Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[Dinner]

You don't compare the effects of a welfare state on liberal and conservative parts of the country, you compare out of wedlock birthrates before and after the creation of a welfare state.

You may remember from science class. You can only prove cause and effect if you control for outside factors. Can you really control for all societial changes between 1964 and today? Of course not especially since so many other things have happened (the creation of the pill, the sexual revolution, the break down of families especially in conservative states, etc).

Your attempts to blame welfare for everything which has gone wrong in the last 100 years is truly sad. Especially since a tiny fraction of the total population has ever been on welfare. If welfare only effects a small part of the population but the entire population changes their practices then it is likely other factors are at play.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Yes but how is that different to a beholder in all but predication? That's the difference between essence and purpose.

Looking at a rock doesn't give it purpose.

See aforementioned pwnage.

Own goal, then.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
(Ignoring that I don't think birds are necessarily intelligent actors) that doesn't disprove my point that purpose and intent require intelligent actors. It says that the specifics of my example were incorrect because the principle I was demonstrating holds.

The point was to show that selective pressures act upon both intelligent and nonintelligent species. It is a classic case of evolutionary adaption without any supernatural acts. Yet you can not show any supernatural influences can you?

The best you've been able to come up with is that biological systems are complicated so you think that means god created them. I've asked you before and I'll try one more time. If I can show that complex biological systems can arise without supernatural causes then will you conseed that supernatural causes aren't needed?

[Whaleboy]

Looking at a rock doesn't give it purpose.

You do understand the meaning of "subjective" right? To the subject...

Own goal, then.

OMFG! Teh wit!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The point was to show that selective pressures act upon both intelligent and nonintelligent species. It is a classic case of evolutionary adaption without any supernatural acts. Yet you can not show any supernatural influences can you?

The best you've been able to come up with is that biological systems are complicated so you think that means god created them. I've asked you before and I'll try one more time. If I can show that complex biological systems can arise without supernatural causes then will you conseed that supernatural causes aren't needed?

[Dinner]

Sorry not you Kuci. Diplo or the other pro-creationist types.

[Last Conformist]

Is it just me, or is Kuci sounding suspiciously dualist? He'll go libertarian before you can blink.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You do understand the meaning of "subjective" right? To the subject...

Yes. The subject, in this case, is the actor, though it's perfectly reasonable to state the the purposes of an object are the set of all purposes held by an actor relative to the object.

[Whaleboy]

Is it just me, or is Kuci sounding suspiciously dualist? He'll go libertarian before you can blink.

My work is bearing fruit!

Yes. The subject, in this case, is the actor, though it's perfectly reasonable to state the the purposes of an object are the set of all purposes held by an actor relative to the object.

Hence any definition of purpose is coming from the beholder since as you say, the existence has preceded the essense. Slowly we progress

[Kuciwalker]

Beholder != actor. I can look at a knife without giving it purpose.

[Whaleboy]

I find that unlikely. You use language no?

Note the difference between essence and purpose however.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The user of the knife, or the creator of the knife, does.

So the creator can have a use, I guess. What about the knife? Is it's purpose not to cut - it has a fine blade that can slice through material and little other use. It's what it does, so that's it's purpose.

(Ignoring the fact that humans plant apple trees)

Apples where around before humans where.

an apple has no purpose. The functionality that resulted in the genes that cause apple trees to produce apples being selected by natural selection is planting the tree's seed.

And what's functionality if not purpose?


Do your eyes and legs have no purpose aswell?

It's quite clear what the purpose of legs are - to stand, walk, run, jump, ect... it's all they can do, it's what they're for, and it's why we have them. It's their purpose. Just as an apple's purpose is to spread the seed of the tree.

Actually, in that sense, an apple - or a leg, or an eye, does have 'intent', or an intention, because it exists for a sole purpose.

[Whaleboy]

So the creator can have a use, I guess. What about the knife? Is it's purpose not to cut - it has a fine blade that can slice through material and little other use. It's what it does, so that's it's purpose.

Yes but it could also be used as... I dont know... a percussion instrument. The existence has to precede the essence, which is subjective. The difference between essence and purpose is just one of construction.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
So the creator can have a use, I guess. What about the knife? Is it's purpose not to cut - it has a fine blade that can slice through material and little other use. It's what it does, so that's it's purpose.

As I said, a reasonable definition of the objective purpose of an object is the set of all of the subjective purposes. The knife derives that purpose not from the configuration of its parts but from the intentions others hold towards it.

Apples where around before humans where.

You're missing the point - besides which, the parenthetical was referring to an exception to MY claim, not yours.

And what's functionality if not purpose?

A rock can do tons of things. Accelerated to a high enough speed, it can blow up a planet. Compressed to a small enough size, it can become a black hole. There are an unlimited number of things many objects can do. Purpose is functionality that is intended by someone.

Do your eyes and legs have no purpose aswell?

It's quite clear what the purpose of legs are - to stand, walk, run, jump, ect... it's all they can do, it's what they're for, and it's why we have them. It's their purpose. Just as an apple's purpose is to spread the seed of the tree.

My purpose in using the legs is to walk around. The purpose in legs existing - there is none. That's the point - evolution has no intent, no purpose. There is no purpose to traits that have evolved - there is merely functionality that happens to be conducive towards the reproduction of those traits.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I find that unlikely. You use language no?