Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Good thing I didn't use the term "contrapositive" but rather "reversal." Since I reversed both terms.
[list=1][*]Reversing the terms does not produce a logically equivalent result.
[*]Quoting posts that I quoted previously does not explain how these posts do not support the conclusion, "Proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."[/list]
Originally posted by Member.
what u'r saying is basically the same thing as:red is a color because we called it "color", but it could be green to someone else, but they wouldn't know it to be green, cuz they'll only know green as "red"
but red does not evolve. it is subjective expirience. we do not have an initial definition of RED against which to put any random stiulus or expirience in. the reason why this argument can not be used to justify the "we define context, hence everything becomes evolved" argument is that society defines the objective reality by words and we simply put oyr sujbjective expirience in the physical expirience which is defined by society. however, if the example were to work on IMPOSING definitions onto stimuli, we would be defining a range of different things as red. however, reguardless of subjective expirience, the definition of red is CONSTANT, an can not be imposed onto say, BLUE. the DIFFERENCE in stimuli remains even in subjective expirience. but nihilo proposes that our definition of "evolved" changes every time sumthing new is seen to ASSIMILATE the new stimulus in our definition. or inversely, our PERCEPTION of the new thing changes to assimilate into the established definition of the constant "evolution". i dont agree with it based on the fact that humans beings are not so utterly delusional specially when characteristics of evolution have been defined and many htings fit and many things do not fit in them. i will agree though that generally, fossils etc discovered are on the whole thought by anthropologists and biologists to be part of the evolutionary chain even if there isnt specific evidence fot that particular specimen at the time. the reason is, that evolution has been observed in the entire animal kingdom and it is highly improbable from the scientist's perception that such functional organism arent a part of it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are you comfortable with that lack of support for your ideas?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]Reversing the terms does not produce a logically equivalent result.[*]Quoting posts that I quoted previously does not explain how these posts do not support the conclusion, "Proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."[/list]
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Erroneous.1. I maintain my initial statement.
2. While I'm sure that evolutionists do have a bias toward seeing things as evolved rather than designed, that wasn't the point of this thread.
I take that as a "yes, I believe what ever I want too, for what ever reason I want too".
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I maintain my initial statement.
Your initial statement is illogical.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
While I'm sure that evolutionists do have a bias toward seeing things as evolved rather than designed, that wasn't the point of this thread.
By all means, explain the point.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
FALSE.
The contrapositive of “Natural things are not the result of design processes,” is "Artificial things are the result of design processes." Simply reversing the terms, i.e. "Designed things are the result of evolutionary processes," does not produce a logically equivalent result. Therefore, your initial statement is illogical; TRUE.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm pretty sure that the posts I quoted spelled out the point rather explicitly.
Then you will not have any trouble "spelling out the point rather explicitly" in a new post.