Creationism / Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2015, 11:15 AM
RE: Creationism / Evolution
(18-03-2015 09:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 09:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The claim that there are a lot of intellectuals who are Creationists, is simply a lie. Every single major accredited university in the entire world teaches it,...

I assume you mean "Every single major accredited university in the entire world teaches it evolution, ..." Shocking

Pedant. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: Creationism / Evolution
(18-03-2015 11:15 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 09:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  I assume you mean "Every single major accredited university in the entire world teaches it evolution, ..." Shocking

Pedant. Tongue

Communicator. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2015, 11:40 AM
RE: Creationism / Evolution
(16-03-2015 01:32 PM)Suzanne Wrote:  I had watched the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate before. I watched it again. However, I'd love to read other people's thoughts and research break-down -- especially ones that talk about how science falls short on evidence (since I'm under the impression it does not fall short, and yet am being told it does...).

Any posts or links I could check out?

Thanks! Big Grin

Can you come up with specific examples of science falling short that we can address? There are some gaps in our knowledge, but even with those gaps, the evidence for evolution is SOOOOOOO overwhelming. For example human evolution has turned out to be a lot more complicated than we had originally envisioned, and we do not have a complete picture of it yet, but there is no doubt that we evolved from more primitive hominid species. We also don't know how life began, but just because we don't know how life began, it doesn't mean that god created man magically from dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: Creationism / Evolution
(18-03-2015 09:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 09:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The claim that there are a lot of intellectuals who are Creationists, is simply a lie. Every single major accredited university in the entire world teaches it,...

I assume you mean "Every single major accredited university in the entire world teaches it evolution, ..." Shocking

Yes. They should also teach some "its and itses (it's)" so I don't have to learn them from the hocmeister. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 09:54 AM
RE: Creationism / Evolution
Inigo said
Quote:There are some gaps in our knowledge, but even with those gaps, the evidence for evolution is SOOOOOOO overwhelming. For example human evolution has turned out to be a lot more complicated than we had originally envisioned, and we do not have a complete picture of it yet, but there is no doubt that we evolved from more primitive hominid species. We also don't know how life began, but just because we don't know how life began, it doesn't mean that god created man magically from dust.

I have been researching atheism, watching Dawkins, Hitchens, et al videos. It all confirms what I suspected and am now declaring my transition from agnostic to atheist.

Re human evolution and the gaps therein, is there any school of thought regarding what I would term "interventionist evolution"? For example, at some point on the evo timeline, a highly advanced extraterrestrial species tampered with the process?

I'm curious about this after having read Bob Berman's "Biocentrism" book. A physicist, he posits sentient life and awareness are the keys to the understanding the universe. He structures his biocentric theory around quantum mechanics. Evo is complicated enough but q.m. makes it look simple. LOL

The main point he makes is that he doesn't buy evolution of any stripe, but rather questions how a human brain could have evolved accidentally from carbon atoms crashing into each other, resulting in our current, complex brains that we don't fully understand.

That led me to wondering if we have a stellar evolution, with (okay, I'm going to say it...) alien DNA inserted into primitive brains early on.

Is there a third camp in the atheistic topic of evolution? Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Creationism / Evolution
(29-03-2015 09:54 AM)rasatabula Wrote:  The main point he makes is that he doesn't buy evolution of any stripe, but rather questions how a human brain could have evolved accidentally from carbon atoms crashing into each other, resulting in our current, complex brains that we don't fully understand.

Any claims based on such a ridiculous strawman depiction of evolution deserve no consideration.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
29-03-2015, 10:08 AM
RE: Creationism / Evolution
(29-03-2015 09:54 AM)rasatabula Wrote:  The main point he makes is that he doesn't buy evolution of any stripe, but rather questions how a human brain could have evolved accidentally from carbon atoms crashing into each other, resulting in our current, complex brains that we don't fully understand.

That is, literally, the dumbest strawman I have ever read, and that writer should be ashamed, if you're using his words there.

First of all, his incredulity of the brain evolving is not an argument against evolution, it's just a testament to the limitations of his imagination and knowledge. "I can't believe that!" is not evidence that that is false.

Secondly, the brain didn't evolve accidentally, let alone due to carbon atoms "crashing." You'd think that, if one wanted to write about evolution, they'd want to know what that is, first. In truth, the brain evolved gradually from earlier nervous systems because it conferred an advantage to possess each stage of that process.

Why is it that those who disagree with evolution never seem to actually understand it, or resort to these strawmen rather than address it? Is it even possible to disagree with evolution while simultaneously knowing what it is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
29-03-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: Creationism / Evolution
(29-03-2015 10:08 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(29-03-2015 09:54 AM)rasatabula Wrote:  The main point he makes is that he doesn't buy evolution of any stripe, but rather questions how a human brain could have evolved accidentally from carbon atoms crashing into each other, resulting in our current, complex brains that we don't fully understand.

That is, literally, the dumbest strawman I have ever read, and that writer should be ashamed, if you're using his words there.

First of all, his incredulity of the brain evolving is not an argument against evolution, it's just a testament to the limitations of his imagination and knowledge. "I can't believe that!" is not evidence that that is false.

Secondly, the brain didn't evolve accidentally, let alone due to carbon atoms "crashing." You'd think that, if one wanted to write about evolution, they'd want to know what that is, first. In truth, the brain evolved gradually from earlier nervous systems because it conferred an advantage to possess each stage of that process.

Why is it that those who disagree with evolution never seem to actually understand it, or resort to these strawmen rather than address it? Is it even possible to disagree with evolution while simultaneously knowing what it is?

I simplified his book into a couple of sentences. What he was getting at, and therefore my question, is how the hell can an evolutionary process take the brain, over an extremely long period, from a few primitive cells, to a brain stem, to what we have today - THOUGHT. Tell me how cellular physiology in the brain went from acting/reacting to stimuli and made the leap to a cognizant, sentient being? That's what I'm asking.

I fully understand that there are stages involved, but when did the ability to think switch on? There was a need to think, therefore it happened?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: Creationism / Evolution
(29-03-2015 10:16 AM)rasatabula Wrote:  I simplified his book into a couple of sentences. What he was getting at, and therefore my question, is how the hell can an evolutionary process take the brain, over an extremely long period, from a few primitive cells, to a brain stem, to what we have today - THOUGHT. Tell me how cellular physiology in the brain went from acting/reacting to stimuli and made the leap to a cognizant, sentient being? That's what I'm asking.

Oh good, so it's just an argument from ignorance. Rolleyes

Quote:I fully understand that there are stages involved, but when did the ability to think switch on? There was a need to think, therefore it happened?

It's like this: complex thought allows one to react dynamically to a wide variety of stimuli, and hence is a good survival trait. If you can react with more speed and acuity than another animal, then you'll most likely get out of danger better than those other animals. The more complex your mechanisms for thought, the better chances you have of surviving and passing on your genes, which have that capacity for complex thought within them.

We see this even with very simple organisms, where simple autonomic processes that cause the organism to react to perceived danger allow it to survive better than those that lack that capability. The eye, for example, began as a patch of light sensitive cells linked to motor function, which allowed for some rudimentary ability to recognize food or danger. From there, it's a simple system of layering complexity; you go from an autonomic process that confers an advantage to a slightly more complex variation on the same theme and so on. Each one equips the organism with a better chance at survival and reproduction, and is thus passed on. At a certain point, you end up with self awareness, which is itself an advantage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
29-03-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Creationism / Evolution
(29-03-2015 10:16 AM)rasatabula Wrote:  
(29-03-2015 10:08 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  That is, literally, the dumbest strawman I have ever read, and that writer should be ashamed, if you're using his words there.

First of all, his incredulity of the brain evolving is not an argument against evolution, it's just a testament to the limitations of his imagination and knowledge. "I can't believe that!" is not evidence that that is false.

Secondly, the brain didn't evolve accidentally, let alone due to carbon atoms "crashing." You'd think that, if one wanted to write about evolution, they'd want to know what that is, first. In truth, the brain evolved gradually from earlier nervous systems because it conferred an advantage to possess each stage of that process.

Why is it that those who disagree with evolution never seem to actually understand it, or resort to these strawmen rather than address it? Is it even possible to disagree with evolution while simultaneously knowing what it is?

I simplified his book into a couple of sentences. What he was getting at, and therefore my question, is how the hell can an evolutionary process take the brain, over an extremely long period, from a few primitive cells, to a brain stem, to what we have today - THOUGHT. Tell me how cellular physiology in the brain went from acting/reacting to stimuli and made the leap to a cognizant, sentient being? That's what I'm asking.

I fully understand that there are stages involved, but when did the ability to think switch on? There was a need to think, therefore it happened?

Thinking and consciousness are not on/off.
Do you think only humans have intelligence? That only humans are self-aware? That only humans have emotions?

I suggest you read some actual books on evolution and consciousness. I'd say Richard Dawkins on the former and Daniel Dennett on the latter.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: