Human Clone

[Acriku]

English isn't gryphon's first language, yours was. No excuse for you. :)

Back on topic, I am not proof enough! This forum is not proof enough! All of these people in the forum post in a Dune forum, so with your logic I can conclude that to post on a Dune forum, it is implied you have read the books. *Note this is not going to be argued against for it is a hypothetical situation not meant for nitpicking*

Just because you provide a smudgen of proof, and I have not, does not mean you are correct and I am wrong. It would be illogical to do so.

[exatreide]

Good thing i havnt posted in here.....Emp would eat my head off....

but as long as my torsos fine.....

[emprworm]

Back on topic, I am not proof enough! This forum is not proof enough! All of these people in the forum post in a Dune forum, so with your logic I can conclude that to post on a Dune forum, it is implied you have read the books. *Note this is not going to be argued against for it is a hypothetical situation not meant for nitpicking*

Just because you provide a smudgen of proof, and I have not, does not mean you are correct and I am wrong. It would be illogical to do so.

That is where you are wrong, my friend. You are making the positive claim, not me. Therefore you have the burden of proof. However, I was just being nice for you and took up the burden for myself (when the burden actually belongs to you), and provided massive evidence anyway.

If John says "There are no invisible pink leprachauns"

And Fred responds "Yes there are. Prove to me that there are no invisble pink leprechauns"

is John the one that should be proving? Or is Fred. The problem is, Acriku

[Acriku]

Actually, no I do not because I have not yet been able to fashion myself into the wonderful glories of basic philosophy. But yet still, I am telling you that you cannot conclude just because I have no proof. It is not the default position. It is not conclusive. Must I repeat myself? I do not know any, maybe never will know any, yet who are you to say you're right? Your evidence is nothing but examples that prove it. Yet solely because I cannot fortify my position with proof otherwise, you believe your position to therefore be true. Excuse me while I uncontrollably laugh in your direction. Stubborness breeds no further advancement. Ergo, I will never post in this thread again, so make your insults, mockeries, and so forth at me because I'm laughing too hard to care.

[emprworm]

Sorry Acriku

[nemafakei]

(Standard reminder - I'm not currently disputing your claim)

Burden of proof is a thing for courtrooms and similar! Both sides must attempt to prove their claim. Proving that something does not exist can only be done be logic, not example (obviously enough), and proving something does can be done by either logic (hopefully supported by example) or thorough example.

Note that you do not actually have a 'mountin of counterevidence'

What you have is a mountain of things which might confirm an already-proven theory. There may be a million atheists who believe in evolution, but that does not stop there being another million who do not (though I accept it is not likely that there are that many given the rationality needed by atheism).

Moreover, yes, your claim is falsifiable, but what proof would you want? You say "Show me" - how exactly? - a link to a non-evolutionary atheist website? A member of the forum to claim this? A signed document through the post? Ok, I don't expect you require the last, but "Show me" stuck out as highly ambiguous, especially.

Finally, will you please accept that implication does not mean necessity, or am I misinterpreting you?

You say it is not a prerequisite, yet also that atheists WILL accept the implications. The whole point of implications are that they are probable, but not definite. If you think otherwise to this, then beware that evolutionism is not an implication (in my words, consequence) of atheism.

[emprworm]

THere are two kinds of existence: conceptual and actual. i can conceptualize an atheist that rejects evolution. Logically, it is not contradictory. I can also conceptualize a politician that has never publicly lied. Logically, it is not contradictory either. It is also not logically contradictory to conceptualize a mass of cake dough 122,000 KM in diameter orbiting somewhere near the center of our galaxy. There is nothing logically contradictory with all that cake dough.

But conceptualizing a thing that is logically consistent and asserting that the conceptual thing exists are totally and radically different.

Conceptually, it is possible to come up with an atheist that rejects evolutionary theory. But to assert such a thing exists will go against all known versions of that thing. SUch a postulation is one of great faith and is not a rational default position to hold in light of the fact that all known instances of the thing show otherwise.

Again Nema, I stand firm on this point (a point that I think, rather ironically, that many atheists would be sympathetic too).

