Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Deicide on October 20, 2010, 11:14:34 AM
-
I mean, most of the time, from what I read, they don't understand have evolution works to begin with and on a more practical level, what have some of the best minds of the world been doing wasting their time on a theory that is clearly wrong (according to these Christians); they have only studied their subjects for years and have PhDs but hey, you have the Bible. End of argument. ::)
-
I mean, most of the time, from what I read, they don't understand have evolution works to begin with and on a more practical level, what have some of the best minds of the world been doing wasting their time on a theory that is clearly wrong (according to these Christians); they have only studied their subjects for years and have PhDs but hey, you have the Bible. End of argument. ::)
Why don't you post a link for us unedumacated ones?
-
Because the whole idea of evolution is stoooopid.
-
Why don't you post a link for us unedumacated ones?
It would be worthless, Stella, you are a Creationist and I could argue until I was blue in the face; it would not change your stance on anything. I say of course uneducated, because I wonder what exactly you think scientists have been doing for years? Just imagining this stuff?
NB This post has nothing to do with my opinion of you as a person; I am fodn of you, as you know. :)
-
It would be worthless, Stella, you are a Creationist and I could argue until I was blue in the face; it would not change your stance on anything. I say of course uneducated, because I wonder what exactly you think scientists have been doing for years? Just imagining this stuff?
Just post a link proving Macro Evolution. Or post the proof in your own words. I will read it. I watched an hour video YngwieRhoads posted once.
And as for your "uneducated" statement ......do you agree that humans are fallible beings or do you think that there are infallible people that are always correct and never make mistakes? Humans are fallible no matter how "educated" they are.
-
http://www.amazon.com/Food-Gods-Original-Knowledge-Evolution/dp/0553371304
-
Just to clarify the R.Catholic acknowledges both evolution and creationism. they co-exist.
-
I mean, most of the time, from what I read, they don't understand have evolution works to begin with and on a more practical level, what have some of the best minds of the world been doing wasting their time on a theory that is clearly wrong (according to these Christians); they have only studied their subjects for years and have PhDs but hey, you have the Bible. End of argument. ::)
Maybe you can explain how evolution produced conscience and self awareness in humans.
Hint: Scientists have not come up with the answer. I doubt you are any smarter.
-
Just post a link proving Macro Evolution. Or post the proof in your own words. I will read it. I watched an hour video YngwieRhoads posted once.
And as for your "uneducated" statement ......do you agree that humans are fallible beings or do you think that there are infallible people that are always correct and never make mistakes? Humans are fallible no matter how "educated" they are.
Sure people are fallible and make mistakes. Science is always being updated for precisely that reason but science is based on amassing evidence to support ideas, merely proclaiming god did it answers nothing and is not supported by evidence. More to the point, if you did a PhD in evolutionary biology and still felt the need to challenge the status of evolution I think you probably would have a good reason but I am not sure you understand what evolution states and how to summarise it.
Macroevolution takes place over millions of years; the evidence is in transitional forms for example; fossils of whale like creatures found in Pakistan and India that are intermediary forms between modern whales and their ancestors.
-
Maybe you can explain how evolution produced conscience and self awareness in humans.
Hint: Scientists have not come up with the answer. I doubt you are any smarter.
How evolution produced these things? Evolution is not a conscious process, yet you speak of it as if it were.
-
Because the whole idea of evolution is stoooopid.
Then what's your opinion on bacteria?
If you get strept throat (or anything similar), do you tell your doctor that you refuse to take newer generation antibiotics that were developed because bacteria have evolved over time, developing a resistence to first generation antibiotics?
If evolution really is "stoooopid," then make sure you refuse any medication developed because of the evolutionary development of bacteria. The newer medicines are much more expensive and I don't appreciate "creationists" raising my insurance costs by taking expensive medicines that they believe are completely pointless.
-
How evolution produced these things? Evolution is not a conscious process, yet you speak of it as if it were.
You seem very angry about something and seem to think people care what you think.
-
Sure people are fallible and make mistakes. Science is always being updated for precisely that reason but science is based on amassing evidence to support ideas, merely proclaiming god did it answers nothing and is not supported by evidence. More to the point, if you did a PhD in evolutionary biology and still felt the need to challenge the status of evolution I think you probably would have a good reason but I am not sure you understand what evolution states and how to summarise it.
Macroevolution takes place over millions of years; the evidence is in transitional forms for example; fossils of whale like creatures found in Pakistan and India that are intermediary forms between modern whales and their ancestors.
Please tell me your definition of Macro Evolution and can you also please post a link that you think is a good explanation of proving Macro Evolution?
-
Who gives a shit?
-
I watched an hour video YngwieRhoads posted once.
:)
-
Please tell me your definition of Macro Evolution and can you also please post a link that you think is a good explanation of proving Macro Evolution?
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787
-
Please tell me your definition of Macro Evolution and can you also please post a link that you think is a good explanation of proving Macro Evolution?
You insist on using this term 'macro'. Most scientists simply call it evolution.
Evolution is the non-random process of genetic selection based on randomly generated mutations.
-
Just to clarify the R.Catholic acknowledges both evolution and creationism. they co-exist.
x2
evolution don't prove against the existance of a creator. However catholics generally ignore the first testament as it's a jew book, therefore alot of this shit is unimportant. If it wasn't said by jesus it's simply a story, if it was said by jesus and wrong it's simply a mis interpretation.
-
Science takes brain cells to understand
Santa clause, tooth fair, and god can be understood even by children
-
How evolution produced these things? Evolution is not a conscious process, yet you speak of it as if it were.
I am not speaking of evolution as a conscious process? Try again and read what I asked. Hint: How come our species has capacity for conscience and others don't? Evolution can not explain that. Don't act like this has not been argued before. Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome program and a Christian, has been in many debates with atheists and scientists who refute the existense of God. When he asks this question, none can answer it? If we are just an evolved animal, how did those basic animalistic instincts give way to conscience and other attributes that we have that other "animals" don't have?
I think man is more complex than bacterium.
-
I am not speaking of evolution as a conscious process? Try again and read what I asked. Hint: How come our species has capacity for conscience and others don't? Evolution can not explain that. Don't act like this has not been argued before. Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome program and a Christian, has been in many debates with atheists and scientists who refute the existense of God. When he asks this question, none can answer it? If we are just an evolved animal, how did those basic animalistic instincts give way to conscience and other attributes that we have that other "animals" don't have?
