Why do uneducated Christians 'dispute' 'macroevolution'?

[PJim]

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

[tbombz]

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))

[Vince B]

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.

[devilsmile]

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 

[jr]

 
  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?

[jr]

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?

[tbombz]

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 

[Tito24]

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.

[Tapeworm]

  Outstanding post.

Ya I liked the part about a priori knowledge based on observation.  Major breakthrough.

[wavelength]

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.

[wavelength]

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.

[lovemonkey]

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.

[wavelength]

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.

[wavelength]

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.

[Deicide]

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. 

[tbombz]

Ya I liked the part about a priori knowledge based on observation.  Major breakthrough.

    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.

[YngiweRhoads]

one species turning into another.

They don't.

[Butterbean]

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

So are you saying you don't accept Universal Common Descent or are you saying that that all living organisms are the same species

[YngiweRhoads]

This is like an Obama speech.  Says 2 different things in the same paragraph...or even sentence

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?

[wavelength]

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.