V
Vico
Guest
Chromosomes are different. Mules and hinnies have 63, a horse has 64 and the donkey has 62. There have been some cases where a mule produced offspring crossed with a donkey or horse.
Last edited:
- Status
J
jochoa
Guest
So if we applied this to humans:
- Human beings have 46 chromosomes
- Zygotes have 46 chromosomes
- Zygotes are human beings.
V
Vico
Guest
DNA Barcoding began to be used from 2003 to determine species. The MT-CO1 gene is used for humans and CO1 for other Eukaryotes but does not work well for some life forms like plants.
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
Actually, you were:
Well, if it means anything, it means that you are talking about an exchange, were you assume everyone (including others) honestly thought things through, and, in exchange, others also assume everyone (including you) honestly thought things through.
Yes, you think that would be respecting each other.
I, on the other hand, think such “respect” is fake and worthless. Just imagine assuming everyone is a Nobel Prize winner or a king (“Would it be Your Majesty’s pleasure to support this assertion with an argument?”). That would not be real respect. It would be more like flattery. Rather insulting flattery. And we all know that people very rarely honestly and diligently think things through.
So, you get something you want (or think you want), while I get something I do not want. Not an exchange I happen to like.
But, by indicating that you like such an exchange, you have indicated that you are willing to assume something that you know to be false, under some conditions.
And then I am pointing out that you might as well just assume Catholicism is true. After all, it should be even easier: at the very least, you do not know it is not so.
And, if you wanted to present you assuming everyone honestly thinks things through as a favour to me, I can ask for the assumption that I actually like.
So, what is the reason why you are willing to make one assumption, but not willing to make another? Have you honestly thought about it? Can you explain which difference between them plays such a great part?
F
Freddy
Guest
All I can say is that you have appeared to have thought about this matter and I respect your views on it, although I obviously don’t agree with you.
If you don’t respect mine then there’s nothing I can do about that.
A
AlNg
Guest
Maybe in standard logic. But there is also many valued logic which is being used to solve problems.
I got nothing out of reading Sam Harris.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
If a small child had painful cancer, why could not Jesus have cured him and eliminated the evil cancerous growth?
F
Freddy
Guest
I would have hoped you’d have gained some idea of his point of view on different subjects and what arguments he uses to back up those views. Perhaps what you meant was that you didn’t agree with whatever it was you read.Magnanimity:
I got nothing out of reading Sam Harris.
M
MPat
Guest
Um, thank you…?
Now this claim is neither insulting nor obviously inconsistent with your other positions.
What is different about it? Mostly, that tiny “appeared”. Yet it changes so much!
First, “appeared” indicates use of some evidence, not just making an assumption. For, as I have indicated, atheists can’t afford making assumptions without evidence. After all, a common atheist answer to Pascal’s Wager is that it is impossible to adopt a belief by an act of will. And it falls apart: if one can just assume things without evidence so easily in one case, why is it supposed to be completely impossible in other case?
Second, “appeared” indicates some uncertainty. And that is right, for you are unlikely to have certainty on such matters. It would hardly get anywhere close to deserving something like the “theological note” of “sententia communis”.
Third, it no longer mentions honesty. And that is also right. For it is very hard to find out when someone is honest. Otherwise con artists would have starved to death by now.
And it is also hard to find out when one is honest with oneself. Especially when there is a conflict of interest. That’s why scientists have invented things like double blind studies. And they still only mitigate those problems a little. And here we are dealing with much stronger conflicts of interest: for example, if “pro-life” opinion is right, being “pro-choice” makes you an advocate of mass murder. And, to put it mildly, people rarely like to think of themselves as one of those. Thus that looks like a very strong conflict of interest, hard to overcome. And it is hard to know if one managed to overcome it.Thankfully, one can usually afford to be undecided on this matter (if one, or someone else, has thought things through honestly). It is not like the believing or not believing Catholicism, which usually has next Sunday as deadline (if you do not go to Mass, you based your actions on denial of proposition “Catholicism is true.”).
And let’s not forget how this assumption that everyone thinks things through and does that honestly tends to be used.
For example, an atheist proclaims (as atheists like to do) that he has seen no evidence for God. And then (as I have seen many times) he demands that we would believe this claim, for not to believe it would be disrespecting him, for we are supposed to make that same assumption.
Well, because of that I refuse to give out such “blank cheques” of trust. And I would advise you not to give out them either.
But if you do give us a “blank cheque”, we can play that game as well. Consider the Resurrection. The apostles and evangelists had access to lots of evidence about it. You effectively promised to trust everyone, therefore you have to trust them as well. And thus you have to accept that Jesus rose from the dead.