1. I see no good reason to assume that there exist any professing atheists who reject evolutionary theory of life in the universe.

2. Every where I see an atheist, I see one who embraces evolutionary thought.

Therefore:

To postulate something exists (an atheist who rejects evolutionary thought) would require not only a logical reason (for which I have still not seen from you), and evidence that such a thing actually exists (not conceptually but in actuality).

You ask me what proof i want? simple. Its exceedingly simple, actually. You can satisfy the burden through 2 ways:

First you need to explain away my evidence. It is not enough to just present counter-evidence, you also need to tear down the evidence that opposes you.

We have an observable fact: that everywhere we see professing atheists, we have evolution. To dismiss my evidence, you must rationally explain the oddity of why such a thing is true in light of your postulation.

Once you do that, then either of the following 2 things would satisfy the burden:

1. Show a rational alternative to evolution, heck, I'm so desperate to hear one, I'll be happy if you just CONCEIVE of one (conceptual existence). Let your imagination run wild. Can you even CONCEIVE of a rational alternative to the origins of life? 10 years of arguing with atheists, yet this question is summarily doged and ducked by nearly all of them. (remember that panspermia does not relive this burden. Atheists who embrace panspermia do not reject evolutionary thought, they just place the occurences of ORIGINAL evolution somewhere else, yet still embrace local evolution from the deposited lower life form. And if you are going to use panspermic theory to suggest that the fully developed versions of life on earth were deposited such that no evolution took place, you will still have to explain the origin of that life as well which made the deposit in a way that rejects evolution. GOod luck!!.)

2. (and best of all) Show a single example that supports the counter claim. Thats all you need to do. Not hard at all...unless of course, I am correct in my negative claim.

[nemafakei]

"It is also not logically contradictory to conceptualize a mass of cake dough 122,000 KM"

Er... yes it is, because there are no circumstances under which it can be created.

"Show a rational alternative to evolution"

An atheist might well decide to believe in another form of creation... but I cannot think of a functional one at present to give an example, since my mind is so much in acceptance of evolution. Moreover, how rational do you want? For rational or not, these atheists may well believe firmly in a fundamentally flawed concept.

"you also need to tear down the evidence that opposes you."

If this is the evidence that you say is the thousands (or howsoever many there be) of atheists you have met, then, as I have already pointed out, this is not actually counter-evidence, as they do not proclude the existence of non-evo-atheists. The existence of many galaxies with no dough does not stop the existence of there being some with some of the aforementioned dough.

"2. (and best of all) Show a single example "

I understood the rest of the evidence you required - except this bit. Could you elucidate?

"But conceptualizing a thing that is logically consistent and asserting that the conceptual thing exists are totally and radically different."

Yes, and asserting that something does not exist merely because you see neither it nor a reason for it is as silly. Why don't you try proving the exclusion of theories other than evolution? All you've done is provide *inconclusive* examples, without any logic reason for your belief.

"(for which I have still not seen from you)"

Not my point nor stance, as I have been reminding you. Im providing ample form for the challenge to be fulfilled, not to do so myself. (Unless by "you", you(emprworm) were referring to 'anyone')

[emprworm]

"It is also not logically contradictory to conceptualize a mass of cake dough 122,000 KM"

Er... yes it is, because there are no circumstances under which it can be created.

Uh, no that is not true. The laws of physics do not exclude the possibility that a ball of cake dough 122,000 KM in diameter could exist. Neither does logic. Just because you havent identified a mechanism for it to exist does not necessitate such a mechanism doesn't exist. You are now doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing. Secondly, just like the laws of physics do not exclude a giant ball of cake dough, neither does logic exclude an atheist who rejects evolutionary theory.

Yet:

no identifiable mechanism for the cake dough + no known observations of the cake dough = rational to deny the cakedough despite its logical coherency until shown otherwise.

As well as

No identifiable mechanism for an atheist rejects evolution + no known observations of an atheist who rejects evolution = rational to deny the atheist despite its logical coherency until shown shown otherwise.

and finally I am going to challenge you with your statement:

"I cannot think of a functional one at present to give an example, since my mind is so much in acceptance of evolution."