I think man is more complex than bacterium.
well gets get scientific get a dog try to knock it out, if you can your theory might be wrong.
-
I am not speaking of evolution as a conscious process? Try again and read what I asked. Hint: How come our species has capacity for conscience and others don't? Evolution can not explain that. Don't act like this has not been argued before. Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome program and a Christian, has been in many debates with atheists and scientists who refute the existense of God. When he asks this question, none can answer it? If we are just an evolved animal, how did those basic animalistic instincts give way to conscience and other attributes that we have that other "animals" don't have?
I think man is more complex than bacterium.
Randomised mutation can lead to impressive results. Eventually, even the most unlikely scenario will come true, given enough time but the short of it is that we lucked out.
-
Then what's your opinion on bacteria?
If you get strept throat (or anything similar), do you tell your doctor that you refuse to take newer generation antibiotics that were developed because bacteria have evolved over time, developing a resistence to first generation antibiotics?
If evolution really is "stoooopid," then make sure you refuse any medication developed because of the evolutionary development of bacteria. The newer medicines are much more expensive and I don't appreciate "creationists" raising my insurance costs by taking expensive medicines that they believe are completely pointless.
OK while I don't really want to get into this whole debate, I hate it when this type of argument comes up. Just because something like bacteria develops a resistance to antibiotics doesn't mean it is evolution. At the end of the day it hasn't changed into another species, which is what the evolutionary theory suggests. It's still the same species of bacteria it was before. We as humans develop resistances to diseases as well, but we don't become another species when that happens.
The same with the story of the peppered moth. Just because of environmental change the numbers of the brown peppered moth increased, while the white peppered moth decreased. But both the brown peppered moth and the white peppered moth existed before, and after the environmental stress, so there was no new species created, How is this evolution?
-
I wonder what our next sense will be to comunicate..
I mean first we didnt talk, we like grunted and made gestures, then we started talking and created languages etc
It has to evolve. So whats next in line? Maby the "sense" that some twins seems to have? when they feel connected, and they can seem to just Think to each other and know what they are thinking and finish each others sentences etc.
Maby they are tuning into something we havent yet, I mean alot of times you for example Know is someone is lying just by looking at them.. Thats a sense.. You can get a feeling someones not being honest. And you can sometimes Feel if soemthing bad has happened to someone...
Whats next?!
-
You insist on using this term 'macro'. Most scientists simply call it evolution.
Evolution is the non-random process of genetic selection based on randomly generated mutations.
AND we should keep in mind that scientists uses the word "theory" in a DIFFERENT way then the average joe. Same as Newton theorys that ARE facts..
-
OK while I don't really want to get into this whole debate, I hate it when this type of argument comes up. Just because something like bacteria develops a resistance to antibiotics doesn't mean it is evolution. At the end of the day it hasn't changed into another species, which is what the evolutionary theory suggests. It's still the same species of bacteria it was before. We as humans develop resistances to diseases as well, but we don't become another species when that happens.
The same with the story of the peppered moth. Just because of environmental change the numbers of the brown peppered moth increased, while the white peppered moth decreased. But both the brown peppered moth and the white peppered moth existed before, and after the environmental stress, so there was no new species created, How is this evolution?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.html
1. How can one species "turn into" another?
One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
-
AND we should keep in mind that scientists uses the word "theory" in a DIFFERENT way then the average joe. Same as Newton theorys that ARE facts..
Yes, in science, a theory is a body of facts.
-
Yes, in science, a theory is a body of facts.
exactly. Most people dont know that (religious people)
buy this book decide and get back to me with what you think.
http://www.amazon.com/Food-Gods-Original-Knowledge-Evolution/dp/0553371304
-
Science takes brain cells to understand
Santa clause, tooth fair, and god can be understood even by children
It also takes brain cells not to put down others for their personal beliefs when you yourself have no proof of the big bang theory or have yet to find the "missing link".
-
It also takes brain cells not to put down others for their personal beliefs when you yourself have no proof of the big bang theory or have yet to find the "missing link".
So if I said I found a book, that didnt have any author and is told a RIDICULOUS story. The first 2 people on eath was zapped there from another planet and just blinked their eyes and more poeple were sent there.
You couldn't call me crazy if you believe in the bible..
adam and eve? and a fucking snake? and god created earth BEFORE light? so he couldnt see what he was doing while creating earth?? and he created light with only saying "let there be light" and baam light came? so he created the sun? because there is were light comes from? so god said "let there be light" and BAAAM the sun just popped into place?
And what did adam and eve look like? pre-historic neanderthals? and why does our dna look So much like monkeys? were adam and eve two apes maby?
fucking ludacris haha
-
It also takes brain cells not to put down others for their personal beliefs when you yourself have no proof of the big bang theory or have yet to find the "missing link".
I believe that Leprechauns created this vast universe and i better not hear you say anything against my believes Sir
-
I believe that Leprechauns created this vast universe and i better not hear you say anything against my believes Sir
that claim brings about as much proof at the "bible"
-
It also takes brain cells not to put down others for their personal beliefs when you yourself have no proof of the big bang theory or have yet to find the "missing link".
You're kidding, right?
Inflation is the prevailing theory these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29
-
I believe that Leprechauns created this vast universe and i better not hear you say anything against my believes Sir
I wouldn't discredit the fact that aliens helped us evolve and teached us shit. the biggest mystery is still how the brain doubled in size over 2 million years. NO ONE can expain that. And Food of gods gives a interesting ideas hehe
-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.html
1. How can one species "turn into" another?
One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
So basically we have to believe, or have faith, that given enough time, A species' DNA will change, even though everything we know about DNA and reproduction,seems to contradicts that happening. And the best scientific answer they can come up with for this phenomena is "it takes a long time".
-
I wish I remember that Tribe it was that always carried their canoe on their back, and over time the new generation develped a hump in their back helping with that task.
ka ching
-
:)
:)
Thanks for posting a link D, I will watch it when I get back.
-
So basically we have to believe, or have faith, that given enough time, A species' DNA will change, even though everything we know about DNA and reproduction,seems to contradicts that happening. And the best scientific answer they can come up with for this phenomena is "it takes a long time".
If your tap was dripping with water and you put your hand it it, causing the water to drip on your hand, would you believe that same thing could carve MASSIVE holes in mountains? solid hard ass stone?
...unless you actually knew it Could happen.
no you wouldnt. Because ...it takes tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime
-
So basically we have to believe, or have faith, that given enough time, A species' DNA will change, even though everything we know about DNA and reproduction,seems to contradicts that happening. And the best scientific answer they can come up with for this phenomena is "it takes a long time".
