|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2007 : 20:01:24 [Permalink]
|
Moakley, I was asked where did I derive my moral code, and to provide evidence of what Jesus said. I am certainly not using the bible to prove any point outside of direct questions about the text. You should ask around or read a bit more before you make claims from lack of knowledge.
To your first point, Yes the assertion is an opinion. Are opinions not allowed?
Your last point mostly parrots my initial point with some sort of attempt to get a rise out of me. I do not believe in eternal damnation, this is a construct of religion to scare people into following the religion.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 22:41:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Mans population has increased dramatically over time. So far it is fact that this sapience has "long-term, species survival value". |
And yet by both biomass, population and reproductive rate, bacteria clearly outperform humans. By many orders of magnitude on each scale.
As far as sapience goes, your own argument states in no uncertain terms that your sample size is one, and that sample species - Homo sapiens sapiens - has only been around for 200,000 years, at best. A poor predictor of long-term performance when the average "lifespan" of a species througout Earth's history has been 50 times longer than that. We're only 2% of the way to "average success," but you wish to proclaim that sapience is some sort of advantage. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 22:53:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Mans population has increased dramatically over time. So far it is fact that this sapience has "long-term, species survival value". |
And yet by both biomass, population and reproductive rate, bacteria clearly outperform humans. By many orders of magnitude on each scale.
As far as sapience goes, your own argument states in no uncertain terms that your sample size is one, and that sample species - Homo sapiens sapiens - has only been around for 200,000 years, at best. A poor predictor of long-term performance when the average "lifespan" of a species througout Earth's history has been 50 times longer than that. We're only 2% of the way to "average success," but you wish to proclaim that sapience is some sort of advantage.
|
I did not claim advantage; in fact I said it may be a disadvantage in my response to Siberia. Overproduction could be a disadvantaged. I was commenting that mans sapience has increased his numbers dramatically. The length of time is debatable as to any species man has not directly recorded from the beginning of its existence. Do you deny that man dominates the earth today? (This does not mean I think this domination is advantageous)
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 23:03:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I was commenting that mans sapience has increased his numbers dramatically. |
And you have provided no evidence whatsoever. Did you know that man's population has risen "dramatically" proportional to the inverse of the number of pirates on the high seas? Why would an argument that says that killing off black-footed ferrets has increased man's population dramatically be more (or less) evidenced than your comment? Here's an interesting argument: higher CO2 levels lead to increased human survival and/or reproduction. Why is that wrong?| The length of time is debatable as to any species man has not directly recorded from the beginning of its existence. |
Standard creationist boilerplate. Do try to stay on the same page as the rest of us, because if you wish to argue "were you there?" then your argument will be demolished, too.| Do you deny that man dominates the earth today? (This does not mean I think this domination is advantageous) |
Yes. I thought I was quite clear that bacteria are kicking our butts in many ways. You obviously have a different definition of "dominates" than I do, even though you didn't address the criteria I offered. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 05:00:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Moakley, I was asked where did I derive my moral code, and to provide evidence of what Jesus said. I am certainly not using the bible to prove any point outside of direct questions about the text. You should ask around or read a bit more before you make claims from lack of knowledge.
|
You made the assertions. I questioned your source. You have not substantiated its contents through any other independent source. But you still insist that it is reliable without question.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
To your first point, Yes the assertion is an opinion. Are opinions not allowed?
|
Of what value is your opinion? An opinion can only lead to greater knowledge and understanding when it is supported by evidence. Holding someone accountable for their words/opinions should not come as a surprise to anyone participating in a skeptics forum.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Your last point mostly parrots my initial point with some sort of attempt to get a rise out of me. I do not believe in eternal damnation, this is a construct of religion to scare people into following the religion.
|
So your Jerome made religion is mostly harmless. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 06:19:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And yet by both biomass, population and reproductive rate, bacteria clearly outperform humans. By many orders of magnitude on each scale. |
Not that I disagree with your core point but comparing bacteria (a domain or superkingdom) to humans (a species) is not really valid. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:08:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by Dave W.
And yet by both biomass, population and reproductive rate, bacteria clearly outperform humans. By many orders of magnitude on each scale. |
Not that I disagree with your core point but comparing bacteria (a domain or superkingdom) to humans (a species) is not really valid.
|
This is true. So, let's look at some individual species: The various staphylococcus have us all but down for the count. We kill 'em and, like Jesus, they keep comin' back. And, from food poisoning to vaginal infections, our sapience has yet to eradicate the first one of 'em.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 07:27:59 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote:| Here's an interesting argument: higher CO2 levels lead to increased human survival and/or reproduction. Why is that wrong? |
An even better correlation proves that rising CO2 levels cause industrialization.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 10:08:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by Dave W.
