Originally posted by FreakyKBHSorry?
A creature with the gift of vocalization is decidedly not within the group normally associated with fairy tales.
You must mean something other than 'there are no talking animals in fairy tales', as this is one of the most standard literary techniques they employ.
So can you elucidate on what you precisely meant?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou can prove someone's statement is untrue by reference to scientific principles without having to prove which of many other possible versions of the truth is, in fact, the actual truth.
Let's give it a look.
1. You rightfully state how I view the Genesis narrative as the account for the origin of life.
2. In rejection of that account (you see where you call it "nonsense" there in your statement?), you claim to rely on science for your perspective.
Ergo, either you don't really rely on science for your understanding of how life came to be, or you've been caught in another contradiction.
For example, if you claim I personally mugged someone, and I have video evidence which shows beyond all doubt I was not there at the time the person was mugged, I can dismiss your claim as nonsense. I do not have to go on and prove to you who did it.
So, you can easily dismiss a literal interpretation of Genesis as nonsense by reference to scientific principles, without having to say anything about how life actually came into being at all.
At the same time, you can easily say that, to the extent that we know the truth about how life came into being, it has been established through applying scientific principles. And also that, if we are ever to know the complete truth about how life came into being, it is most likely that it will be through the application of scientific principles. Hence why someone might claim to 'rely on science' for their perspective.
So your use of 'ergo' is incorrect, as your conclusion does not follow from what precedes it.
Originally posted by Rank outsideras this is one of the most standard literary techniques they employ.
Sorry?
You must mean something other than 'there are no talking animals in fairy tales', as this is one of the most standard literary techniques they employ.
So can you elucidate on what you precisely meant?
You must be thinking of fables.
Fairy tales typically involve:
"...fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants, mermaids, or gnomes..."
Originally posted by Rank outsiderSo, you can easily dismiss a literal interpretation of Genesis as nonsense by reference to scientific principles, without having to say anything about how life actually came into being at all.
You can prove someone's statement is untrue by reference to scientific principles without having to prove which of many other possible versions of the truth is, in fact, the actual truth.
For example, if you claim I personally mugged someone, and I have video evidence which shows beyond all doubt I was not there at the time the person was mugged, I ...[text shortened]...
So your use of 'ergo' is incorrect, as your conclusion does not follow from what precedes it.
Well, you've thrown your hat over the fence.
Time to go get it.
Which "scientific principles" dismiss a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Moreover, you're simply and plainly wrong: googlefudge clearly and specifically rejected the biblical account as nonsense and declared a reliance on science for his understanding of the origins of life.
He didn't say he was relying on what science might some day uncover, he simply flat-out dismissed it and claimed to replace it with science--- which, as we all know, the science doesn't exist.
Maybe that was the fairy tale?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWell Put.
You can prove someone's statement is untrue by reference to scientific principles without having to prove which of many other possible versions of the truth is, in fact, the actual truth.
For example, if you claim I personally mugged someone, and I have video evidence which shows beyond all doubt I was not there at the time the person was mugged, I ...[text shortened]...
So your use of 'ergo' is incorrect, as your conclusion does not follow from what precedes it.
I'm going to use this as my response if you don't mind as it made all my points
more eloquently than I was going to and there is little point in repeating them.
But I might add a little bit.
There many plausible routes by which life could have formed on this planet.
I don't know which route life actually took, and I don't know if we will ever
know for sure. It may be that life can form in multiple different ways and
that there is no way of determining this far after the fact which one actually
happened except perhaps to determine which one is most probable.
So I don't know, or claim to know, The True, way life came to be on the Earth.
That doesn't mean there are not possible ways, it's an area of ongoing research,
it's part of why we are sending probes to other planets to look for life that might
have formed there.
Think of it like a chess game.
If you have a position to analyse, you can know that a move that sacrifices your queen
for no positional advantage is a bad one.
You don't need to be able to see any good ones or be able to determine the best move to
be able to tell that that move is a bad one.
I can know that the bible's account of creation is wrong without needing to know what the
right answer is.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_animals_in_fiction
[b]as this is one of the most standard literary techniques they employ.
You must be thinking of fables.
Fairy tales typically involve:
"...fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants, mermaids, or gnomes..."[/b]
Many fairy tales include apparent talking creatures that prove to be shapeshifted people, or even ghosts. The fairy tales How Ian Direach got the Blue Falcon and Tsarevitch Ivan, the Fire Bird and the Gray Wolf have the hero aided by a fox and a wolf respectively, but in the similar tale The Golden Bird, the talking fox is freed from a spell to become the heroine's brother, and in The Bird 'Grip', the fox leaves the hero after explaining that it was the dead man whose debts the hero had paid.
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms'_Fairy_Tales#List_of_fairy_tales
[b]as this is one of the most standard literary techniques they employ.
You must be thinking of fables.
Fairy tales typically involve:
"...fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants, mermaids, or gnomes..."[/b]
Have a look down the list. Plenty of talking animals.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI see.
Well Put.
I'm going to use this as my response if you don't mind as it made all my points
more eloquently than I was going to and there is little point in repeating them.
But I might add a little bit.
There many plausible routes by which life could have formed on this planet.
I don't know which route life actually took, and I don't know if we ...[text shortened]... hat the bible's account of creation is wrong without needing to know what the
right answer is.
So you admit that you really don't rely on science to inform your opinion about how life began.
I guess you were just saying that colloquially.
🙄
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGo back to school and relearn English.
I see.
So you admit that you really don't rely on science to inform your opinion about how life began.
I guess you were just saying that colloquially.
🙄
Also logic and reason.
I admit nothing of the sort, and you clearly have major comprehension issues to think otherwise.
Untill you can grasp basic English, conversing with you is pointless.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI thought you might have heard about Grimm's Fairy Tales. They are one of the most famous sets of Fairy Tales ever written.
Which Wikipedia reference is going to win?
The one I initially offered?
Googlefudge's?
Yours?
The suspense is riveting!
They have lots of talking animals in them which are central to their plots.
Ergo, a creature with the gift of vocalisation is very much within the group normally associated with fairy tales.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI can't see that there would be much point in debating the evidence that shows that the universe was not created in 7 days, as you won't even accept that fairy tales often have talking animals in them, despite the fact that this statement is patently true and even when the evidence has been provided to you.
[b]Which "scientific principles" dismiss a literal interpretation of Genesis?
If this is the level of your debate, you are just going to dismiss anything posted so, as googlefudge says, it would be pointless.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI can't see that there would be much point in debating the evidence that shows that the universe was not created in 7 days...
I can't see that there would be much point in debating the evidence that shows that the universe was not created in 7 days, as you won't even accept that fairy tales often have talking animals in them, despite the fact that this statement is patently true and even when the evidence has been provided to you.
If this is the level of your debate, you are just going to dismiss anything posted so, as googlefudge says, it would be pointless.
Agreed.
It was six days.
But no sense getting pesky, right?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think he meant the quote above:
[b]as this is one of the most standard literary techniques they employ.
You must be thinking of fables.
Fairy tales typically involve:
"...fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants, mermaids, or gnomes..."[/b]
Though later in the same article:
The characters and motifs of fairy tales are simple and archetypal: princesses and goose-girls; youngest sons and gallant princes; ogres, giants, dragons, and trolls; wicked stepmothers and false heroes; fairy godmothers and other magical helpers, often talking horses, or foxes, or birds; glass mountains; and prohibitions and breaking of prohibitions.
I think we win.