Nope.
-
ignorance is whats keeping us from evolving in an insanly higher rate.
and who should we thank for that?
religion.
When troubled weak minded read the bible and go ohhh, thats problably what happend, No need to worry/think about it anymore thats when they stop looking for what Really happened. Or Real explinations to stuff. And then they FORCE it upon the new generation without letting their mind think for themself. And they do it to their kids and it goes on and on.
Luckily some people got away from that. And thank "god" for that lol.
religion is a horrible brain numbing disease
-
I wish I remember that Tribe it was that always carried their canoe on their back, and over time the new generation develped a hump in their back helping with that task.
ka ching
Or the Tribe that fuucked so much that their penis and vaginas evolved to manginas
-
Or the Tribe that fuucked so much that their penis and vaginas evolved to manginas
BULLSHIT things doesnt evolve!! "god" created EVEYRTHING and everything that happends is his will!!
Talk about the Easy way out. for the troubled mind lol.
-
Religious belifes Compared to IQ
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
Who do you think believe in god the most? Low iq people or high?
...
who do you think is easier to brainwash? smart of dumb people?
-
If your tap was dripping with water and you put your hand it it, causing the water to drip on your hand, would you believe that same thing could carve MASSIVE holes in mountains? solid hard ass stone?
...unless you actually knew it Could happen.
no you wouldnt. Because ...it takes tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime
Wow that was actually intelligent, your ability to understand the "small" minded is quite impressive.
-
Wow that was actually intelligent, your ability to understand the "small" minded is quite impressive.
im the "god" of comparisions/simplefying shit ;D
-
im the "gnome" of comparisions ;D
fixed
-
fixed
another theory is that psychedelics helps the mind tune into things that is beyond our "normal" brain activity. And is something that can be Extremly useful.
There is a type of mushroom that have helped A TON of cocaine addics, nicotine addics, due to their mind is that short span is allowed to think in a new way and they are realising wtf they are doing and stopepd doing cocaine and smoking Right away. and they didn't have the need to take the psychedelic again.
And to ignorant people its = Dude its fucking DRUGS drugs fuck you up man!!!!!
Same with weed how it makes everything better ( "its because your fucking hiigh dude you fucking addict!!" just makes walking down the street bette,r makes you appriciate what you see more, like the clouds, people, trees etc, just makes music better, and can make you come to terms with shit (if you dont smoke too much and turn into a tard lol)
I feel very good with claiming if Everyone smoked a little but, not as much as it makes you just wanna sit down. It WOULD make the world a better place.
Try smoking weed and argueing war, or thinking about how people KILL each other for just believing something different and that non of the aprties can prove ???
how fucking silly isn't it.
"dude you're a fucking retard Everyone smoking weed haha, nothing would get done lo lol l o l ol"
"I tried that in highschool dude, I gew the fuck up!! guy drug!!"
"god" damnit the world is fucked up lol.
and to top it off, you cant even grow Hemp the "billion dollar crop" even though you cant get high from it, and there is Billions to be made from it lol.
But noooooooooooo. Fuck ALL of this shit. God created everything and everything that happends is gods will. its as easy as that.
haha
IF god created earth be put the cannabis plant on this earth right? and everything he does has a reason right?
MABY TO SMOKE THAT SHIT and stop believing in dumb ass fairytales that your average 5 yr old would call BS on lol.
-
classic GB thread ;D
-
classic GB thread ;D
This isn't about god(s) wavelength. This is about evolution. Will you concede that people who don't accept it are ignorant of the topic?
-
This isn't about god(s) wavelength. This is about evolution. Will you concede that people who don't accept it are ignorant of the topic?
That always depends on if the context in which scientific theories exist is understood.
This is neither the case with creationists nor scientific positivists.
-
Why don't you post a link for us unedumacated ones?
;D
-
the idea we evolved from a single celled organism over millions of years into apes and then into humans is about as believable as a man in the sky creating all this.
man needs to believe in a creator and an afterlife. to think that we are only here for 70-90 years and then we die is too much to bear for the weak minded. we need there to be more. i guess its because we are so much better than any other organism on the planet. gimme a fucking break.
-
That always depends on if the context in which scientific theories exist is understood.
This is neither the case with creationists nor scientific positivists.
Is the theory of evolution scientifically valid and factual?
-
:-\
S T A L K E R
-
Is the theory of evolution scientifically valid and factual?
In the context of a biological theory, yes.
-
In the context of a biological theory, yes.
Wow, about as close as a concession as you have ever made! :o
-
Maybe you can explain how evolution produced conscience and self awareness in humans.
Hint: Scientists have not come up with the answer. I doubt you are any smarter.
THIS WILL BE proven in the future because scientis, engineers technology ect will replicate or learn how to reproduce the human brain...then these brains will be put into complex machines that in therory will become self aware or have conciousness....they may simply just clone the human brain to????????,but either way you will have machines that will be self aware....see SKYNET HAS BECOME SELF AWARE ...same concept. we just dont have the technology yet...but eventually through science and new technology we will find that a GOD persay really does not exsist and they will prove it..
-
THIS WILL BE proven in the future because scientis, engineers technology ect will replicate or learn how to reproduce the human brain...then these brains will be put into complex machines that in therory will become self aware or have conciousness....they may simply just clone the human brain to????????,but either way you will have machines that will be self aware....see SKYNET HAS BECOME SELF AWARE ...same concept. we just dont have the technology yet...but eventually through science and new technology we will find that a GOD persay really does not exsist and they will prove it..
Unless we get hit by a big ass meteor AGAIN and everything gets reset AGAIN. and everything has to re-evlove.
hopefully next time no one writes any religius books lol.
-
Wow, about as close as a concession as you have ever made! :o
Never said anything different. If you think you can explain what a human is by means of a biological theory, you're wrong though.
-
THIS WILL BE proven in the future because scientis, engineers technology ect will replicate or learn how to reproduce the human brain...then these brains will be put into complex machines that in therory will become self aware or have conciousness....they may simply just clone the human brain to????????,but either way you will have machines that will be self aware....see SKYNET HAS BECOME SELF AWARE ...same concept. we just dont have the technology yet...but eventually through science and new technology we will find that a GOD persay really does not exsist and they will prove it..
this will never happen.
-
this will never happen.
Why not, omniscient one?