So, be careful with “blank cheques”.
F
Freddy
Guest
I must have missed that. But I guess I have to trust you that I did.
A
aThomist
Guest
Jesus is in no under obligation to take away all the Pain which is very natural for Human Life.
Where sin abounds Death abounds but Grace abounds more(Rom 5:20)
Where sin abounds Death abounds but Grace abounds more(Rom 5:20)
M
MPat
Guest
OK, that’s not a bad joke.
Nah.
Of course, it is easy to get evidence confirming such a preference. If a man says so himself, it is evidence for such a proposition. If someone else who knows that man says so, it is evidence as well. If the man has a choice of steak and vegetables and eats one, but not the other, that is evidence too.
Now, of course, usually no one demands for more evidence after hearing a man say he has such a preference. But that is not because evidence is somehow impossible. It is so, because:
- Usually no one has a reason to lie about such a matter.
- Usually no one has a reason to care enough to catch a lie.
- If one actually does care enough to catch a lie, just observing tends to be sufficient.
- Usually one actually knows his own preferences.
- Usually people do not have any duty to provide any evidence, and thus it tends to be silly to demand it.
Well, all kinds of “internal matters” (beliefs, virtues and vices, competences, skills etc.) also interact with physical matter (for example, they are supposed to influence ones forum posts, and therefore movements of fingers, movements of electrons in cables etc.).
Thus you ended up saying people can demand evidence for them.
So, let’s see, what am I to demand evidence for…
That will do!
So, what evidence can you offer for you knowing what words “faith” and “evidence” mean, and for you having looked for evidence honestly and diligently?
And you gave me a right to demand that evidence, so, I do not ask for evidence, I demand it!
And “physical” evidence, whatever that is supposed to be.
Of course, you can avoid all that by saying that you do not really know what evidence is, but, knowing atheists, I suspect that this is not a very likely choice…
Oh, and, by the way, isn’t it also interesting how often atheists imagine that their beliefs, feelings, traits and the like are completely inscrutable form outside? Does it mean they can’t find out beliefs, feelings etc. of others with reasonable accuracy, unless they are told directly?
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I am not sure what military logic is and how it would fit in and relate to standard logic or many valued logical systems. For example the military logic of using the atomic bomb to murder thousands of innocent people seems to be of a different quality than using logic to discuss whether or not a particular war is just.
M
MPat
Guest
If you don’t know that, that is just too bad.
Ah yes, the common ploy of atheists - loudly proclaiming that the opponent is ignorant, and the atheist himself, by extension, knowledgeable (and the like).
Naturally, no other evidence is offered, thus everything is based on authority of that same atheist. Which, in turn, is only supported by such pronouncements… And, of course, complaints that atheist is greatly insulted by a tiniest shadow of doubt concerning his knowledge and the like.
Now, given that all this happens when atheist has himself just done precisely that, only with no evidence and far less carefully, one should not be surprised that the atheist ends up looking rather badly.
Not that I’m complaining.
Coincidentally, that is connected with this Sunday’s gospel (Matthew 11:25): “At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones.”.
Naturally, it is the ones who imagine they are “wise and prudent” that are being referred to (see, for example, commentary by St. Thomas Aquinas). It is hard to learn unless you accept you have something to learn…
Yes, actions based on beliefs (feelings, competences, virtues etc.) are evidence for beliefs (and the like). Which, by the way, is what I was saying.
For example, let’s explore one pathway of you writing this sentence. Since it is written as if you were contradicting me, when, in fact, you were not, we have to consider possible explanations. One of them is you thinking that only the thing itself is evidence for itself. For yes, holding such a belief would explain why you would think that sentence would show how I was mistaken. Now, of course, such a belief is hopelessly wrong. And so we see how you writing this sentence (and, existence of your post) is evidence for you not knowing what the word “evidence” means.
M
MPat
Guest
I see that suspensions have left the thread with um, less users able and willing to participate, so, I guess, I’ll add another observation.
It is well known that atheists often talk as if it was impossible to find out someone’s beliefs, preferences and the like, unless he tells us, in which case the only choice is to trust him. For example:
And empathy just is one of abilities that is meant to find out something about psychological state of other people (specifically, by “simulation” of feelings, which includes feeling those same feelings).
But then, how can trying to find out someone’s psychological state, beliefs, feelings and the like be impossible or even usually inadvisable?
Naturally, empathy is by no means the only way to find out psychological state, beliefs, feelings, traits, competences of other people. Detectives, psychologists, university professors have their own techniques for finding out some of those things.
And, of course, as usually, such claims of atheists are not supported by any evidence.