This is a weak response, because my mind is extremely locked into creationism via the Judeo-Christian God, yet I have no problem whatsoever contemplating other world views or imagining hypothetical constructs for the purposes of debate. My challenge to you is this: maybe your inability to think of a functional example is not due to your suppossitions, but due to there actually being no example. The very fact that you admit you are unable to conceive of a functional example, perhaps...JUST PERHAPS means that I am right after all, and maybe atheism DOES INDEED implicate evolution.

Just something to chew on.

[Anathema]

It is rather unbelievable that a universe like this and our world with all its species could be created just like that without gradual evolution or by the hands of a creator. But think about this: why would the creator be a supernatural creature. Say, we and all other species were created by aliens?

Of course that would raise the question how the aliens were created. But hey, just because logic dictates that atheists should believe in the evolution theory, doesn't mean there aren't any atheists that do not believe in the evolution theory- people will believe, or defy, anything.

Just curious, Emp:

Do you believe in the evolution theory or do you hold by the creationist theory?

[emprworm]

Earthnuker: creation by aliens is actually gaining popularity amongst atheistic thought. That theory is called the theory of Panspermia. You can read all about it on the internet. 2 kinds of panspermia: aliens (or meteors, etc) that deposited a simple life form on earth that subsequently evolved into life on earth today, or aliens that brought fully evolved life on earth so that no subsequent cross-special evolution took place (dont know of anyone who holds that view, but its there for the taking if you want it)

If the former is true, then you still have an atheist that believes in evolution. If the latter is true, then the atheist still needs to explain the origin of the aliens.

Until i see evidence that an atheist exists who denies evolution, such a creature will remain a figment of my imagination. Fun to talk about like gouls, goblins, dungeons & dragons, but its just an imaginary friend, and nothing more. 8)

[nemafakei]

Allright, I should have said the cake dough is almost totally impossible to create;

"The laws of physics do not exclude the possibility that a ball of cake dough 122,000 KM in diameter could exist"

They do not totally and utterly do so, but such a ball is so ridiculously improbable that it goes way beyond any comparison.

"no identifiable mechanism for the cake dough + no known observations of the cake dough = rational to deny the cakedough despite its logical coherency until shown otherwise."

Provided "identifiable mechanism" includes actual feasibility, yes.

My error is that, it is merely *almost* impossible to have such a mass of cake dough, so much so that I had assumed the probability to be 0.

In actual fact, we cannot disprove the cake dough, but we can say with near certainty that it does not exist, due to the exteremely rare circumstances we know to be necessary.

All you need, on the other hand, is an atheist with an odd idea.

"My challenge to you is this: maybe your inability to think of a functional example is not due to your suppossitions, but due to there actually being no example"

I do not relly believe there is a better solution than evolution that does not involve 'higher beings', and so I cannot conceive (as opposed to accept an existing one) such a solution. There may not indeed be a functional solution, but that does not stop people believing in a quasi-functional system, which JUST PERHAPS means that atheism would not neccessitate evolutionism.

Remember finally, that every logical conclusion, be it 122,000 km balls or non-evo-atheists, comes with a degree of uncertainty attatched. We are almost totally certain that the balls won't exist, but we can be far less so about non-evo-atheists.

[emprworm]

lol, I guess I'm fairly certain such a ball of cake dough wont exist, probably more so than such an atheist. I used the illustration as an analogy to demonstrate a rational conclusion.

When I first posted this thread, I made the absolute statement that such an atheist does not exist. Of course, I was being a bit sarcastic, because I have since explained my position thoroughly. Your posts would successfully refute my original absolute stance, yes. But I am not sure what exactly you are arguing at this point late in the game. Honestly, Nema, I do not know your position on this. So I will clarify myself and I will ask you a simple question so that I can clarify your position as well.

Here is my position:

I believe Atheism implies evolution.

I have no good reason to conclude there are professing atheists who reject the concept that life evolved.

Now my question for you:

So you believe that such a position is irrational?