-
Never said anything different. If you think you can explain what a human is by means of a biological theory, you're wrong though.
Last I checked, a human being is an ape. You want to dispute that?
-
Last I checked, a human being is an ape. You want to dispute that?
we're all apes floating around on big rock in space.
actually we might just be a virus. do you see what he have done to this planet? We might just be a desciece. "earth" and "space" might just be an atom on something ALOT bigger. wtf do we know? space is endless..
what an atom is to us, could be what we are to something else.
-
Why not, omniscient one?
Because awareness can neither be explained nor reproduced by natural science.
Last I checked, a human being is an ape. You want to dispute that?
A human being is an ape only in one aspect: biologically.
-
They can doubt macroevolution all they want. Still doesn't prove their "theory" of an omnipotent deity creating everything. The biggest evidence burden is on them.
-
Another funny thing is that humans are claimed to be the most evolved species on earh
I dont agree with that. we're evloved in Different way.
If we were the most evolved we wouldnt need TOOLS and WEAPONS to kill much larger animals our body would have been Evolved enough to do it by itself, using only your hands.
We can freeze to death in cold climat unless we put clothes on..
We would die in hot temprature due to dehydration.
Which ALOT of animals could handle.
So evolved in Another way is the key ;D
Put every animal on the planet in the same Big ass place and lets see who survives the longest, it sure as hell wouldnt be humans lol.
-
Another funny thing is that humans are claimed to be the most evolved species on earh
I dont agree with that. we're evloved in Different way.
If we were the most evolved we wouldnt need TOOLS and WEAPONS to kill much larger animals our body would have been Evolved enough to do it by itself, using only your hands.
We can freeze to death in cold climat unless we put clothes on..
We would die in hot temprature due to dehydration.
Which ALOT of animals could handle.
So evolved in Another way is the key ;D
Put every animal on the planet in the same Big ass place and lets see who survives the longest, it sure as hell wouldnt be humans lol.
But we do adapt and manipulate our surroundings which enables us to inhabit almost every piece of land on earth which is pretty unique. I'd say we're definitely the most evolved but most adapted in a given situation? No. That honor goes to microorganisms.
-
how do the other atheists here feel about swede's arguments for your side?
-
how do the other atheists here feel about swede's arguments for your side?
I just admire Swede because he smokes a shitload of pot.
-
But we do adapt and can inhabit almost every piece of land on earth which is pretty unique. I'd say we're definitely the most evolved but most adapted? No. That honor goes to microorganisms.
I guess adapted would be a better word maby. What I define as a evolved "race" is what you can accomplish when everything is taken away from you.. and its just YOU left.
-
-
I just admire Swede because he smokes a shitload of pot.
how do you feel about his posts in this thread? would you say he is an educated man?
-
I guess adapted would be a better word maby. What I define as a evolved "race" is what you can accomplish when everything is taken away from you.. and its just YOU left.
You=potmaster!
-
how do you feel about his posts in this thread? would you say he is an educated man?
Im not claiming to be educated nor smart.. Just open minded. And not a sheep.
everyone should decide for themself what to belive in but OPTIONS should be out there. and nothing should be FORCED on you from a young age (religion)
-
how do you feel about his posts in this thread? would you say he is an educated man?
No, got to love Swede, but he is not well educated.
-
Im not claiming to be educated nor smart.. Just open minded. And not a sheep.
nothing against you swede, just wondering why you weren't being attacked by these guys for some of your posts. guess it's because you're a fellow atheist and evolutionist and couldn't be a dumbfuck like those people who believe in a deity.
some arrogant fuckers in here.
-
.
everyone should decide for themself what to belive in but OPTIONS should be out there. and nothing should be FORCED on you from a young age (religion)
i can appreciate and agree with this. good addition to your post.
-
nothing against you swede, just wondering why you weren't being attacked by these guys for some of your posts. guess it's because you're a fellow atheist and evolutionist and couldn't be a dumbfuck like those people who believe in a deity.
some arrogant fuckers in here.
It has nothing to do with intelligence and I don't think atheism/theism is being argued about here; evolution has been studied for over a hundred years now and scientists are always gaining more and new insights into the workings of evolution. There might be some conflict on how exactly certain things took place but it is universally agreed that we evolved and that all life evolved.
-
nothing against you swede, just wondering why you weren't being attacked by these guys for some of your posts. guess it's because you're a fellow atheist and evolutionist and couldn't be a dumbfuck like those people who believe in a deity.
some arrogant fuckers in here.
im throwing out ideas not claims =)
-
For me reading "The Selfish Gene" had me start thinking about evolution and life in general in a very different way.
-
For me reading "The Selfish Gene" had me start thinking about evolution and life in general in a very different way.
Really? I enjoyed it but it wasn't anything that changed my life. Mind sharing how it affected you?
-
i can appreciate and agree with this. good addition to your post.
thx.
I had a hard time keeping my mouth shut when the muslim kids at the kidnergarten asked "Why cant we eat that like the other kids do?" Ham on the sandwiches.
Poor little kids having their parents "beliefsf" FORCED upon them. Ant not knowing why.
-
It has nothing to do with intelligence and I don't think atheism/theism is being argued about here; evolution has been studied for over a hundred years now and scientists are always gaining more and new insights into the workings of evolution. There might be some conflict on how exactly certain things took place but it is universally agreed that we evolved and that all life evolved.
if it were universally agreed you wouldn't have two different sides in this thread.
im throwing out ideas not claims =)
no worries swede.
-
Another funny thing is that humans are claimed to be the most evolved species on earh
I dont agree with that. we're evloved in Different way.
If we were the most evolved we wouldnt need TOOLS and WEAPONS to kill much larger animals our body would have been Evolved enough to do it by itself, using only your hands.
We can freeze to death in cold climat unless we put clothes on..
We would die in hot temprature due to dehydration.
Which ALOT of animals could handle.
So evolved in Another way is the key ;D
Put every animal on the planet in the same Big ass place and lets see who survives the longest, it sure as hell wouldnt be humans lol.
A big ass place like earth?
-
A big ass place like earth?
well that would take too long lol. a smaller place but big enough for all animals to fit.
-
if it were universally agreed you wouldn't have two different sides in this thread.
no worries swede.
OK, universally agreed upon in the science community.
-
thx.
I had a hard time keeping my mouth shut when the muslim kids at the kidnergarten asked "Why cant we eat that like the other kids do?" Ham on the sandwiches.
