Religion III

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Did you have a point to all this gibberish? Even living entities of the same species are never identical! But A cat cannot be non-feline. A cat cannot be a dog, for example. This IS the Law of Identity.

1)-You are attempting to use a law that was meant to only compare something to itself. Not one species to another.

2)-You are attempting to use a static definition of a cell or one species of plants or animals, comparing that fixed view to an ongoing process comprising trillions of growing, changing and transforming lifeforms.

3)-You totally misunderstand what definers a species. Which you have wrongly called an "essence". Although I told you 4 times, DNA and genetic material is a much more accurate and scientific realistic means to classify a species, than a "boxcarian essence" . You keep forgetting or willfully ignoring there are no exact duplicates of ANY biological lifeforms, even among the same species.

Ruling out any use of identities. And any law using identities

"Cat-ness" is only and an approximation.

4)-You are wasting our time one again.
Evolution is as proven process.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

First, no one has ever witnessed a ape transforming itself into a human being.

The theory of evolution makes no such claim. The process takes many generations, much longer than any human's lifetime.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Secondly, if humans descended from apes, the[sic] both species should be able to mate and produce offspring.

Consult a high school biology textbook. You have that exactly backwards. Given a fertile male and a fertile female the two are the same species only if they are able to mate and produce offspring. If the two have a common ancestor but are unable to mate and produce offspring then evolution has occurred.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Even King Solomon believed this.

There is no archeological confirmation that King Solomon ever existed.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

1)-You are attempting to use a law that was meant to only compare something to itself. Not one species to another.

2)-You are attempting to use a static definition of a cell or one species of plants or animals, comparing that fixed view to an ongoing process comprising trillions of growing, changing and transforming lifeforms.

3)-You totally misunderstand what definers a species. Which you have wrongly called an "essence". Although I told you 4 times, DNA and genetic material is a much more accurate and scientific realistic means to classify a species, than a "boxcarian essence" . You keep forgetting or willfully ignoring there are no exact duplicates of ANY biological lifeforms, even among the same species.

Ruling out any use of identities. And any law using identities

"Cat-ness" is only and an approximation.

4)-You are wasting our time one again.
Evolution is as proven process.

In comparing a thing with itself, it's implicitly understood that it also comparing itself with something else., ergo the NEGATIVE statement: A cannot be Non-A. A rose can't be a lily. A horse can't be a pig. An ape cannot be a human. A feline cannot be canine. A caterpillar cannot be

Since Apes and Humans cannot procreate, then an Ape cannot be a Human. The essence of humanity is not, never has been and never will be in an ape. It's not in the nature of an ape to be human; therefore an ape cannot be a non-ape.

Welcome to the Law of Identity. It must really suck to be so ignorant of the the most fundamental laws of logic. As stated often: Evolution has not been kind to you, has it?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The theory of evolution makes no such claim. The process takes many generations, much longer than any human's lifetime.

How convenient. Scientism of the gaps.

Consult a high school biology textbook. You have that exactly backwards. Given a fertile male and a fertile female the two are the same species only if they are able to mate and produce offspring. If the two have a common ancestor but are unable to mate and produce offspring then evolution has occurred.

No, you and the fairy tale biology textbooks have it backwards! Since apes and humans cannot procreate, this tells us that there identities are different and proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that humans are humans and cannot be anything but humans, i.e. cannot be apes, i.e. cannot be non-humans -- and vice versa.

Also, since every cause must have its effect in itself, this also proves that apes are not related to humans because humaneness did not inhere in the cause (the ape), which accounts for why apes and humans cannot get hooked up and reproduce.

Any theory that doesn't square with reality as we do actually know it, isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

There is no archeological confirmation that King Solomon ever existed.

There's no archeological evidence that 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the inhabitants of this earth ever existed either.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In comparing a thing with itself, it's implicitly understood that it also comparing itself with something else., ergo the NEGATIVE statement: A cannot be Non-A. A rose can't be a lily. A horse can't be a pig. An ape cannot be a human. A feline cannot be canine. A caterpillar cannot be

What are you smoking? It is absolutely NOT implicitly understood in any such manner. It states---pay attention MR Utter Fool:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself.