And yet by both biomass, population and reproductive rate, bacteria clearly outperform humans. By many orders of magnitude on each scale. |
Not that I disagree with your core point but comparing bacteria (a domain or superkingdom) to humans (a species) is not really valid. |
I was waiting for Jerome to bring up that objection. But now that it's been made, the average individual bacterial species in Jerome's gut alone has a population some 100 times larger than the entire human population on Earth. Under optimal conditions, some bacteria can double their population in 9.8 minutes (E. coli can take up to 24 hours to double in the gut). And if E. coli weigh a little less than 10-12 grams, and there are 1021 of them on the planet, then... uh... their collective mass is the same as about 13,333 people... I seem to be off by five orders of magnitude there.
Well, I'm sure if I spent some time on this, I could dig up some bacterial species (probably a soil-dweller) that has a collective mass much larger than all of humanity. That is, after all, my hypothesis of how Jerome argues: make a half-assed statement of fact and only afterwards go try to find some references to back it up. So he shouldn't fault me for getting it wrong on the first try. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 10:33:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by Dave W.
And yet by both biomass, population and reproductive rate, bacteria clearly outperform humans. By many orders of magnitude on each scale. |
Not that I disagree with your core point but comparing bacteria (a domain or superkingdom) to humans (a species) is not really valid. |
I was waiting for Jerome to bring up that objection. But now that it's been made, the average individual bacterial species in Jerome's gut alone has a population some 100 times larger than the entire human population on Earth. Under optimal conditions, some bacteria can double their population in 9.8 minutes (E. coli can take up to 24 hours to double in the gut). And if E. coli weigh a little less than 10-12 grams, and there are 1021 of them on the planet, then... uh... their collective mass is the same as about 13,333 people... I seem to be off by five orders of magnitude there.
Well, I'm sure if I spent some time on this, I could dig up some bacterial species (probably a soil-dweller) that has a collective mass much larger than all of humanity. That is, after all, my hypothesis of how Jerome argues: make a half-assed statement of fact and only afterwards go try to find some references to back it up. So he shouldn't fault me for getting it wrong on the first try.
|
I will no longer respond to you because you got it wrong on the first try.
Besides that, we should define our terms.
Domination-?
long-term-?
survival value-?
dramatic increase-?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 10:47:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Besides that, we should define our terms.
Domination-?
long-term-?
survival value-?
dramatic increase-? |
Well, you're the one making the claim that "sapience" is the reason for humans' "dramatic" population increase, thus - you claim - sapience's "long term" "survival value" has been demonstrated already. So why don't you start defining your terms? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 11:22:39 [Permalink]
|
Dave, we must compare man with and without sapience. I contend that man without would probably not exist any longer. Man without sapience would be an inferior species on most scales in comparison to most other species.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 11:30:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Siberia, man is different than other animals because man can contemplate, measure, and relay information from many past generations outside of the genetic code. This is not necessarily "better" only different. It is said that ignorance is bliss. I have contemplated the fact that animals being ignorant may be better, as they do not contemplate.
|
Uh-hu. That doesn't mean we are any less animal than they. Only that we are more sophisticated - the way a monkey's behavior is more sophisticated than, say, a wolf's. It's all a matter of proportion.
Edit: I didn't explain myself clearly enough. What I meant to say is, yes, humans are different, granted. Any species is. But we are still animals. And we are still driven by biology and evolution. To say humans aren't influenced - if not commanded - by stimuli, is simply positing humans are something other than animals. Only because we dress it with pretty technology doesn't change that we are bloody animals, just like every other. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 07/06/2007 11:34:32 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 11:35:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Siberia, man is different than other animals because man can contemplate, measure, and relay information from many past generations outside of the genetic code. This is not necessarily "better" only different. It is said that ignorance is bliss. I have contemplated the fact that animals being ignorant may be better, as they do not contemplate.
|
Uh-hu. That doesn't mean we are any less animal than they. Only that we are more sophisticated - the way a monkey's behavior is more sophisticated than, say, a wolf's. It's all a matter of proportion.
|
Agreed mostly, sapience is a dramatic degree of difference.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 13:03:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, we must compare man with and without sapience. I contend that man without would probably not exist any longer. |
Upon what evidence would you make such a contention, seeing that chimps still exist after the same amount of time?| Man without sapience would be an inferior species on most scales in comparison to most other species. |
Inferior in what way? There is no objective "best" species. Man can't breathe underwater, making us inferior to every fish. We can't fly, making us inferior to birds. We get crushed by elephants, and outrun by cheetahs. Hurricanes regularly kill us, we tend to not regrow lost body parts, and fires don't help our seeds germinate. On most scales, we are inferior to some other species already.
I suspect I know what your objection will be, but does tool use require sapience? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
"What is your personal meaning of life?"