Poor little kids having their parents "beliefsf" FORCED upon them. Ant not knowing why.
i agree with you
-
Really? I enjoyed it but it wasn't anything that changed my life. Mind sharing how it affected you?
lol not life changing but I guess the best way to describe it is that it all makes more sense now. Things that always had an aura of mystery around them now have been broken down into logical explanations.
Stuff like why animals are aggressive versus altruistic. Why the concept of male and female exists. Why we care so much for our close kin etc. Things that seemed obvious but when trying to explain it myself I always fell short.
The concept of replicators and survival machines was an eye opener too. I never thought of it that way.
-
OK, universally agreed upon in the science community.
i tend to doubt that.
-
well that would take too long lol. a smaller place but big enough for all animals to fit.
The fact we can capture the world's wildest and most powerful beasts and exhibit them in zoo's means that we are the dominant race. hell we have wiped out so mnay species of animals.
-
The fact we can capture the world's wildest and most powerful beasts and exhibit them in zoo's means that we are the dominant race. hell we have wiped out so mnay species of animals.
try to capture them by your bare hands... as animals could do to us.
Could You create something that could capture a tiger/ gorilla? Or would you rely on sometihng someone Else has created?
every gorilla on this planet could capture you.. even the retarded weak ones
-
try to capture them by your bare hands... as animals could do to us
But what's the point of that argument? In nature everything is allowed and we consistently come out on top. Everything is is not about brute violence.
-
But what's the point of that argument? In nature everything is allowed and we consistently come out on top. Everything is is not about brute violence.
the point is that you could define "evolved" differently. I define it in another way then most. not claiming anyone is wrong. We have evolved so we Can capture them.. But there are specific people that have allowed us to do so. Every ape could catch us. Every person couldnt create something to catch them. Hence any ape could eliminate a bunch of people. Every man couldn't eliminate a bunch of apes ;D
I know its BLURRY ;D but im tired lol.
-
the point is that you could define "evolved" differently. I define it in another way then most. not claiming anyone is wrong. We have evolved so we Can capture them.. But there are specific people that have allowed us to do so. Every ape could catch us. Every person couldnt create something to catch them. Hence any ape could eliminate a bunch of people. Every man couldn't eliminate a bunch of apes ;D
I know its BLURRY ;D but im tired lol.
Why would you think that evolved means being the perfect killing machine?
-
Why would you think that evolved means being the perfect killing machine?
I dont know where Im going with it lol.
We're evolved but a majority of us are still very stupid compared to the smart ones (those who invented electricity/lightbulb/dynamite) and that type of stuff. so as a Whole maby were not so damn evolved afterall? just that a certian few are?
and we still have war. poverty, religion, all of which could be fixed if we Wanted to and if eveyroenw as evlolved (mentally) they could have fixed it by themself.. what % of humans could create light from sctratch for example. or medicine to fight the flu or different stuff which would have probably eliminated our race a long time back.
animals didnt have to create any anti biotics, they didnt have to create light, because they are evloved enough to deal with it from the getgo.
Humans are the most defensless animals at birth
-
I dont know where Im going with it lol.
We're evolved but a majority of us are still very stupid compared to the smart ones (those who invented electricity/lightbulb/dynamite) and that type of stuff. so as a Whole maby were not so damn evolved afterall? just that a certian few are?
and we still have war. poverty, religion, all of which could be fixed if we Wanted to and if eveyroenw as evlolved (mentally) they could have fixed it by themself.. what % of humans could create light from sctratch for example. or medicine to fight the flu or different stuff which would have probably eliminated our race a long time back.
animals didnt have to create any anti biotics, they didnt have to create light, because they are evloved enough to deal with it from the getgo.
Humans are the most defensless animals at birth
Dude, lol. Just go find the nearest library and start reading books. Stopping smoking pot would certainly help too.
The problems we create for ourselves don't have anything to do with evolution, it's only a mere byproduct of our brainpower. What does it matter that I wouldn't be able to invent AC electricity by myself? Why would this matter in terms of evolution?
Animals die of sickness all the time. They're just as vulnerable as we are. Back in the prehistoric days our expected lifespan were around 20-30 years but we can now live much longer than that due to our inventions, a luxury no other animal has.
Humans were very competent survivors in the prehistoric days, where do you get the notion that they weren't?
-
Never said anything different. If you think you can explain what a human is by means of a biological theory, you're wrong though.
aha!!! wavelength we must have a discussion sometime.
humans are 100% reducable to biology, and so is our mind reducable to the physiology of our brains.
God created this universe, this universe created life.
although im not disagreeing that the complete explanation of what a human is, and what human experience is, can be defined through empirical research.. (that might not be phrased exactly right, but i think you get it)
your body, your brain, influences your mind. and your mind influences your brain, your body.
that is the one reason why complete empiricism can never fully explain us. we control our destiny, at least to some extent, completely outside of our sensory experience. that is to say, we can, at times, make certain decisions that go completely against everything we have ever been taught by experience... something a purely physical, purely "self sustaining" organism would never be capable of, let alone 'desire' to do.
-
try to capture them by your bare hands... as animals could do to us.
Could You create something that could capture a tiger/ gorilla? Or would you rely on sometihng someone Else has created?
every gorilla on this planet could capture you.. even the retarded weak ones
Their skills are their strength. Our skills are our brains. That is why the human race is in no danger of being extinct anytime soon.
-
aha!!! wavelength we must have a discussion sometime.
humans are 100% reducable to biology, and so is our mind reducable to the physiology of our brains.
God created this universe, this universe created life.
although im not disagreeing that the complete explanation of what a human is, and what human experience is, can be defined through empirical research.. (that might not be phrased exactly right, but i think you get it)
your body, your brain, influences your mind. and your mind influences your brain, your body.
that is the one reason why complete empiricism can never fully explain us. we control our destiny, at least to some extent, completely outside of our sensory experience. that is to say, we can, at times, make certain decisions that go completely against everything we have ever been taught by experience... something a purely physical, purely "self sustaining" organism would never be capable of, let alone 'desire' to do.
Listen to Carl Sagan.
-
Dude, lol. Just go find the nearest library and start reading books. Stopping smoking pot would certainly help too.
The problems we create for ourselves don't have anything to do with evolution, it's only a mere byproduct of our brainpower. What does it matter that I wouldn't be able to invent AC electricity by myself? Why would this matter in terms of evolution?
Animals die of sickness all the time. They're just as vulnerable as we are. Back in the prehistoric days our expected lifespan were around 20-30 years but we can now live much longer than that due to our inventions, a luxury no other animal has.
Humans were very competent survivors in the prehistoric days, where do you get the notion that they weren't?
I wonder what exactly lead our Brain to start growing/developing instead of our body like most other animals(?)
if I didnt smoke pot I wouldnt give a fuck about Any of this lol.
-
Why don't you let people believe in what they want to believe and you go on about your business of not believing whatever it is you don't believe...why shit on someone else? If their beliefs keep them going, give them hope, who the fuck are you to try and shit on it?
-
Why don't you let people believe in what they want to believe and you go one about your business of not believing whatever it is you don't believe...why shit on someone else? If their beliefs keep them going, give them hope, who the fuck are you to try and shit on it?
With that attitude we'd still be stuck in the medieval times.
-
With that attitude we'd still be stuck in the medieval times.
No, it's called live and let live and we're speaking on religion...
-
No, it's called live and let live and we're speaking on religion...
No. Lovemonkey is correct. Religion is still interfering with public education.
This is from today's news.
The problem arises from devout Christians and espousers of creationism, many whose views are that the Constitution does not provide against separation of church and state, that laws protecting against the dominance or proselytizing of one religion as opposed to others infringe upon their right to worship freely. The argument is usually embodied in the abolition of prayer in public schools, which many regard as restrictive, and the teaching of evolution, which many of faith regard as just scientific bunk with little or no more validity than creation myths. And although there is nothing wrong with believing the way she does, there rises a problem when those views are forced upon others who do not necessarily agree with or even want to be exposed to them.
http://yhoo.it/d3Q5IJ
-
This thread seems to be a follow up from this thread:www.getbig.com/boards.index.php?topic=350549.0 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=350549.0)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
No. Lovemonkey is correct. Religion is still interfering with public education.
This is from today's news.
The problem arises from devout Christians and espousers of creationism, many whose views are that the Constitution does not provide against separation of church and state, that laws protecting against the dominance or proselytizing of one religion as opposed to others infringe upon their right to worship freely. The argument is usually embodied in the abolition of prayer in public schools, which many regard as restrictive, and the teaching of evolution, which many of faith regard as just scientific bunk with little or no more validity than creation myths. And although there is nothing wrong with believing the way she does, there rises a problem when those views are forced upon others who do not necessarily agree with or even want to be exposed to them.
http://yhoo.it/d3Q5IJ
In cases where women's rights are at stake....(Muslim) or separation of church and state are violated, that, I'm against...But remember this country was founded on Judeo Christian principles...America isn't and IMO shouldn't be a multicultural society. People used to come to America to assimilate and be American, now the come here and don't assimilate...(not about Mexicans.)
-
In cases where women's rights are at stake....(Muslim) or separation of church and state are violated, that, I'm against...But remember this country was founded on Judeo Christian principles...America isn't and IMO shouldn't be a multicultural society. People used to come to America to assimilate and be American, now the come here and don't assimilate...(not about Mexicans.)
Not this shit again.
-
Because awareness can neither be explained nor reproduced by natural science.
How do you define awareness? Does a bee have awareness? If you answer positive, then we have machines programmed to do more complex things than a living creature can. It might take some time for us to reproduce Human consciousness but eventually we will since our consciousness is nothing more than data-processing in the brain and we already have machines capable of data processing(computers). Now, we don't know if consciousness is the result of some specific pattern of information that only organic computers(brains) can reproduce or if it is simply the result of a different information-processing architecture, but we will eventuually figure it out.
A human being is an ape only in one aspect: biologically.
What other aspect is there? Until someone shows the existence of something other that must be present for the electro-chemical firings of neurons to yield consciousness, then we must a priori assume that the electro-chemical firings is all there is to it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Not this shit again.
I didn't read the other pages of this thread so what page should I read?
-
In cases where women's rights are at stake....(Muslim) or separation of church and state are violated, that, I'm against...But remember this country was founded on Judeo Christian principles...America isn't and IMO shouldn't be a multicultural society. People used to come to America to assimilate and be American, now the come here and don't assimilate...(not about Mexicans.)
'
You're defending the 'right' to be miseducated?
Wow.
And to quote LM...not this shit again.
-
'
You're defending the 'right' to be miseducated?
Wow.
And to quote LM...not this shit again.
What exactly am I being "miseducated" on?
-
What exactly am I being "miseducated" on?
Defending this? ---> http://yhoo.it/d3Q5IJ
-
How do you define awareness? Does a bee have awareness? If you answer positive, then we have machines programmed to do more complex things than a living creature can. It might take some time for us to reproduce Human consciousness but eventually we will since our consciousness is nothing more than data-processing in the brain and we already have machines capable of data processing(computers). Now, we don't know if consciousness is the result of some specific pattern of information that only organic computers(brains) can reproduce or if it is simply the result of a different information-processing architecture, but we will eventuually figure it out.
What other aspect is there? Until someone shows the existence of something other that must be present for the electro-chemical firings of neurons to yield consciousness, then we must a priori assume that the electro-chemical firings is all there is to it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
You'll like this ---> http://bigthink.com/ideas/24567
-
Defending this? ---> http://yhoo.it/d3Q5IJ
I saw that as it happened and I know that witch is a dingbat...
-
I saw that as it happened and I know that witch is a dingbat...
:)
There's many more where she came from, with a similar agenda, unfortunately.
-
You insist on using this term 'macro'. Most scientists simply call it evolution.
Evolution is the non-random process of genetic selection based on randomly generated mutations.
Finally got to watch it! Thanks for the link D, but can you post something on Macro Evolution? This vid presented claims for Micro Evolution.
And maybe most scientists simply call both Micro and Macro ....Evolution..but they are not the same....I don't think any "creationists" have any prob. w/micro evolution. So can you please post something you feel is pretty good re: Macro?
-
? and god created earth BEFORE light? so he couldnt see what he was doing while creating earth??
;D
-
I love how all the geniuses who sit at home and post on a bodybuilding website have all the answers with regard to our existence. And anyone who disagrees with them is stupid. ::)
-
aha!!! wavelength we must have a discussion sometime.
humans are 100% reducable to biology, and so is our mind reducable to the physiology of our brains.
That's the opinion of scientific positivists. However, it is a statement which can never be founded in science. It is a philosophical statement of absolute truth, something science by definition can not come up with. And it's false, easily disproven by logic alone.
your body, your brain, influences your mind. and your mind influences your brain, your body.