Do you have any source claiming it is used as you claim?

Since there are no exact, explicit duplicates in our universe, nothing may be identical to anything else, except itself.

And actually that is only true for a limited period of time!

Since Apes and Humans cannot procreate, then an Ape cannot be a Human. The essence of humanity is not, never has been and never will be in an ape. It's not in the nature of an ape to be human; therefore an ape cannot be a non-ape.

Totally absolutely wrong and moronic !!!!!
What exactly do you not understand about random mutations, cell mitosis (replication) and natural selection? I just told you we do that inadvertently overusing antibiotics. Real time proof of the evolutionary process. As is animal husbandry, ( animal husbandry includes breeding of animals),
Real time proof of evolution

WHERE IS YOUR Real time proof OF GENESIS?

Welcome to the Law of Identity. It must really suck to be so ignorant of the the most fundamental laws of logic. As stated often: Evolution has not been kind to you, has it?

HAVE I MENTIONED YOU ARE AS DUMB AS A BAG OF BRICKS. AN EXTREMELY DUMB BAG.
Who knows diddly squat. You seriously need an education

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

What are you smoking? It is absolutely NOT implicitly understood in any such manner. It states---pay attention MR Utter Foolo you have any source claiming it is used as you claim?

Since there are no exact, explicit duplicates in our universe, nothing may be identical to anything else, except itself.

And actually that is only true for a limited period of time!
Totally absolutely wrong and moronic !!!!!
What exactly do you not understand about random mutations, cell mitosis (replication) and natural selection? I just told you we do that inadvertently overusing antibiotics. Real time proof of the evolutionary process. As is animal husbandry, ( animal husbandry includes breeding of animals),
Real time proof of evolution

WHERE IS YOUR Real time proof OF GENESIS?

HAVE I MENTIONED YOU ARE AS DUMB AS A BAG OF BRICKS. AN EXTREMELY DUMB BAG.
Who knows diddly squat. You seriously need an education

What don't you understand about the Law of Identity? It's the Law of BEING!!!

And what don't you understand about the Fallacy of Composition!?

And what don't you understand about the Principle of Adequate Cause within the Law of Causality?

What don't you understand about the Real World!? All my ancestors from whom I descended procreated which eventually accounts for my existence. So, if you and Actor are going to assault my intelligence and tell me that I also descended from apes, then I want to see a human being and an ape procreate! But we both know that isn't ever going to happen because an Ape IS an Ape and a Human IS Human. An Ape can never, has never and never will become Human. And this is the warp 'n' woof of the Law of Identity. It's not in an Ape's essence (nature) to become something that it's not! An ape can only be itself. A human can only be him/herself. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now...as far as you and Actor descending from Apes, I have no problem believing that -- even though that idea is highly insulting to all apes.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What don't you understand about the Law of Identity? It's the Law of BEING!!!

And what don't you understand about the Fallacy of Composition!?

And what don't you understand about the Principle of Adequate Cause within the Law of Causality?

What don't you understand about the Real World!? All my ancestors from whom I descended procreated which eventually accounts for my existence. So, if you and Actor are going to assault my intelligence and tell me that I also descended from apes, then I want to see a human being and an ape procreate! But we both know that isn't ever going to happen because an Ape IS an Ape and a Human IS Human. An Ape can never, has never and never will become Human. And this is the warp 'n' woof of the Law of Identity. It's not in an Ape's essence (nature) to become something that it's not! An ape can only be itself. A human can only be him/herself. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Now...as far as you and Actor descending from Apes, I have no problem believing that -- even though that idea is highly insulting to all apes.

The "essence" of a species is scientifically determined by the DNA within the genes of that species. Think of DNA as a "blueprint". As a being grows from the original cells donated by 't's parents, it's growth is regulated and directed by that DNA.

As evolution occurs over thousands of generations those "blueprints" THEMSELVES change. Those changes atre a result of accidental malfunctions some due to stray radioactive collisions. 50,00o generations ago the DNA of the "species" that led to the domestic cat was extremely different

AS A SPECIES
from the species we call cat today.

Your misapplication of the L.O.I. is way TO SIMPLISTIC AND MORONIC TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY by any one with 1/2 a brain.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The "essence" of a species is scientifically determined by the DNA within the genes of that species. Think of DNA as a "blueprint". As a being grows from the original cells donated by 't's parents, it's growth is regulated and directed by that DNA.

As evolution occurs over thousands of generations those "blueprints" THEMSELVES change. Those changes atre a result of accidental malfunctions some due to stray radioactive collisions. 50,00o generations ago the DNA of the "species" that led to the domestic cat was extremely different

AS A SPECIES
from the species we call cat today.

Your misapplication of the L.O.I. is way TO SIMPLISTIC AND MORONIC TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY by any one with 1/2 a brain.

Whatever those "changes" of the "blueprints" are, they must be in the CAUSE!
[/B]ALL CAUSES MUST HAVE THEIR EFFECTS IN THEM[/B]/! We know this for a fact from the real world. But in La La Land with the fairy tale of evolution, though...not so much.

I have not misapplied the Law of Identity. A dog is a dog! This is the law! A dog cannot be something other than itself! In other words, A cannot be non-A.

Go make nice with an ape. Take her a big basket of bananas. Maybe you'll win her over and the both of you can have a roll in the hay and have a humape for your sexual frolicking.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Whatever those "changes" of the "blueprints" are, they must be in the CAUSE!
[/B]ALL CAUSES MUST HAVE THEIR EFFECTS IN THEM[/B]/!

Etc, etc, etc.

Trying to explain logic or science to you is like trying to explain multivariate calculus to someone who has trouble with addition and subtraction. Couple this with your desire to remain deliberately ignorant and one must ask "what's the point?" Obviously there is no point.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

We have two things here:

• The child.
• The statement "The nature/essence of being a human child is such that she has the capacity for rationality and awareness of consciousness."

To which does the value "true" apply? The child or the statement?

If I state, "human" and "rational", in what sense am I violating the Law? Sincere question - I want to learn.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

Does your question have any bearing on boxcar's claim to disprove evolutionary theory using the Law of Identity? Or for that matter, the Fallacy of Composition, or his "law of causality" ? (whatever that is), to also disprove it?

Can any of the the three laws of thought, be used?
Don't you think someone would have gone that route already since Darwin published his 1859 book "On the Origin of Species"?

I wonder, is this weird strategy some obscure Apologetic talking point?

No. I disagree with Boxcar regarding evolution and intelligent design.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Whatever those "changes" of the "blueprints" are, they must be in the CAUSE!
[/B]ALL CAUSES MUST HAVE THEIR EFFECTS IN THEM[/B]/! We know this for a fact from the real world. But in La La Land with the fairy tale of evolution, though...not so much.

I have not misapplied the Law of Identity. A dog is a dog! This is the law! A dog cannot be something other than itself! In other words, A cannot be non-A.

Go make nice with an ape. Take her a big basket of bananas. Maybe you'll win her over and the both of you can have a roll in the hay and have a humape for your sexual frolicking.

A totally incoherent post. What causes must have what effects in what? What are you babbling about?

Dog as we know them today were originally a totally different line of very different animals species, slowly transforming and evolving from one to another different but related animal species. And all along that process their DNA blueprints, both changed and effected those changes of their outer appearance, and their complete physical, mental and emotional characteristics and traits.

There is no way you can apply the L.O.I. to that process

Or the "law of causality" [sic]
Or the Fallacy of Composition !!

How far did you get in school? Graduate kindergarten? Here are some "pi'tures" for you to perusal.

YouTube (Short URL)

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

No. I disagree with Boxcar regarding evolution and intelligent design.

Maybe you can have a word with him? I tried.

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by hcap

Maybe you can have a word with him? I tried.

"a word": D

[hcap]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

"a word": D

On this thread I have 5 for you.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP