RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 219 220 221 222 223 [224] 225 226 227 228 229 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Quack



Posts: 1768
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2012,13:19   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 27 2012,07:47)
         
Quote
JLAfan2001September: If animals can reason, what separates us from them?

Mung: They’re food.



Any predator is someone else's prey...

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2012,13:36   

Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 27 2012,12:47)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 27 2012,13:15)
At TSZ someone mentioned something about Upright and the Huffpo (spit). Anyone got a link/know more?

I found three links to some of Upright BiPed's leakage outside of UD.

I did google it, lol. I was hoping he was posting on their "woo" bit as an author. For some reason I got NUFFINK!

Google must have been broken. That's what is is.

Just for that minute.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2012,14:29   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 27 2012,13:00)
 
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 27 2012,13:47)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 27 2012,13:15)
At TSZ someone mentioned something about Upright and the Huffpo (spit). Anyone got a link/know more?

I found three links to some of Upright BiPed's leakage outside of UD.

Kuhn!!!!1!!!




--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2012,16:30   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 27 2012,05:24)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 27 2012,07:38)
Dr. Torley explains his reasoning:
Quote
You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”


Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.  

Evidence be damned.

Link

It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset.  fuck me that is hilarious

CeilingCat, 'Ras,

In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.  

There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning.  No need to invent bogus ones.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2012,16:44   

Thanks!  I'll be here in the peanut gallery, don't think I can stomach a peek for the context.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2012,17:52   

Quote
Upright Biped: Jerad, are you familiar with the Pod Kopiste lizards transported to Pod Mrcaru in 1971?

After just a few generations on the island, the Pod Mrcaru lizards had developed cecal vales in their guts to help them digest nutrients from their new plant-laden diets, as well as changing their jaw structures, and social behaviors.

Did they just get lucky?

They were tested after 36 years. 100% genetic identity.

That would be in 2007, which is this paper:

Quote
Herrel et al., Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007: Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mr?aru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population.

The genetic identity refers to mitochondrial DNA, which would have little to do with the observed morphological difference. They used mitochondrial DNA just to prove the connection to the founding population. They suggest a genetic basis rather than a developmental effect for the morphological adaptation as very young juveniles exhibit the cecal valves.

Quote
Herrel et al., Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007: Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed.


Edited by Zachriel on Sep. 27 2012,17:54

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1670
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,04:39   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 27 2012,16:30)
             
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 27 2012,05:24)
               
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 27 2012,07:38)
Dr. Torley explains his reasoning:                
Quote
You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”


Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.  

Evidence be damned.

Link

It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset.  fuck me that is hilarious

CeilingCat, 'Ras,

In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.  

There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning.  No need to invent bogus ones.

I was being charitable.  Torley knows that non-human animals can't think because they aren't made in the image of God.  See Thomas Acquinas and Edward Feser for the details.

Confronted with evidence that crows do reason, he grabs every straw he can find to "disprove" this apostasy.

The best straw he can come up with is that crows can't speak, therefore they can't explain their reasoning to us, therefore Jesus.  Bull shit.

His second straw:          
Quote
Think about that. These crows supposedly learn how to reason without explicit instruction of any sort, and without even learning through imitation? I have t say I find that philosophically absurd.

What do you say to something like this?  They figured it out themselves, therefore they can't reason?  More BS.
       
Quote
My third reason for pouring cold water on the claim that crows are capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents is that in order to reason about causal agents in the first place, you need to be able to understand the notion of a cause, which is quite a sophisticated concept. Even eminent philosophers have a hard time explaining it.

So if a crow's not as smart as an eminent philosopher, he can't think?  That's PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) grade BS.

Sorry, but the real reason for Torley's "reasoning" are in the initial quotes above.  There's no way he can think critically in the face of his overriding Thomistic beliefs.  It would absolutely kill Baby Jesus.  And besides, if we let the crows get away with this, next thing you know whales and parrots will be demanding the vote and don't even let him get started on chimps.  BS^2

Edited by CeilingCat on Sep. 28 2012,04:41

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
BillB



Posts: 359
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,05:42   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 28 2012,10:39)
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 27 2012,16:30)
               
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 27 2012,05:24)
               
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 27 2012,07:38)
Dr. Torley explains his reasoning:                
Quote
You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”


Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.  

