NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/15904

Text File | 1992-12-24 | 1.7 KB | 42 lines

Newsgroups: talk.origins
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!gtx!al
From: [e-mail] (Alan Filipski)
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: GTX Corporation, Phoenix AZ
References: <[e-mail]> <eFcZVB1w165w@kalki33>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:44:27 GMT
Lines: 31

In article <eFcZVB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33![e-mail] writes:
][e-mail] (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
]
]> > > To make a very long story very very short:  the primates were here
]> > > before us, and they created us in their image.
]> >
]> > No. Biologically, humans are primates, so the statement that primates
]> > were here before humans is logically invalid.
]>
]>   Sorry Kalki, you have that backwards.  Let me rephrase the comment above:
]>       Planes were around before jets.
]
]No, this statement is invalid unless you specify what kind of planes.
]The author didn't do that (at least not in the fragmented post I saw).
]
]You can't say "class precedes element of class." You can only say
]"element A precedes element B."


I interpret the statement "planes were around before jets" to mean
"there exists a plane x such that, for all jets y, x existed before y
did".  I think that this is the conventional english interpretation.

How is this "logically invalid"? or do you interpret the statement
differently?


  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
 ( INTERNET: [e-mail]      UUCP: uunet!gtx!al         PHONE: [phone] )
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~