Thus such claims and beliefs can’t possibly be a result of honest, competent and thorough investigation. Nor even of investigation that is somewhat flawed.
But it can be a symptom that something hurts. Which, in turn, is a symptom that something is wrong (that, by the way, shows why existence of pain is not evil - pain is only undesirable when we already know that something is wrong, or when we can do nothing about whatever is wrong; just like error messages).
And it might be that Philosophy can help, at least partially. But only if you are willing to cooperate. The first step would be acceptance that yes, something is wrong, that something has to be corrected.
Will you make that step…?
It is well known that atheists often talk as if it was impossible to find out someone’s beliefs, preferences and the like, unless he tells us, in which case the only choice is to trust him. For example:
And even atheists who are more polite and more reasonable insist that, at least, (usually?) one shouldn’t try to find out someone’s beliefs, preferences and the like, unless one tells us. That it is not nice, that it is disrespectful:
And yet, atheists usually try to base morality on empathy.
And empathy just is one of abilities that is meant to find out something about psychological state of other people (specifically, by “simulation” of feelings, which includes feeling those same feelings).
But then, how can trying to find out someone’s psychological state, beliefs, feelings and the like be impossible or even usually inadvisable?
Naturally, empathy is by no means the only way to find out psychological state, beliefs, feelings, traits, competences of other people. Detectives, psychologists, university professors have their own techniques for finding out some of those things.
And, of course, as usually, such claims of atheists are not supported by any evidence.
Thus such claims and beliefs can’t possibly be a result of honest, competent and thorough investigation. Nor even of investigation that is somewhat flawed.
But it can be a symptom that something hurts. Which, in turn, is a symptom that something is wrong (that, by the way, shows why existence of pain is not evil - pain is only undesirable when we already know that something is wrong, or when we can do nothing about whatever is wrong; just like error messages).
And it might be that Philosophy can help, at least partially. But only if you are willing to cooperate. The first step would be acceptance that yes, something is wrong, that something has to be corrected.
Will you make that step…?
F
Freddy
Guest
It’s not that you can discover someone’s psychological state. It’s that you can map your feelings onto another person and understand that they might well be feeling what you would be feeling in similar circumstances.Freddy:
And yet, atheists usually try to base morality on empathy.
And empathy just is one of abilities that is meant to find out something about psychological state of other people (specifically, by “simulation” of feelings, which includes feeling those same feelings).
But then, how can trying to find out someone’s psychological state, beliefs, feelings and the like be impossible or even usually inadvisable?
So if I feel angry and frustrated that someone has stolen something from me then another pseron is likely to feel the same if I steal something from them.
M
MPat
Guest
“discover”?
I’d say this word looks somewhat strange here… (For example, it seems to describe something happening for the first time, which, I’d say, is irrelevant here.)
Anyway, it looks like what you described actually is “discovering”, as far as the word fits.
Most likely, the word you might have been looking for is “observe”, not “discover”.
For, of course, it is true that we can’t observe other minds directly. That we have to deduce what happens there from various pieces of evidence. And that the result tends to be somewhat uncertain and fragmentary.
But such confusion of words gives me an idea…
Could it be that you (and, perhaps, other atheists) actually expect that “proper” evidence is going to be direct observation or something pretty similar?
For that would fit some of the facts pretty well…
For example, someone saying something about his psychological state is about as close to observing it, as we can get, and atheists seem to be surprised that someone thinks that sometimes such evidence can be much less important than something else.
Or, in other cases, could it be that atheists say nonsense like “There is no evidence for God”, because they can’t observe God, and do not see anything else as evidence?
Or, to get closer to the original topic, could it be that atheists think “Problem of Evil” is a strong argument, because they cannot “observe” the justification for evil, and see this lack of observation as a proof that there is nothing to observe?
That would also explain why atheists rarely give arguments, provide evidence, while claiming that their beliefs are based on evidence.
Sure, it is not a complete explanation, but then, um, I do not expect complete consistency from atheists.
F
Freddy
Guest
Neither should you. The only commonality is a lack of belief in gods.
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
Interesting… How can such a short response “miss the mark” in so many ways?
For it is not merely unsupported by any argument, overconfident (and mostly false), which would be understandable.
It also betrays failure to understand what was being said (that positions of any single atheist tend to be inconsistent, not that atheists disagree among themselves - which, by the way, while not unheard of, is not that common).
And, of course, it pays attention to, perhaps, the least important sentence in the whole post.
So, let’s repeat the more important question.
Could it be that you (and, perhaps, other atheists) actually expect that “proper” evidence is going to be direct observation or something pretty similar?
Have you ever thought about that?
F
Freddy
Guest
No…
- Status