Evidence be damned.

Link

It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset.  fuck me that is hilarious

CeilingCat, 'Ras,

In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.  

There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning.  No need to invent bogus ones.

I was being charitable.  Torley knows that non-human animals can't think because they aren't made in the image of God.  See Thomas Acquinas and Edward Feser for the details.

Confronted with evidence that crows do reason, he grabs every straw he can find to "disprove" this apostasy.

The best straw he can come up with is that crows can't speak, therefore they can't explain their reasoning to us, therefore Jesus.  Bull shit.

His second straw:          
Quote
Think about that. These crows supposedly learn how to reason without explicit instruction of any sort, and without even learning through imitation? I have t say I find that philosophically absurd.

What do you say to something like this?  They figured it out themselves, therefore they can't reason?  More BS.
         
Quote
My third reason for pouring cold water on the claim that crows are capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents is that in order to reason about causal agents in the first place, you need to be able to understand the notion of a cause, which is quite a sophisticated concept. Even eminent philosophers have a hard time explaining it.

So if a crow's not as smart as an eminent philosopher, he can't think?  That's PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) grade BS.

Sorry, but the real reason for Torley's "reasoning" are in the initial quotes above.  There's no way he can think critically in the face of his overriding Thomistic beliefs.  It would absolutely kill Baby Jesus.  And besides, if we let the crows get away with this, next thing you know whales and parrots will be demanding the vote and don't even let him get started on chimps.  BS^2

I think he is still coming to terms with the revelation, contrary to the beliefs of many men in the 19th century, that women were indeed capable of rational thought and abstract reasoning.

I guess he deserves a break, first they go and grant Women the power of abstract reasoning, and let them vote, now they are trying to claim that the dumb animals are capable of thought ... next they will be claiming that machines can play chess!

oh, wait ....

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,06:39   

Quote
Mung: Yet another lie emanating from TSZ.

kf has not banned anyone. I question whether kf even has the power to ban someone, even from threads hosted or authored by kf.

Mung will now be educated on the entanglement of banned-notbanned states, and of virtual commenters that pop in and out of existence.

Quote
For cause of persistently belligerent and disruptive side-tracking and atmosphere poisoning behaviour, I applied “living room rules” to O/L; inviting him to leave, and when he then tried to ignore this I removed further posts. He popped back up without apology and even went on to suggest that he could do the equivalent of coming into my living room to talk with someone else while ignoring a serious matter with his “host,” I again removed further posts by him until he got the message. He can easily enough come back to threads I own, by simply apologising for his behaviour and making amends. That this is interpreted as “banning,” tells us that the plain intent is to continue to be disruptive. Civility and focus on issues instead of poisoning and polarising the atmosphere is the price of dialogue. Why is that so hard for objectors to design to accept? Do they understand that this strongly suggests that all they have is hostility/prejudice rather than substance? At any rate the thread has gone on hundreds of comments beyond that point, and it has obviously been a fairly positive and on-focus thread. KF

KF, you are more than welcome to comment here or at The Skeptical Zone. You don't even have to apologize.

Meanwhile ...

Quote
Mung: Perhaps because you are full of {vulgarity deleted, KF}.


--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,09:26   

http://www.politifact.com/persona....god-pac

Quote
Government Is Not God is a political action committee for social conservatives founded in 1992 by William J. Murray who is currently the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition. The mission of Government Is Not God - PAC is the election to Congress of men and women who hold conservative beliefs on both moral and economic issues.


Remember that tedious Tard from TSZ? If it's the same guy then he's simply a liar, according to the chart on that link.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e..



Posts: 2916
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,09:35   

Quote (BillB @ Sep. 28 2012,13:42)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 28 2012,10:39)
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 27 2012,16:30)
               
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 27 2012,05:24)
                 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 27 2012,07:38)
Dr. Torley explains his reasoning:                  
Quote
You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”


Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.  

Evidence be damned.

Link

It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset.  fuck me that is hilarious

CeilingCat, 'Ras,

In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.  

There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning.  No need to invent bogus ones.

