| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
Scientist try and try hard to explain really difficult things in lay terms to the public and people just don't appreciate it. Evolution is really difficult to understand. Just read that journal and you will be completely lost unless you have an undergrad in biology. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
Moreover, according to Darwinist worldview there is no obvious reason why there should be consciousness in the first place. The fact that it is logically impossible to demonstrate that animals other than yourself ARE conscious proves this. It may be, for all you know, that they are only reacting to stimuli in a mechanical, plant-like manner. Consciousness seems completely unnecessary to the functioning of life, no matter how complex, from the biological point of view. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:02 Rev0lution wrote: It's really painful to watch creationist say evolution is not even a theory. Scientist try and try hard to explain really difficult things in lay terms to the public and people just don't appreciate it. Evolution is really difficult to understand. Just read that journal and you will be completely lost unless you have an undergrad in biology. Ya it's sad really. I'm a biology major, and the paper was still difficult to follow at some points. People like TesisMech(read as: people who believe in creationism) can never hope to even begin to grasp it because they are unwilling to gain the scientific knowledge necessary to do so(note: I'm not implying that people who believe in creationism are too stupid to understand the concepts, they are simply unwilling to learn). I truly believe that if creationists were aware of the full body of scientific knowledge they would absolutely not believe creationism to be possible. If only...=/ | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:02 Rev0lution wrote: It's really painful to watch creationist say evolution is not even a theory. Scientist try and try hard to explain really difficult things in lay terms to the public and people just don't appreciate it. Evolution is really difficult to understand. Just read that journal and you will be completely lost unless you have an undergrad in biology. I think it's really easy to understand the basic principles, and once you do, everything in nature fits in with that explanation so well. Almost any question you can ask about living organisms can be answered by arguments from evolution. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 09 2007 13:39 HnR)hT wrote: If everything about life is in principle explained by evolution by random mutations, like the great majority of biologists claim, then religion can't be true, period. In that case, religion can be true... as long as the religion is Buddhism. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:07 HnR)hT wrote: Religion, reasonably defined, entails a belief that human life is more than just a hyper-complicated roundabout vehicle through which DNA replicates itself, and which only came to exist by random mutations. You can't be religious or even not flat-out nihilistic and agree with Darwinists that evolution explains everything. Moreover, according to Darwinist worldview there is no obvious reason why there should be consciousness in the first place. The fact that it is logically impossible to demonstrate that animals other than yourself ARE conscious proves this. It may be, for all you know, that they are only reacting to stimuli in a mechanical, plant-like manner. Consciousness seems completely unnecessary to the functioning of life, no matter how complex, from the biological point of view. Most darwinists don't belive that evolution explains everything. It simply offers an explanation for the developement of life on earth. The meaning behind life is left to religion. Science only explains how/what/where/when. It does not explain why. This is the role of religion. As you may have noticed from this thread, I emphatically believe in evolution. However, I do not deny the possibility that god set the phenomenon of evolution in motion. Or that god is responsible for the meaning in our lives. Evolution merely describes the method for our existance. Not the cause. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
As far as the article, the factual information only supports evolution of the eye if you interpret it in a context where you are already supposing that evolution is true. In which case, this neatly fills in a base condition, yet the rash induction that all the complexity is accounted for by an arbitrarily large amount of time and random drift, is still an assumption, and is still very much in need of substantiating. We can assume, and still be "intelligent", that this creature exists and always has, discrete from other organisms. The only motiviation to not believe so, is to fit it into the existing theory. The circular logic baffles me. | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
| ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The worst thing about these threads is the mob mentality, and the intellectual bullying. An intelligent person can certainly deny macroevolution as the explanation for species diversity; this should not warrant name-calling. It is a disagreement about assumptions. As far as the article, the factual information only supports evolution of the eye if you interpret it in a context where you are already supposing that evolution is true. In which case, this neatly fills in a base condition, yet the rash induction that all the complexity is accounted for by an arbitrarily large amount of time and random drift, is still an assumption, and is still very much in need of substantiating. How exactly, can an intelligent person deny macro evolution as the explanation for species diversity? It's much more difficult than you might think. If you can do it here, I would commend you. There is no mob mentality, but yes there is name calling, a simple side effect of passionate debate. As to your second point, I completely disagree. Perhaps you did not read the actual paper they published? Essentially the scientists have found a gene in the hydra that is also found in humans that is the basic gene for absorbing and recognizing photons. Your last sentence would be true, if it weren't for the two things: Fossils and carbon dating. That pretty much destroys your last statement. It is not an assumption. It's based on evidence. Once again I'd love to see you deny macro evolution with a logically scientific basis,but you must admit that micro-evolution is, of course, undeniable. Oh and READ THE PAPER. These scientists are not simply pulling theories out of their asses. They are examining the genes on a molecular level and noticing simularities in the way they interact with proteins used to detect photons. There is no circular logic being employed here. I await your reply. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:16 HeadBangaa wrote: We can assume, and still be "intelligent", that this creature exists and always has, discrete from other organisms. The only motiviation to not believe so, is to fit it into the existing theory. The circular logic baffles me. Your arrogance and the speed with which you dismiss a Theory which has undergone more scrutiny than any other in the history of science and has still remained the accepted Theory are what baffle me. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:15 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Most darwinists don't belive that evolution explains everything. It simply offers an explanation for the developement of life on earth. The meaning behind life is left to religion. Science only explains how/what/where/when. It does not explain why. This is the role of religion. As you may have noticed from this thread, I emphatically believe in evolution. However, I do not deny the possibility that god set the phenomenon of evolution in motion. Or that god is responsible for the meaning in our lives. Evolution merely describes the method for our existance. Not the cause. If God set evolution in motion, then it is debatable whether that's still Darwinism since it's no longer random... In fact that's more like intelligent design. And if God played no role in our creation whatsoever, then the question of the existence of God (however defined) loses its relevance, so God might as well not exist. But then there can't be any transcendent meaning to life so it's back to nihilism. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:31 HnR)hT wrote: If God set evolution in motion, then it is debatable whether that's still Darwinism since it's no longer random... In fact that's more like intelligent design. And if God played no role in our creation whatsoever, then the question of the existence of God (however defined) loses its relevance, so God might as well not exist. But then there can't be any transcendent meaning to life so it's back to nihilism. I dont see how god setting something in motion removes the ability for that system to be random. Also your second point is a massive assumption. If god did not create us directly than he must no longer exist? How bold of you. But really I'd like to focus on my first point. Oh, and one more question directed at the post prior to this one: How would you define "conciousness" exactly? This is crucial when making the claims that you have made in that post. | ||
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
edit: thanks for the PBS link | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:35 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: I dont see how god setting something in motion removes the ability for that system to be random. Also your second point is a massive assumption. If god did not create us directly than he must no longer exist? How bold of you. But really I'd like to focus on my first point. This is getting really unscientific, but why would God "set evolution in motion" only to leave it to truly random (as opposed to apparently random) chance? Seems to me that either evolution was random, or God had a hand in it. To claim it was a mixture of both would be nonsensical. Similarly for aesthetic reasons I can't fathom the notion that evolution is random and pointless and that God exists at the same time. Seems like a complete waste of the ultimate hypothesis  edit: by consciousness I mean the subjective experience of being conscious, what philosophers call "qualia". | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:46 unknown.sam wrote: for all the guys who flamed me, i know what you guys mean...definitely it was wrong of me to just look that one side of the story instead of both...and yeah, i didn't take up bio in college, took up physics instead...so again, my post was just a matter of opinion (at this moment in time, still subject to change in future)...so until i grasp basic college level bio as TheFoReveRwaR said, my previous post should thus be ignored... edit: thanks for the PBS link Oh so you took physics? Well what about the second half of the article which deals completely with misinterpreting physics? Was that convincing to you as well? | ||
|
man
United States272 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:16 HeadBangaa wrote: The worst thing about these threads is the mob mentality, and the intellectual bullying. An intelligent person can certainly deny macroevolution as the explanation for species diversity; this should not warrant name-calling. It is a disagreement about assumptions. As far as the article, the factual information only supports evolution of the eye if you interpret it in a context where you are already supposing that evolution is true. In which case, this neatly fills in a base condition, yet the rash induction that all the complexity is accounted for by an arbitrarily large amount of time and random drift, is still an assumption, and is still very much in need of substantiating. We can assume, and still be "intelligent", that this creature exists and always has, discrete from other organisms. The only motiviation to not believe so, is to fit it into the existing theory. The circular logic baffles me. We can NOT assume, and still be intelligent, that this or any other creature we see today has always existed, discreet from other organisms. The motivation for doing so is called "evidence". Science does not manipulate findings to fit it into theories, theories are modified to explain the evidence. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
I imagine I will never get the chance to speak to god (and almost certainly, it will not happen before this thread dies) so I must admit I do not have an answer. I do however have a question, why wouldn't he? I don't see why it's nonsensical to postulate that evolution is a product of god and randomness. We see randomness in many observable aspects of life (the movement of electrons for example). It's not unfathomable that it could be a part of evolution as well. As for the qualia thing. If that is your definition than I believe that animals are certainly capable of conciousness. Especially in creatures like great apes and dolphins. They have demonstrated the ability to communcate with humans, and koko the gorilla has specifically referenced to a "self". There are signs for "me" and "you". So that pretty much destorys your initial argument that it is impossible to tell if animals are capable of conciousness. It's quite clear that at least the higher evolved ones are most certainly capable of it. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 14:46 unknown.sam wrote: for all the guys who flamed me, i know what you guys mean...definitely it was wrong of me to just look that one side of the story instead of both...and yeah, i didn't take up bio in college, took up physics instead...so again, my post was just a matter of opinion (at this moment in time, still subject to change in future)...so until i grasp basic college level bio as TheFoReveRwaR said, my previous post should thus be ignored... edit: thanks for the PBS link I just want to commend you for being open minded and having an actual desire to learn. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 15:02 Hippopotamus wrote: Oh so you took physics? Well what about the second half of the article which deals completely with misinterpreting physics? Was that convincing to you as well? Read the last line of his post and leave him alone | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Sea League of Legends 6320910 59Shinee 54Aegong 32scan(afreeca)  30ZergMaN  18Bale 10Icarus 8NotJumperer  6Mind 5Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g7364 WinterStarcraft568 C9.Mang0455 ceh9219 monkeys_forever186 NeuroSwarm59 RuFF_SC237 ViBE32 Organizations Other Games Dota 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Flash
WardiTV Invitational
SHIN vs Nicoract
Solar vs Nice
PiGosaur Cup
GSL
Classic vs Cure
Maru vs Rogue
GSL
SHIN vs Zoun
ByuN vs herO
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
