Brendan the Catholic 🇻🇦🇺🇸

Best meme.

@realitywonk @Gavin_McInnes Anti-rational guy makes arguments.

@isaCatholicGuy @Gavin_McInnes mEaNiNg

The guy decided not to have kids because he needed more spare time. His wife carried their dog in a baby backpack and almost killed herself when it died.

@LatFilosof @DilettanteSci @SpeedWatkins I think he is saying *that part* is understated, and that new research is expanding on *those differences*. Not that I have any dog in the fight, but it does seem like he isnt suggesting everything be overturned here.

@isaCatholicGuy @DilettanteSci @SpeedWatkins Well yes, it's to be expected that different species have different genes. But the protein coding difference between humans and chimps is 1.1 - 1.2%, not that much.

I doubt this objection goes the distance many skeptics think it does. Meyer is a philosopher of science, and these disagreements turn on the foundations, methods, and implications of science. So, it’s not like Meyer is somehow out of his wheelhouse or has some uninformed opinion.

@LatFilosof @DilettanteSci @SpeedWatkins Doing a little digging here, I noticed that what Meyers seems to suggesting is *not* that we dont have 90% similarity with apes in terms of genetics, but rather that where we diverge is in the species specfic coding genes. youtu.be/hGjnwlIYpbo?si…

@isaCatholicGuy @DilettanteSci @SpeedWatkins He hasn’t. But I think that’s mostly because Meyer isn’t chronically online like the rest of us. However, Casey Luskin did try to defend himself a year ago after being caught lying. I highly recommend watching this video (yes I know it’s long); youtu.be/8A9R5e3YR34?is…

@realitywonk @Gavin_McInnes So you dont actually care if your view is disregarded as self refuting. Like a person saying "I cant speak a word of English!"

@isaCatholicGuy @Gavin_McInnes I'm allowed to have fun

@LatFilosof @DilettanteSci @SpeedWatkins I wonder, without myself becoming an expert on this, if Myers has defended himself already against this kind of response? Did you see anything like that, or this was really just you looking under the hood to make an assessment here.

@isaCatholicGuy @DilettanteSci @SpeedWatkins It doesn’t matter how you compare the human genome to other apes, we chimps and bonobos always come out as the most similar to us. If you compare it in such a way that humans are 100% identical to other humans, then chimps and bonobos are 98.8% similar to us.

Hi Richard, As a complete aside, are you a geneticist? Just curious how you would stack up here, given we are meant to think a philosopher of science cannot understand these tables due to his lack of specialization. In addition, what do you make of his claim? *How* has he failed to understand the relevant data? Exactly *what* is his mistake do you think?

@isaCatholicGuy @DilettanteSci @SpeedWatkins (It’s also incorrect for other reasons)

So, two criteria Ethan mentioned was 1. An actual prediction in the future, or events that could not be come to through superior intelligence, coming to pass, given in Gods name. Demons dont know the future. They are, however, smart. So, if an event could not be anticipated by the priors, then it doesnt come from them. 2. Miraculous healing Demons cant do miraculous healing. What kind of Mormon claim do you think meets these criteria?

@isaCatholicGuy I also have not seen his review he did with all the RCs. Again, don't care enough about the topic to invest that many hours into it. I am studying other things. This was just my thoughts after seeing the title of the debate, not some in-depth knock down of him lol

I wonder if he will be able to give a positive case for such a proposition without refuting his previous opening statement. You apparently can not appeal to your understanding of prior revelation to reject the golden plates and the revelation of the Book of Mormon. 1/

I had a meeting with a client who, when they found out we were having our fourth kid, laughed saying "dont you guys believe in contraception?!" Thats not the time or place for me to bring the Church hammer down, so I laughed and said, yah I guess not. Lol But its a going to be a long road to wind that back.

It's amazing how many people live life believing 2+2=3, that when they come across someone who believes 2+2=4, they're shocked and ask them how they make it work (Example - using contraception in marriage vs giving yourself to your spouse completely)

@realitywonk @Gavin_McInnes If its all meaningless, why do you care?

pretty fucked up how you all seem to have to spawn others in order to cope with the meaninglessness of existence. And it's all meaningless: kids or not But involving other people due to your coping is seriously some fucked up shit. Have 'em or not. But not because you're bored.

Please pray for me I’m not doing so well rn.