I was being charitable.  Torley knows that non-human animals can't think because they aren't made in the image of God.  See Thomas Acquinas and Edward Feser for the details.

Confronted with evidence that crows do reason, he grabs every straw he can find to "disprove" this apostasy.

The best straw he can come up with is that crows can't speak, therefore they can't explain their reasoning to us, therefore Jesus.  Bull shit.

His second straw:            
Quote
Think about that. These crows supposedly learn how to reason without explicit instruction of any sort, and without even learning through imitation? I have t say I find that philosophically absurd.

What do you say to something like this?  They figured it out themselves, therefore they can't reason?  More BS.
         
Quote
My third reason for pouring cold water on the claim that crows are capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents is that in order to reason about causal agents in the first place, you need to be able to understand the notion of a cause, which is quite a sophisticated concept. Even eminent philosophers have a hard time explaining it.

So if a crow's not as smart as an eminent philosopher, he can't think?  That's PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) grade BS.

Sorry, but the real reason for Torley's "reasoning" are in the initial quotes above.  There's no way he can think critically in the face of his overriding Thomistic beliefs.  It would absolutely kill Baby Jesus.  And besides, if we let the crows get away with this, next thing you know whales and parrots will be demanding the vote and don't even let him get started on chimps.  BS^2

I think he is still coming to terms with the revelation, contrary to the beliefs of many men in the 19th century, that women were indeed capable of rational thought and abstract reasoning.

I guess he deserves a break, first they go and grant Women the power of abstract reasoning, and let them vote, now they are trying to claim that the dumb animals are capable of thought ... next they will be claiming that machines can play chess!

oh, wait ....

Indeed it must come as a shock to VJT that women play golf in pants no less and sometimes become Prime Ministers.

Next he'll be crowing that John Thomas isn't sticking up for himself.

It must be hard being a conservative in a jam, he's just a prick in a pickle.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
k.e..



Posts: 2916
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,09:47   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 28 2012,14:39)
 
Quote
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/design-inference/it-seems-that-tsz-objector-to-design-af-insists-on-the-long-since-corrected-canard-that-de



sign-is-a-default-inference/#comment-434848]Mung[/URL]: Yet another lie emanating from TSZ.

kf has not banned anyone. I question whether kf even has the power to ban someone, even from threads hosted or authored by kf.

Mung will now be educated on the entanglement of banned-notbanned states, and of virtual commenters that pop in and out of existence.

 
Quote
For cause of persistently belligerent and disruptive side-tracking and atmosphere poisoning behaviour, I applied “living room rules” to O/L; inviting him to leave, and when he then tried to ignore this I removed further posts. He popped back up without apology and even went on to suggest that he could do the equivalent of coming into my living room to talk with someone else while ignoring a serious matter with his “host,” I again removed further posts by him until he got the message. He can easily enough come back to threads I own, by simply apologising for his behaviour and making amends. That this is interpreted as “banning,” tells us that the plain intent is to continue to be disruptive. Civility and focus on issues instead of poisoning and polarising the atmosphere is the price of dialogue. Why is that so hard for objectors to design to accept? Do they understand that this strongly suggests that all they have is hostility/prejudice rather than substance? At any rate the thread has gone on hundreds of comments beyond that point, and it has obviously been a fairly positive and on-focus thread. KF

KF, you are more than welcome to comment here or at The Skeptical Zone. You don't even have to apologize.

Meanwhile ...

 
Quote
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/design-inference/it-seems-that-tsz-objector-to-design-af-insists-on-the-long-since-corrected-canard-that-de



sign-is-a-default-inference/#comment-434853]Mung[/URL]: Perhaps because you are full of {vulgarity deleted, KF}.

They are disappearing up their own South of Dixie fundament.

Teh oozlum bird
 
Quote
The oozlum bird, also spelled ouzelum, is a legendary creature found in Australian and British folk tales and legends. Some versions have it that, when startled, the bird will take off and fly around in ever-decreasing circles until it manages to fly up itself, disappearing completely, which adds to its rarity.[1] Other sources state that the bird flies backwards so that it can admire its own beautiful tail feathers, or because while it does not know where it is going, it likes to know where it has been.[2]

The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as "A mythical bird displaying ridiculous behaviour" and speculates that the word could have been suggested by the word ouzel, meaning a blackbird (turdus merula). The earliest citation recorded by the dictionary dates from 1858.[3]

A variant of the oozlum, possibly a mutation, is the weejy weejy bird, which has only one wing which causes it to fly in tighter, faster, smaller circles until it disappears up its own fundament. The oozlefinch is an American relative without feathers that flies backwards ("to keep dust, trivia, and other inconsequentia out of his eyes") at supersonic speeds, and preys on enemy bombers, which it rips from the sky.[4][5] The oozlefinch has been adopted as the unofficial mascot of the United States Air Defense Artillery.

The oozlum bird was the subject of the British 1970 film, Carry On Up the Jungle. There was also a recurring joke in an episode of the BBC radio comedy, The Navy Lark[7] that Lt Commander Murray (Stephen Murray) did not know what the oozlum bird was. Sub Lieutenant Phillips (Leslie Phillips) suggested that when young, oozlum birds fly straight, and it is only when they turn left that the trouble starts.

The fabulous qualities of the oozlum bird is the subject of a poem by W.T. Goodge (1862 – 1909). In the poem the oozlum bird - like the oozlefinch - is said to fly backwards, and has the singular quality of being able to fly up in the air while letting the earth turn under it. The bird is said to be large enough to bear the weight of a man


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4076
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,18:09   

Quote (BillB @ Sep. 28 2012,04:42)
I guess he deserves a break, first they go and grant Women the power of abstract reasoning, and let them vote, now they are trying to claim that the dumb animals are capable of thought ... next they will be claiming that machines can play chess!

oh, wait ....

Or win on Jeopardy! against Ken Jennings...

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1010
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,19:04   

Speaking of thinking and reasoning, see this and this.


"Tyson also brought along a new toy -- a doll named "Darwin" -- which Chaser had never seen before. When he asked her to find it in the other room, Chaser could locate the doll amid the other toys, inferring that the new object was connected with the new word."

I'd call that thinking and reasoning. Just because animals don't speak human languages doesn't mean that animals are inferior or that humans are made in some imaginary god's image.

And many animals understand human vocalizations and/or body language/gestures better than humans understand animal vocalizations and/or body language/gestures. If humans are so fucking 'special', why can't we understand what dolphins are saying, even with the help of our so-called advanced, sophisticated, technological gadgets?

This is also interesting.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,19:39   

There's at least one instance of cats being bred for intelligence which appears to have had some degree of success.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,20:05   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 28 2012,02:39)
       
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 27 2012,16:30)
                       
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 27 2012,05:24)
                     
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 27 2012,07:38)
Dr. Torley explains his reasoning:
Quote
You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”


Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.  

Evidence be damned.

Link

It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset.  fuck me that is hilarious

CeilingCat, 'Ras,

In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.  

There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning. No need to invent bogus ones.

I was being charitable.  Torley knows that non-human animals can't think because they aren't made in the image of God.  See Thomas Acquinas and Edward Feser for the details.

Confronted with evidence that crows do reason, he grabs every straw he can find to "disprove" this apostasy.

The best straw he can come up with is that crows can't speak, therefore they can't explain their reasoning to us, therefore Jesus.  Bull shit.

His second straw:  
Quote
Think about that. These crows supposedly learn how to reason without explicit instruction of any sort, and without even learning through imitation? I have t say I find that philosophically absurd.

What do you say to something like this?  They figured it out themselves, therefore they can't reason?  More BS.
Quote
My third reason for pouring cold water on the claim that crows are capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents is that in order to reason about causal agents in the first place, you need to be able to understand the notion of a cause, which is quite a sophisticated concept. Even eminent philosophers have a hard time explaining it.

So if a crow's not as smart as an eminent philosopher, he can't think?  That's PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) grade BS.

Sorry, but the real reason for Torley's "reasoning" are in the initial quotes above.  There's no way he can think critically in the face of his overriding Thomistic beliefs.  It would absolutely kill Baby Jesus.  And besides, if we let the crows get away with this, next thing you know whales and parrots will be demanding the vote and don't even let him get started on chimps.  BS^2

Is Torley religiously motivated?  Yes.

Is he grasping at straws to avoid admitting that crows can reason?  Yes.

Is he arguing that "I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't," as you claimed?  No.  He gives other reasons, albeit bad ones.

No need to make false accusations when there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize his position.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,20:22   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 28 2012,07:26)
http://www.politifact.com/persona....god-pac

Quote
Government Is Not God is a political action committee for social conservatives founded in 1992 by William J. Murray who is currently the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition. The mission of Government Is Not God - PAC is the election to Congress of men and women who hold conservative beliefs on both moral and economic issues.


Remember that tedious Tard from TSZ? If it's the same guy then he's simply a liar, according to the chart on that link.

Not the same guy.  

The 'Government Is Not God' William J. Murray is the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair.  He infuriated his mother by becoming a Baptist.

The TSZ William J. Murray is more of a New Agey 'our thoughts create our realities' woo-meister.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
REC



Posts: 572
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2012,21:17   

Any news on why EL has been absent from TSZ? Seems a lot of discussion about her posts are going on in her absence, both on TSZ and the cowards who refuse to venture out. Hope all is well.

Edited by REC on Sep. 28 2012,21:21

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 528
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2012,05:39   

Quote (REC @ Sep. 28 2012,21:17)
Any news on why EL has been absent from TSZ? Seems a lot of discussion about her posts are going on in her absence, both on TSZ and the cowards who refuse to venture out. Hope all is well.

I think she's OK - still (occasionally) active on Facebook. Life, I guess.

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

If hail is made out of ice and ice came from ice via water, then hail is made out of ice. Joe G

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2012,08:45   

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 28 2012,19:04)
Speaking of thinking and reasoning, see this and this.


"Tyson also brought along a new toy -- a doll named "Darwin" -- which Chaser had never seen before. When he asked her to find it in the other room, Chaser could locate the doll amid the other toys, inferring that the new object was connected with the new word."

I'd call that thinking and reasoning. Just because animals don't speak human languages doesn't mean that animals are inferior or that humans are made in some imaginary god's image.

And many animals understand human vocalizations and/or body language/gestures better than humans understand animal vocalizations and/or body language/gestures. If humans are so fucking 'special', why can't we understand what dolphins are saying, even with the help of our so-called advanced, sophisticated, technological gadgets?

This is also interesting.



--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 528
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2012,18:08   

Mung

The position of stupidest Creationist at UD is already taken. But we note and appreciate your efforts, and hope that a vacancy arises soon.

EL@TSZ wrote a GA that generated series of random 50/50 booleans, which she arbitrarily designated H and T to represent coin tosses, then mutated and evaluated according to a fitness function. But wait ... there's a problem.

 
Quote
If only she were actually using coin tosses, or even simulated coin tosses. But alas.

The claim that she is taking subsets of sequences of coin tosses is a flat out lie. Oh, I have no doubt she’s sincere. She really does think the claim is true. By using the symbols T and H she’s done a fine job of fooling herself and apparently many other very bright people over at TSZ.


 
Quote
I’m going to bang this drum again because this idea of hers that she is doing repeated coin tosses appears to be a deeply held part of her delusion.

Also to document how she has repeatedly claimed that her patterns are sequences of 500 coin tosses. They are not. My complaint isn’t that she is not tossing real coins. I can just hear that straw man coming. She is not even simulating patterns of coin tosses.


Edited by Soapy Sam on Sep. 29 2012,18:33

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

If hail is made out of ice and ice came from ice via water, then hail is made out of ice. Joe G

  
k.e..



Posts: 2916
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2012,22:57   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 30 2012,02:08)
Mung

The position of stupidest Creationist at UD is already taken. But we note and appreciate your efforts, and hope that a vacancy arises soon.

EL@TSZ wrote a GA that generated series of random 50/50 booleans, which she arbitrarily designated H and T to represent coin tosses, then mutated and evaluated according to a fitness function. But wait ... there's a problem.

   
Quote
If only she were actually using coin tosses, or even simulated coin tosses. But alas.