That's the scientific view on things, therefore it is restricted to a certain scientific model. Model means reduction.
that is the one reason why complete empiricism can never fully explain us. we control our destiny, at least to some extent, completely outside of our sensory experience. that is to say, we can, at times, make certain decisions that go completely against everything we have ever been taught by experience... something a purely physical, purely "self sustaining" organism would never be capable of, let alone 'desire' to do.
You contradict yourself here. Something like that is not possible with a biomechanical machine (which is the scientific model of a human being).
Listen to Carl Sagan.
Carl Sagan is a terrible philosopher and he doesn't even realize that his ramblings have nothing to do with pure science.
-
That's the opinion of scientific positivists. However, it is a statement which can never be founded in science. It is a philosophical statement of absolute truth, something science by definition can not come up with. And it's false, easily disproven by logic alone.
yes, nothing can ever be proven completely true. depsite maybe the fact that you, as an individual, exist. "i think therefore i am" to what extent you exist is even up for debate. i assume you are refering to the fcat that neither induction nor deduction are valid ways of finding absolute truth. however, you are being very arrogant and unwise to assume that the statement will never be able to be founded in science. your just merely speculating.
You contradict yourself here. Something like that is not possible with a biomechanical machine (which is the scientific model of a human being).
i didnt contradict myself. i am merely highlighting an apparant contradiction in the reality of human experience. which is that we are completely reducable to material (the physiology of our brians), but we are not completely bound to act in ways that correspond with the physical.
-
yes, nothing can ever be proven completely true. depsite maybe the fact that you, as an individual, exist. "i think therefore i am" to what extent you exist is even up for debate. i assume you are refering to the fcat that neither induction nor deduction are valid ways of finding absolute truth. however, you are being very arrogant and unwise to assume that the statement will never be able to be founded in science. your just merely speculating.
I am referring to the fact that science cannot make the claim that the reduction it must make of the world (by definition of science alone) in order to describe it, suddenly can be lifted.
A scientific positivist claims that all there is to the world is its scientific aspect as in "humans are 100% reducable to biology, and so is our mind reducable to the physiology of our brains". I am not speculating that this statement can never be founded in science, it is a question of definition (of science itself) and logic.
i didnt contradict myself. i am merely highlighting an apparant contradiction in the reality of human experience. which is that we are completely reducable to material (the physiology of our brians), but we are not completely bound to act in ways that correspond with the physical.
If we are completely reducable to material, we are passively operating machines. We don't "act" at all if we are machines, the machine "acts" us. "We" do not even exist in such a case.
-
Finally got to watch it! Thanks for the link D, but can you post something on Macro Evolution? This vid presented claims for Micro Evolution.
And maybe most scientists simply call both Micro and Macro ....Evolution..but they are not the same....I don't think any "creationists" have any prob. w/micro evolution. So can you please post something you feel is pretty good re: Macro?
I think you are playing with words; the changes that took place in those videos took place over the course of millions of years.
What exactly do you want? How single celled organism became elephants?
And for once, why don't you tell us what you think happened? Genesis? or something else? how did we end up with all this living diversity?
-
I am referring to the fact that science cannot make the claim that the reduction it must make of the world (by definition of science alone) in order to describe it, suddenly can be lifted.
A scientific positivist claims that all there is to the world is its scientific aspect as in "humans are 100% reducable to biology, and so is our mind reducable to the physiology of our brains". I am not speculating that this statement can never be founded in science, it is a question of definition (of science itself) and logic.
If we are completely reducable to material, we are passively operating machines. We don't "act" at all if we are machines, the machine "acts" us. "We" do not even exist in such a case.
Maybe neuroscience will one day show that to be the case.
-
I think you are playing with words; the changes that took place in those videos took place over the course of millions of years.
They talk about the modern turtle/flatfish/etc. and go back to a fossil of a primitive turtle/flatfish etc.
I think you are playing with words; the changes that took place in those videos took place over the course of millions of years.
What exactly do you want? How single celled organism became elephants?
And for once, why don't you tell us what you think happened? Genesis? or something else? how did we end up with all this living diversity?
For once? I thought you knew I believe God created life, "each after their own kind."
And yes, what I would like to see is a link or vid or whatever that you feel best represents proof of one species turning into another.
-
How do you define awareness? Does a bee have awareness? If you answer positive, then we have machines programmed to do more complex things than a living creature can. It might take some time for us to reproduce Human consciousness but eventually we will since our consciousness is nothing more than data-processing in the brain and we already have machines capable of data processing(computers). Now, we don't know if consciousness is the result of some specific pattern of information that only organic computers(brains) can reproduce or if it is simply the result of a different information-processing architecture, but we will eventuually figure it out.
What other aspect is there? Until someone shows the existence of something other that must be present for the electro-chemical firings of neurons to yield consciousness, then we must a priori assume that the electro-chemical firings is all there is to it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Outstanding post.
-
That's the opinion of scientific positivists. However, it is a statement which can never be founded in science. It is a philosophical statement of absolute truth, something science by definition can not come up with. And it's false, easily disproven by logic alone.
That's the scientific view on things, therefore it is restricted to a certain scientific model. Model means reduction.
You contradict yourself here. Something like that is not possible with a biomechanical machine (which is the scientific model of a human being).
Carl Sagan is a terrible philosopher and he doesn't even realize that his ramblings have nothing to do with pure science.
Terrible? The guy's main claim was that we should strive for the most accurate and reliable descriptions and use a reasonable yet skeptical attitude. "extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ...hardly ramblings
-
I am referring to the fact that science cannot make the claim that the reduction it must make of the world (by definition of science alone) in order to describe it, suddenly can be lifted.
A scientific positivist claims that all there is to the world is its scientific aspect as in "humans are 100% reducable to biology, and so is our mind reducable to the physiology of our brains". I am not speculating that this statement can never be founded in science, it is a question of definition (of science itself) and logic.
If we are completely reducable to material, we are passively operating machines. We don't "act" at all if we are machines, the machine "acts" us. "We" do not even exist in such a case.
absofucking lutely!! your very refreshing wave.
the only part i know your wrong is on the last bit. we are absolutely reducable to material. heres the catch, we can either be passive and allow our physiology to control us, or we can actively control our physiology(by way of the brain, nueral tissue, acting as an immidiete representation of our thoughts and emotional states... (in this instance, think of brian activity, neuron firing, etc, as a physiological projection of the activity of our minds(or our spirits))
-
No wisdom in this thread, either. The mind is reducible to the brain and its processes. That hardly implies we are passive machines. Do some reading in the philosophy of science and stop the bullshit.
