Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Hardly, but I'm not going to trawl through the vast amount of evidence when you should be doing this - but obviously won't.
Let me know if you ever happen to find one
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
Let me know if you ever happen to find one
Audie
Veteran Member
ToE does not explain nor does it try to explain the origin of life. So you lead off with something that simply is not so. Does that say anything about the rigor or your due diligence in other things?
You are welcome to whatever attitudes you may choose to have, including that it is "horrendous" to
not worship your "god".
You are not welcome to make up facts, such as above noted falsehood, nor the one about how ToE makes
god "unnecessary". It says nothing about it one way or the other.
It does falsify primitive superstitions about such things
as a "god" making all living things ala genesis. People with more enlightened grasp of reality see able to
accommodate both a god and the facts of science.
Your "perspective" on how evolution works makes no sense, and in no way better accommodates a Creator.
I dont think a real creator would need any introductions of facts that are not facts for its support .
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Quite the opposite. Goddism has long been the enemy
of research and understanding-it certainly works great with creationists. Complexity of all sort s is explained with god-poof, ie, magic.
Fear of implications? lol. As god-o-the-gaps is crowded into ever smaller spaces, the AIG type organizations grow ever more desperate.
Look at the things t he creationists throw up to
try to defend the castle. "Ica stones" "Paluxy man-tracks" "Poluystrate fossils" "intelligent design"
"Hydroplate theory".
One fellow even explained the lack of sufficient water on earth to cover all the land by saying that all the excess was wafted to Neptune, where it shines to this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels!
All of it based on attitude.
To paraphrase Al Pacino in "The Devil's Advocate",
"Attitude..it is definitely my favourite vice."
cladking
Well-Known Member
All observed changes to all life occurs suddenly. All life has a sudden origin. Every type, species, and sort of life changes its nature suddenly. Individual life comes and goes in a universe in which no two things are as identical as a snowflake. We organize, categorize, and force all of reality into taxonomies in order to remember things and then don't notice that reality is more like a belief than what happens right before our eyes. We ignore egg laying mammals and forget we've never seen a slow changing species or any individual change from not being to being gradually.
Darwin assumed things not in evidence. We make the same assumptions today. We are simply assuming that "natural selection" drives change in species and is the basis for change in species. Yet nobody can show a single new species that arose gradually. Nobody can show some natural force that caused a species to slowly change. I don't dispute that survival of the fittest exists, I dispute that it is the origin of any species.
It is consciousness that confers life and is the very heart of all species and every individual. This is what we observe when we see a rabbit save it's young from a bobcat or a wolf howl at the moon. Darwin was wrong and we are looking at the tiny bit of data related to change in species from the wrong angle to be just as wrong as he was. It's easy to ignore the concept of a creator when we look at our total knowledge about the origins of life and how life evolves but it's much harder to ignore the possibility of any god when we see consciousness at the heart of changes in species.
As our perspective shifts new things come into view. This is how all of reality has always worked. We must strive to seek the best angle in all dimensions to view bits and pieces of reality. From this changeable perspective it's very difficult to imagine how we can ever know very much about anything at all.
cladking
Well-Known Member
The real nature of consciousness may be forever unknown but it is formatted in the wiring of the brain and expressed as animal language. It is the software that governs the digital computer we call the brain/ body.
Humans/ homo omnisciencis/ Al Pacino no longer use this formatting so our lives are an expression of our beliefs.
Audie
Veteran Member
Maybe if you actually studied something about evolution before you hold forth with such nonsense?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
This is not true as we have witnessed many times with the evolution of bacterium and viruses.
There is no evidence of that.
Again, not true. Google "speciation" for some examples, and even the Wikipedia article on that can explain the basics and provide links to studies.
The three main driving forces of evolution are mutations, [random] genetic drift, and natural selection, and all three have been well-established scientifically.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
To be fair to Darwin though, he very much acknowledged problems with the theory, which would have to be solved to validate it, the Cambrian explosion for one. By his own standards I think he would be a skeptic today. But we can't blame him for less dispassionate followers, who may not share such a cautious approach
The role of the brain, it's conscious choices, is largely avoided for the same reason the origin of life is- they are very difficult to account for by Darwinian mechanisms.
How does one accidentally acquire an innate fear of snakes, or language skills, by a random copying error in DNA?! it's far more problematic than mere morphological changes - which give the theory problems enough
Audie
Veteran Member
Did you address the matter of attitude as a source for profound bias in your understanding of evolution?
I rather think not.
The brain, btw, is not a digital computer nor does it have software. There is no "homo (sic) omnisciensis" (sic) and as for "original language", well, that
is a chimera.
With all the real things to learn and study, it seems a waste to dwell long on things that have no basis in fact.
Audie
Veteran Member
Ah here let us see if you are among those who can be corrected in an error, simple and non-essential to your thesis as it is.
"Innate fear of snakes".
People have no innate fear of snakes.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Indeed. This is much of the problem with Darwin's hypotheses. Lack of evidence is bad enough but the expression of free will in every single instance that drives natural selection is a fatal blow. It is free will that leads an animal into a situation that might result in a meal or a death and it is free will that determines if it lives or dies. Yet modern man argues about the very nature of consciousness and disputes whether or not humans even have free will. From our perspective it's difficult to see that it's usually behavior that determines individual destiny rather than genes. From our perspective it's difficult to even identify individuals or to think in terms of individuals and decisions when we refer to entire species instead.
I don't need to know how consciousness arose to see it lies at the heart of what we mistakenly call "evolution". We need to learn about reality a step at a time but everyone wants to skip ahead to the answers and most believe we have. It seem "natural" to most people that humans have always been the same and that there now exists an infinite number of earths with an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. But you ask if there aren't also an infinite number of earths that arose through evolution and an equally infinite number created by God and you get a blank stare.