I just gave you the decency to be extremely blunt and concise with my position. Please do me the same favor and directly answer my question with a yes or a no. Feel free to explain your answer but please answer it directly.

[Anathema]

Emprworm...

please answer my question of earlier: do you believe life evolved gradually or do you believe God snapped his fingers and it was all there?

[IxianMace]

Ixian: viruses are alive. they are categorized in numerous species. see this scientific page for information on species categorization of viruses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTV/intro_to_universal/universal_system.html

The link does not say that viruses are classified as 'living' organisms.

A virus reproduces, a required ability for anything considered to be alive.

The reason why viruses are not considered to be 'living' as far as science goes is because they can not reproduce. They require a host cell to inhibit, and therefore force replication of new viruses. Therefore, they are not living, because they can not survive of their own accord without a host to inhibit.

believe me, Ixian, if a virus were discovered on Mars, I guarantee you people would be saying "life on Mars".

People would probably say that, but only because of the excitement of the discovery. It would be considered 'life' on Mars I guess, but it would be scientifically incorrect to state that viruses are living.

[Acriku]

Ixian you are digging holes man. Living organisms? Show me an organism that isn't living...and don't show me a dead one lol.

In order to survive, you must be alive to do any surviving at all. *Imagines the next news report: It is sad to report, that Kelly's favorite rock did not survive the collision*

[IxianMace]

Acriku, look at a virus under a microscope and you'll an 'organism' that isn't 'living', but isn't 'dead'. I know it sounds strange, but that's how scientists/biologists classified viruses. They are in their own group, away from living organisms. Not considered living, but not 'dead' in that sense either.

The part about the rock? That is just ridiculous. Rocks are not living in the first place. They are an 'abiotic' feature of the environment.

[Acriku]

The rock was a joke, but oh well...

My biology (college AP biology) classifies viruses as microORGANISMS. Living complex or simple organisms.

[Anathema]

Your biology teacher isn't infallable. All organisms consist of cells and are able to reproduce independantly, plus have two strains of DNA. Viruses do not consist of cells, can't reproduce (instead forcing life forms to do that for them) and have only one strain of DNA.

They are generally put somewhere between alive and lifeless.

[nemafakei]

I believe Atheism implies evolution, yet I believe that it is only that, an implication that is not necessarily true.

My position is that I don't know for sure whether such an atheist exists, though I expect that it is very likely that there are at least a few somewhere. I do think that it is far too presumptious to assume that there are no such atheists.

Therefore, I say that yes, it is irrational to hold the view that you have good reason to conclude that there are *no* professing atheists who reject the concept that life evolved.

But I would also say that it is irrational to conclude that there are definitely non-evo-atheists, if you are in such a position as yourself, having seen so many atheists who are evolutionists.

Do not shrink from saying that you do not know either way for sure. To say otherwise when this is true would be to distort the truth. Remember that any logical answer should be quantified of is degree.

[IxianMace]

plus have two strains of DNA. Viruses do not consist of cells, can't reproduce (instead forcing life forms to do that for them) and have only one strain of DNA.

DNA is double stranded. RNA however, is single stranded. According to what I've learnt, viruses have RNA, not DNA. Ever heard of the enzyme reverse transcriptase? It's what the AIDS virus uses to make a DNA copy of its RNA.

[Anathema]

Thanks for correcting me :).

Let me correct myself also. I meant viruses hold only one chromosome. Organisms have two. I just forgot the correct word :-. I don't know the whole truth about DNA/RNA.

[IxianMace]

I meant viruses hold only one chromosome. Organisms have two.

Do they? Humans are organisms. But humans have 46 chromosomes. That's 23 from the mother and father.

[Anathema]

OMG I can't believe I typed that :O! My brain is getting rusty.

Final correction- every organism has every chromosome double. For example, the chromosome that determines gender, is double. X + X = female, X + Y = male. However, viruses have only one, single chromosome.

[Acriku]

I can't believe we are arguing over whether or not viruses are living or not. Go back to your biology class! They don't think, but they are alive! How can you kill something that isn't alive? How can you survive without living? So what if the virus needs a host, that still makes it living! What standards for living things are you bringing out of your ass?