-
Yeah the devil doctos hypnotised charles darwin in his childhood and with the help of the devil itself Darwin convinsed a man that it's all evolution. This way the satanic elite don't have to destroy the bible by burning it....
yeah... makes so much sense right ::)
-
What other aspect is there? Until someone shows the existence of something other that must be present for the electro-chemical firings of neurons to yield consciousness, then we must a priori assume that the electro-chemical firings is all there is to it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Why are you experiencing your conscious awareness of reality from your particular brain and body? Why aren"t you experiencing it from my body? Or a bee's body? Or not at all?
What I am trying to ask is what determines the fact that you are percieving reality from your current location at the present moment in time?
-
What would happen if a different sperm from your father fertilized your mothers egg, instead of the one that did? Would your conscious awareness develop in the resulting child as it grows. Or did you miss you chance at becoming existant to percieving reality? What about twins? The resulting twins seem to have two completely different consiousness'.
If your father never met your mother, would you ever exist and develop conscious awareness at some point in time? If so, what determines this?
-
No wisdom in this thread, either. The mind is reducible to the brain and its processes. That hardly implies we are passive machines. Do some reading in the philosophy of science and stop the bullshit.
the only people discussing that subject are me and wavelength and neither of us would say that humans are exclusively passive machines so your post and your attitude reflect poorly upon you :-\
-
For me reading "The Selfish Gene" had me start thinking about evolution and life in general in a very different way.
i just bought that book, seems like an interesting read.
-
Outstanding post.
Ya I liked the part about a priori knowledge based on observation. Major breakthrough.
-
No wisdom in this thread, either. The mind is reducible to the brain and its processes. That hardly implies we are passive machines. Do some reading in the philosophy of science and stop the bullshit.
I did plenty of reading in this area.
It's very simple, if the mind is reducable to a biochemical computer (which is the claim of scientific positivists), it does imply that we are passive machines. Everythig else is pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo. There is no magic property of a machine or algorithm, or program, or level of complexity which suddenly would add awareness to a computer. People who make that claim either have no idea about the basic principles of computers or believe in the fairy tales of artificial intelligence resp. misunderstand what it really means.
-
Terrible? The guy's main claim was that we should strive for the most accurate and reliable descriptions and use a reasonable yet skeptical attitude. "extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ...hardly ramblings
That's not a rambling, I agree. I was talking e.g. about his "Dragon". Philosophically this is absolute nonsense, easily disputed by simple logic.
-
I did plenty of reading in this area.
It's very simple, if the mind is reducable to a biochemical computer (which is the claim of scientific positivists), it does imply that we are passive machines. Everythig else is pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo. There is no magic property of a machine or algorithm, or program, or level of complexity which suddenly would add awareness to a computer. People who make that claim either have no idea about the basic principles of computers or believe in the fairy tales of artificial intelligence resp. misunderstand what it really means.
Well it's fully possible that free will is indeed an illusion.
-
absofucking lutely!! your very refreshing wave.
the only part i know your wrong is on the last bit. we are absolutely reducable to material. heres the catch, we can either be passive and allow our physiology to control us, or we can actively control our physiology(by way of the brain, nueral tissue, acting as an immidiete representation of our thoughts and emotional states... (in this instance, think of brian activity, neuron firing, etc, as a physiological projection of the activity of our minds(or our spirits))
This is just a repetition of your claim in other words. You can never prove scientifically that all there is to something is its scientific aspect. This is logically imopssible. And even if the claim "we are reducable to material" was true, that does not automatically imply that all there is to us is our scientific aspects (what can be said about us in scientific models). Simply because, science does not explain what "material" is. That too is purely a philosophical topic.
-
Well it's fully possible that free will is indeed an illusion.
That may be. However, there must always be a "me" who either has or has not free will. It is an implicit assumption in all arguments about free will.
-
That may be. However, there must always be a "me" who either has or has not free will. It is an implicit assumption in all arguments about free will.
Wavlength is a hardcore dude, all the way hardcore dude. :o
-
Ya I liked the part about a priori knowledge based on observation. Major breakthrough.
;D i missed that, wat a 'tard
This is just a repetition of your claim in other words. You can never prove scientifically that all there is to something is its scientific aspect. This is logically imopssible. And even if the claim "we are reducable to material" was true, that does not automatically imply that all there is to us is our scientific aspects (what can be said about us in scientific models). Simply because, science does not explain what "material" is. That too is purely a philosophical topic.
i dont think you read my post very carefully. i said we have a choice to either passively allow our physiology to control our mind, or we can actively control our physiology with our mind. in this case mind can be substituted with "spirit". in one case our brain activity is a representation of how our body is affecting our mind, and in the other case our brain activity is a representation of what we are choosing to think and how we are feeling. either passively allow physiology to control us, or actively control our physiology. in both cases we are reducable to material in the sense that in both cases all of our "mind activity" is completely represented through brain function.
-
one species turning into another.
They don't.
-
They don't.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.html
1. How can one species "turn into" another?
One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
This is like an Obama speech. Says 2 different things in the same paragraph...or even sentence ;D
So are you saying you don't accept Universal Common Descent or are you saying that that all living organisms are the same species ???
-
This is like an Obama speech. Says 2 different things in the same paragraph...or even sentence ;D
So are you saying you don't accept Universal Common Descent or are you saying that that all living organisms are the same species ???
"Turn into" is a poor choice of words.
Doing finals right now, so I can't type out long responses. Why the name change btw?
-
i dont think you read my post very carefully. i said we have a choice to either passively allow our physiology to control our mind, or we can actively control our physiology with our mind. in this case mind can be substituted with "spirit".
1.) in one case our brain activity is a representation of how our body is affecting our mind, and in the other case our brain activity is a representation of what we are choosing to think and how we are feeling.
either passively allow physiology to control us, or actively control our physiology.
2.) in both cases we are reducable to material in the sense that in both cases all of our "mind activity" is completely represented through brain function.
1.) In both cases, brain activity is only one aspect of the mind. Namely, the scientific aspect. It is neither the same nor a complete representation. If one claims it is, he is a philosopher and not a scientist. However, this claim can easily be disputed by simple logic.
2.) I disagree. There is no scientific prove that all there is to "mind activity" is brain function (or better: the scientific model of brain function). There is logic prove it isn't.