"I don't feel like playing your games or repeating myself"
Projecting, Tenchu. I am not playing any games. You are spinning, obfuscating and hand waving, though.
"so I'll just link back to the post I made to Koan:"
Well, if you really want me to address that asinine post, I will. But you will have to answer my question then.
It is going to be a little sticky, because you seem to think it is splitting hairs to differentiate between the origin of species and the origin of life, let's make sure we are using a common definition, since you seem to like novel ones.
Verb
Infinitive
to split hair
Third person singular
splits hairs
Simple past
split hairs
Past participle
split hairs
Present participle
splitting hairs
to split hair (third-person singular simple present splits hairs, present participle splitting hairs, simple past and past participle split hairs)
1. (idiomatic) To consider or argue about fine details; to worry about minutiae.
Let’s get everything sorted into the right drawers and not split hairs about subdividing it further yet.
[edit] Synonyms
* cavil
[edit] Related terms
* hair-splitting
* hair-splittingly
en.wiktionary.org
Bottom line, it isn't splitting hairs to point out that the origin of life and the origins of species are two totally different topics. Because they are fundamentally different, not just some fine detail.
Now, koan and brainless were discussing evolution. Brainless opined that Darwinism was a belief system, separate from evolution. An observation which illustrates exactly how FOS he is...
But, I digress.
It became pretty clear that brainless wasn't familiar with the contents of "Origin of Species" and was critiquing based solely on the title of the work. Koan was arguing on the contents of the work, so they were talking past each other.
You decided to jump into the middle of the discussion, and challenged koan. The only deficit in his answer was he didn't actually provide a link, just some exposition on common knowledge.
Your reply was typical of your responses.
I asked for a link and you respond with a dismissive, arrogant one-liner.
He posted much more than a one-liner, you just chose to ignore it.
You then posted
Advanced breeding is NOT creating life.
Creating life wasn't the topic of discussion. Creating species was. Species are created through natural selection in a manner very similar to artificial selection, i.e. "breeding".
Not much to expand on here.
And then you decided to up the ante.
Sentience is more than just biochemical feedback loops.
Where the hell did that come from? You like to play this game, take a topic and switch it to something totally different.
There, I addressed your points, such as they were.
Now, back to my original question, where is the line between life and not-life?
Try to actually answer the question instead of putting up one of your trademark straw men. |
