W
wanstronian
Guest
Like I said, you clearly know best.that “evidence” is obviously anthropomorphism, it ignores the fact that what is interpreted as emotion, may simply be programmed responses, bad science.
hardly, it is anthropomorphism by definition.
education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/anthropomorphism
as they dont allow that it may be due to programming as opposed to an actual emotion, its an unfounded assertion, something that wouldnt hold water in any of the other sciences.
i dont ignore, it, i simply believe there is no evidence for it, if you wish me to assume it, what logical reason do i have to stop there? i must then assume it of everything from a roomba to a bacterium. point being that i could make assumptions and assertions about any physical object in the face of a lack of evidence.
a roomba turns away from a staircase, it must be afraid! it couldnt possibly be programming, i can see that its afraid!
see how easy that is?
it doesnt elude me at all, i never claimed that the inability to speak means they dont suffer.
again, what evidence? assumptions and assertions that an animals actions reflect emotion instead of simple programming?
Now you’re talking? Please present your evidence!!what are you talking about? i have plenty of logical evidence that G-d exists, i can even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the Christain G-d.
What assumptions do you assume I am making?your making assumptions.
I can see behaviour in the animal that I recognise as an emotional response. I cannot see God, nor any evidence for his existence. I have previously presented evidence for animal emotion both through citation of scientific research performed in this field and through logical conclusion as a result of common evolutionary processes. It’s not conclusive, and never will be unless animals start talking, but it’s common sense, not to mention far more convincing than your one-step ‘proof’ of the existence of God.seems to be a pattern there. now i assume that you feel there is no logical or scientific evidence for G-d, under that criteria, how can you defend the assumption that animals have emotions and not simple programming, from this side it looks like your turning off your rational mind when addressing this subject in favor of sentimental emotions.
So your reference is more valid than mine? Why?the bottom line is i can destroy every piece of evidence presented because of that assumption, in fact im not the only one. check out clive wynne and the historical view of anthropomorphism.
Your lack of logical consistency is incredible.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7079e/7079e2364c7e6bc9a509f3429fba1fa1c93d7548" alt="Eek! :eek: :eek:"