview-philosophy you adhere.
You say “The ToE is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT STANDS ON EVIDENCE” but you do not tell us why that matters nor what such evidence is.
a money saving deal):
Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors featuring Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Reasons for Being an Atheist: A Comprehensive Guide
From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist: A Consideration of Richard Dawkins’ Polemics Regarding Christianity, Atheism, Communism, Nazism and Evolution
The Wild and Wacky World of Atheist Bus Ads and Billboard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.