People make assumptions and then go about proving them. We are almost all successful almost all the time.
I think others have challenged these views adequately. The first few sentences are merely speculation. My knowledge in this area is necessarily limited though - having no background or education is such things. My understanding comes purely from what I have researched, and I just don't see the problems that you (and others) seem to see - as in the ToE being grossly inadequate.
cladking
Well-Known Member
We each have such biases as a matter of nature. We are also a collection of our beliefs which are usually acquired haphazardly but in a logical order.
Every bit of the brain is either on or off. All it needs to be a digital computer is the software.
The fact we don't use the software which we once used does not change its nature.
At this time there's just us who know everything.
And lots of mysteries like why does history start in 2000 BC when writing was invented in 3200 BC. Why is there no writing from the first 1200 years when we know as fact that papyrus can last this long?
"Science" any science, must reflect ALL known facts to be meaningful. Without the ability to make prediction science is utterly worthless. And this is what Darwin's "natural selection" is as a cause of species change; utterly worthless.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
After you Audie!
Why We Fear Snakes
New research suggests humans have evolved an innate tendency to sense snakes — and spiders, too — and to learn to fear them.
A study published in 2008 in the journal Cognition, and another in 2014 in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, also point to an inherited fear of spiders and snakes.
I'm sure you can dredge up some dissenting opinions if you want, but we know infants react differently to potentially dangerous animals, - dilated pupils, better attention- discerning whether or not that's 'fear' as an adult understands it, is a largely semantic debate and besides the point as you say-
The substantive point is: how does a copying error in DNA produce a specific and significantly beneficial reaction to dangerous animals? Modern research is beginning to point to the cause and effect being the opposite way around, which makes more sense
Audie
Veteran Member
Fear of snakes is one of the most common phobias, yet many people have never seen a snake in person. So how is this fear generated?
New research suggests humans have evolved an innate tendency to sense snakes — and spiders, too — and to learn to fear them.
The results supported the hypothesis that humans, like other species, may possess a cognitive mechanism for detecting specific animals that were potentially harmful throughout evolutionary history.
The human visual system may retain ancestral mechanisms uniquely dedicated to the rapid detection of immediate and specific threats (e.g. spiders and snakes) that persistently recurred throughout evolutionary time.
I am aware of this research.
I've no need to "dredge", you did the work.
Each of your articles shows that there is no innate fear of snakes.
Me right, you wrong. Now what?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Is this another semantic debate? are you objecting to the word innate instead of inherited?
you surely understand the substantive point, God forbid we discuss one! humans are born predisposed to specific reactions to dangerous animals already in effect- that is without having to learn them
are you disputing the substance of this?
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
No, I dont play equivocation games, and it is a bit rude to suggest that I do.
There is no inborn, inherited or innate fear of snakes in people, however
you choose to say it.
Did you see where the articles say people learn to fear snakes? L-E-A-R-N.
Contrary to your plain statement to that the fear is innate.
It is not. It has to be learned.
We have an innate ability to learn language. That you do not speak Chinese
suggests that speech is learned, not innate.
What is substantive in my challenge to your statement has to do with
whether or not you will ever accept that you are mistaken,on anything,
even so trivial a matter as this.
I see no sense in trying to deal with anything more substantive if you cannot
recognize that your articles support what I said, not your incorrect reading of them.
People have to be taught to fear snakes. Nobody taught me that fear, and I am not afraid of them, never was. I am cautious, having grown up where there were cobras. Fear? No.
Now, are you going to accept that your statement was incorrect, or shall we say adieu?
Last edited:
Chemical Evolution Welcome | Center for Chemical EvolutionCan the dictionary pop up out of nowhere? Can the 64 words get into the dictionary all by themselves? How does the dictionary get into the cell? Please explain.....
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
No, I dont play equivocation games, and it is a bit rude to suggest that I do.
There is no inborn, inherited or innate fear of snakes in people, however
you choose to say it.
Did you see where the articles say people learn to fear snakes? L-E-A-R-N.
Contrary to your plain statement to that the fear is innate.
It is not. It has to be learned.
We have an innate ability to learn language. That you do not speak Chinese
suggests that speech is learned, not innate.
What is substantive in my challenge to your statement has to do with
whether or not you will ever accept that you are mistaken,on anything,
even so trivial a matter as this.
I see no sense in trying to deal with anything more substantive if you cannot
recognize that your articles support what I said, not your incorrect reading of them.
People have to be taught to fear snakes. Nobody taught me that fear, and I am not afraid of them, never was. I am cautious, having grown up where there were cobras. Fear? No.
Now, are you going to accept that your statement was incorrect, or shall we say adieu?
Then do not waste your time with me, contact the scientists in these studies and tell them where they went wrong.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/our-fear-of-snakes-and-spiders-might-be-innate-not-learned/
Born to chat: Humans may have innate language instinctinnate-language-instinct/
Of course an innate capacity does not preclude the role of learning. We do not exit the womb dancing and singing, but have an innate capacity -with learning yes- to achieve these things
No ad hominem required here Audie, both can obviously coexist. The distinction here is that the specific trait is innate, as opposed to a learned fear of say a power tool you cut a finger off with,
Do you understand the distinction we are talking about?
If so would you like to at least take a stab at the substance of the question? how do such innate capacities originate as copying errors in DNA?
It's okay if you don't know, nobody does- it's one of those unsolved mysteries, but I'd be interested in your take on it- I've no interest in getting into a mud slinging competition- there are plenty people here capable of debating substantively without that