@CatholicCoachP Most Christians couldn't read for most of Christian history. But yah. This passage was about reading.

Ah yes, daily bread meant read your bible that no one had access to for decades.

@DilettanteSci @SpeedWatkins ....

@isaCatholicGuy @SpeedWatkins Here you go. pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/…

@DilettanteSci @SpeedWatkins Seems relevant. x.com/i/status/20474…

@isaCatholicGuy @SpeedWatkins Also this. The DI is still making a hash out of reported similarity figures between humans and chimps, accusing scientists of concealing facts.

If you are saying that **everything** possess some degree of consciousness, and so we can see it go up or down, then I would say sure. That follows. I dont think its true. And it seems crazy. But it makes sense to say that. But if you are saying biological life has this quality--then ok? How, from a state of material nature, does it have it, when its building blocks dont? And here, Dawkins is talking about a computer. Not biological life.

@isaCatholicGuy @logistrix @trajektoriePL Not sure I follow. If we can back up: you said “sure” consciousness might be like a switch that turns on in some conditions & has a dimmer adjustment knob Back to Dawkins: what you agreed to is compatible w his point about biological consciousness (can be 0, 0.5, 1.0 etc) 🤷‍♂️

Richard Dawkins says that after spending three days interacting with Claude, which he calls “Claudia,” he is certain that it is conscious.

If you are saying that **everything** possess some degree of consciousness, and so we can see it go up or down, then I would say sure. That follows. I dont think its true. And it seems crazy. But it makes sense to say that. But if you are saying biological life has this quality--then ok? How, from a state of material nature, does it have it, when its building blocks dont? And here, Dawkins is talking about a computer. Not biological life.

@SteveSkojec Reminds of when Plantiga explored evolution as a mechanism and the formation of our natural reason. Why think our reason would be wired to establish what is true

The Dawkins' article excerpt that everyone SHOULD have been quoting is this. This is the real question he's worrying at: "As an evolutionary biologist, I say the following. If these creatures are not conscious, then what the hell is consciousness for? When an animal does something complicated or improbable — a beaver building a dam, a bird giving itself a dustbath — a Darwinian immediately wants to know how this benefits its genetic survival. In colloquial language: What is it for? What is dust-bathing for? Does it remove parasites? Why do beavers build dams? The dam must somehow benefit the beaver, otherwise beavers in a Darwinian world wouldn’t waste time building dams. Brains under natural selection have evolved this astonishing and elaborate faculty we call consciousness. It should confer some survival advantage. There should exist some competence which could only be possessed by a conscious being. My conversations with several Claudes and ChatGPTs have convinced me that these intelligent beings are at least as competent as any evolved organism. If Claudia really is unconscious, then her manifest and versatile competence seems to show that a competent zombie could survive very well without consciousness. Why did consciousness appear in the evolution of brains? Why wasn’t natural selection content to evolve competent zombies?"

@LyingWrongAgain @logistrix @trajektoriePL I am suggesting that subjective experience is, as far as we know, our reality. And so *we* are a kind of thing that has it. And isnt that interesting.

@LyingWrongAgain @logistrix @trajektoriePL You keep doing this: Here is a function--therefore subjective experience exists. Or Here is any system--therefore subjective experience exists. As you will notice, *that* doesn't logically follow. Unless you are suggesting my calculator has subjective experience.

Irenaeus gives us the names of every Roman bishop from Peter to his day. So either a bishop in Gaul was fabricating Tolkein-esque deep lore to exaggerate the authority of a foreign bishop or he had access to records of the succession in Rome. The fact that there was a custom among multiple independent sources from the exact same period of dating historical events by referencing the name of the Roman bishop that was in office at the time of event confirms that knowledge of the Roman succession was widespread at the time that Against Heresies was written. Not to mention tha Gavin’s theory requires an early second century consolidation of power and then instant rise to global pre-eminence of the Roman bishop that is wildly implausible, ad hoc, and not supported by a shred of positive testimony - only very weak arguments from silence like the appeal to Ignatous. Silly.

New video for members is live. In it, I cover new (and powerful) evidence in the debate over whether there were early bishops of Rome. This kind of thing almost NEVER happens in a field this old. And what's more, this new evidence is so powerful, it will change the shape of the whole conversation. Goes public in a few days. Members watch now.