The claim that she is taking subsets of sequences of coin tosses is a flat out lie. Oh, I have no doubt she’s sincere. She really does think the claim is true. By using the symbols T and H she’s done a fine job of fooling herself and apparently many other very bright people over at TSZ.


   
Quote
I’m going to bang this drum again because this idea of hers that she is doing repeated coin tosses appears to be a deeply held part of her delusion.

Also to document how she has repeatedly claimed that her patterns are sequences of 500 coin tosses. They are not. My complaint isn’t that she is not tossing real coins. I can just hear that straw man coming. She is not even simulating patterns of coin tosses.

The beauty of the literalist mindset .....in concrete.

I wonder how he deals with this....

The moon is like a baloon.

Mung is a Vogon.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1010
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2012,23:38   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 29 2012,06:45)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 28 2012,19:04)
Speaking of thinking and reasoning, see this and this.


"Tyson also brought along a new toy -- a doll named "Darwin" -- which Chaser had never seen before. When he asked her to find it in the other room, Chaser could locate the doll amid the other toys, inferring that the new object was connected with the new word."

I'd call that thinking and reasoning. Just because animals don't speak human languages doesn't mean that animals are inferior or that humans are made in some imaginary god's image.

And many animals understand human vocalizations and/or body language/gestures better than humans understand animal vocalizations and/or body language/gestures. If humans are so fucking 'special', why can't we understand what dolphins are saying, even with the help of our so-called advanced, sophisticated, technological gadgets?

This is also interesting.


Excellent. :)

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2012,08:24   

Tard the Grumpy Cat


www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/tard-the-grumpy-cat-never-ever-ever-smiles_n_1917675.html


--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2012,09:08   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Sep. 29 2012,19:08)
Mung

The position of stupidest Creationist at UD is already taken. But we note and appreciate your efforts, and hope that a vacancy arises soon.

EL@TSZ wrote a GA that generated series of random 50/50 booleans, which she arbitrarily designated H and T to represent coin tosses, then mutated and evaluated according to a fitness function. But wait ... there's a problem.

   
Quote
If only she were actually using coin tosses, or even simulated coin tosses. But alas.

The claim that she is taking subsets of sequences of coin tosses is a flat out lie. Oh, I have no doubt she’s sincere. She really does think the claim is true. By using the symbols T and H she’s done a fine job of fooling herself and apparently many other very bright people over at TSZ.


   
Quote
I’m going to bang this drum again because this idea of hers that she is doing repeated coin tosses appears to be a deeply held part of her delusion.

Also to document how she has repeatedly claimed that her patterns are sequences of 500 coin tosses. They are not. My complaint isn’t that she is not tossing real coins. I can just hear that straw man coming. She is not even simulating patterns of coin tosses.

There are over 200,000 words in that thread.  and most of them are from tards since they can't leave the gloryhole  UD to converse

Now, I didn't go to the TSZ thread and count how many words are in that thing.  But if you are not causing the tards to write at least 7-10 words for every word you write you are wasting your fucking time.

ETA after all the one social beneft we can all agree upon is that when tards are busy flecking their monitor with rage spit and pounding their keyboard with hamfists, they have no time to erode the teaching of science. So, keep them busy and get over yourself queefsniffs

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2012,10:10

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2012,19:22   

She's back.

Ugh.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1010
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2012,20:13   

This will really piss off gordon e mullings of Montserrat. A verbose meltdown may ensue.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2012,20:21   

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 01 2012,19:22)
She's back.

Ugh.

What difference does it make?  It's pretty much the mung joe kf77 show nonstop.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
sparc



Posts: 1708
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2012,22:18   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2012,20:21)
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 01 2012,19:22)
She's back.

Ugh.

What difference does it make?  It's pretty much the mung joe kf77 show nonstop.

The difference is that we will her and the good doctor asking us to buy their new book in which they
Quote
slam "Christian Darwinism"
whatever that may be. Denyse must have been desperate to publish as News again because she hurried and finished earlier than planned.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2012,22:21   

Jesus H. Christ.  She still doesn't get it:
 
Quote
Here’s another effort (2008) to draw the tree of life. It doesn’t look much like a tree, more like a feather. But then neither did this 2010 one from BioMed Central.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 219 220 221 222 223 [224] 225 226 227 228 229 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]