I place my money on intuitive reasoning over intellectual logic!

[Walkntune]

I believe ToE is way off course and I don't think natural selection is accurate although I never studied evolution. LOL
I think using just common sense and intuitive reasoning that evolution is deterministic in nature and I believe consciousness is just not understood which is the basis of evolution.
Here watch this creature in action.
Observe the color change as conscious choice although evolutionists assume it is natural selection in creatures like the speckled moth.

[youtube]H8oQBYw6xxc[/youtube]
YouTube - The Indonesian Mimic Octopus

I believe as people evolve,which they are(the ones who are not resistant by just standing on intellectual logic)they will come to know that intellectual logic is just a product of consciousness and not the means to grasping and understanding all of reality.I believe as more logic can be stored in a piece of plastic that a child can have in his pocket then the smartest adult can carry in his mind. only those who are intuitive in reasoning will move forward as humans evolve.

 

[T-Dawg]

I place my money on intuitive reasoning over intellectual logic!

... And you're proud of that? What the hell? Are we supposed to respect your use of "intuitive reasoning" (aka, things you come up with on your own) over intellectual logic (aka, things that can be demonstrated with evidence)?

 

[Walkntune]

... And you're proud of that? What the hell? Are we supposed to respect your use of "intuitive reasoning" (aka, things you come up with on your own) over intellectual logic (aka, things that can be demonstrated with evidence)?

OK. Demonstrate that the color change of the speckled moth is natural selection and not conscious determinism as we see with the octopus with your so called evidence.

 

[Phasmid]

I believe ToE is way off course and I don't think natural selection is accurate although I never studied evolution. LOL

Is it not prudent to understand that which you claim to be false?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe ToE is way off course and I don't think natural selection is accurate although I never studied evolution. LOL
I think using just common sense and intuitive reasoning that evolution is deterministic in nature and I believe consciousness is just not understood which is the basis of evolution.

My common sense and intuition tells me that your approach is a bad one.

How do we resolve this apparent dilemma?

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe ToE is way off course and I don't think natural selection is accurate although I never studied evolution.

I use the same method. I've never studied religion, but I find it not only inaccurate, but even worse...
..it's impossible to prove it right/wrong. So I go with common sense, & the ToE comports best with it.

I admit a bias in perception. Mine is a common way of seeing things among engineers who become
familiar with the fact that elegant results can come from stochastic processes.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This is it in a nut shell, this is why so many highly educated people cannot make it in the business world. Lets say I have a hunch pork bellies are going to go up, I may invest or at least stock up on bacon.

If I had to use positive reasoning before I make a move, I gain nothing.

Nothing ventured nothing gained unless you want to work for slave wages barely existing looking for a hand out from the Federal Government.

You could use the same logic spiritually. If you look for proof positive that God exists, it may be too late for you.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is it in a nut shell, this is why so many highly educated people cannot make it in the business world. Lets say I have a hunch pork bellies are going to go up, I may invest or at least stock up on bacon.

You seldom go wrong buying bacon.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You seldom go wrong buying bacon.

:drool:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is it in a nut shell, this is why so many highly educated people cannot make it in the business world. Lets say I have a hunch pork bellies are going to go up, I may invest or at least stock up on bacon.

If I had to use positive reasoning before I make a move, I gain nothing.

If you make an uninformed move, you're just as likely to lose as you are to gain. If you don't know that what you're doing is a good course of action, then you're really just gambling, not investing.

The fact that people do sometimes win at craps doesn't make a crap shoot not a crap shoot.

Nothing ventured nothing gained unless you want to work for slave wages barely existing looking for a hand out from the Federal Government.

If you're talking about entrepreneurship, sure, it has risks. At the same time, though, every entrepreneur I know (or at least all the successful ones) do their best to quantify and minimize that risk... IOW, to base their decisions on factual information and positive reasoning as much as possible.

You could use the same logic spiritually. If you look for proof positive that God exists, it may be too late for you.

Heck, I haven't even seen so much as a good reason to believe in any sort of God... to say nothing of "proof positive". For me, "betting" on God would be like picking a stock by simply making up a stock ticker name with a random string of letters without knowing if it even refers to a real stock or not.

 

[Walkntune]

My common sense and intuition tells me that your approach is a bad one.

How do we resolve this apparent dilemma?

Mayby by presenting the facts of natural selection so I can see the ground that the so called evidence is standing on even though the octopus is definitely contrary to those facts in its behavior which is so common in the evolutionary chain.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mayby by presenting the facts of natural selection so I can see the ground that the so called evidence is standing on even though the octopus is definitely contrary to those facts in its behavior which is so common in the evolutionary chain.

Why would the octopus be contrary to the ToE?

 

[Walkntune]

Why would the octopus be contrary to the ToE?

The natural genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others in their current environment. For example, the peppered moth exists in both light and dark colors in the United Kingdom, but during the industrial revolution many of the trees on which the moths rested became blackened by soot, giving the dark-colored moths an advantage in hiding from predators. This gave dark-colored moths a better chance of surviving to produce dark-colored offspring, and in just a few generations the majority of the moths were dark. Factors which affect reproductive success are also important, an issue which Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection.

I believe just as the octopus, that the dark colored moths are a result of conscious determinism and not natural selection which is a key mechanism of evolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe just as the octopus, that the dark colored moths are a result of conscious determinism and not natural selection which is a key mechanism of evolution.

That explains what you believe, but doesn't answer my question.
I see nothing about the octopus which is contrary to the ToE.

 

[Walkntune]

That explains what you believe, but doesn't answer my question.
I see nothing about the octopus which is contrary to the ToE.

I am careful with my choice words not to present my ideas as fact

If you don't see anything contrary, then give me the evidence you stand on that makes natural selection more probable then conscious determinism.
At least we can see an example of proof that the octopus changes color, shape at will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mayby by presenting the facts of natural selection so I can see the ground that the so called evidence is standing on even though the octopus is definitely contrary to those facts in its behavior which is so common in the evolutionary chain.

But I thought you said you were placing your money on intuitive reasoning over intellectual logic.

Did you mean only your intuitive reasoning?

 

[LuisDantas]

OK. Demonstrate that the color change of the speckled moth is natural selection and not conscious determinism as we see with the octopus with your so called evidence.

I can't see the video right now, but assuming that it shows an octopus changing color according to the environment, aren't you comparing apples and oranges? Or are you saying that moths can change their own colors as well? I never heard of that.

What I have learned is that moths vary in color and pattern, in every generation, although they generally tend not to deviate a lot from their own immediate ancestors. Some colors end up being more frequent than others, and the frequencies may and do change along time, because the odds of surviving long enough to lay eggs of their own are greatly dependent on how visible to predators the moth is. If the predominant environment colors change, so eventually does the frequency of various colors.

Is that what you are talking about?

Anyway, I'm afraid that your belief is not enough to evidence something, or to demand proof that you are wrong. It is classically accepted that the responsibility for evidence of a claim goes to those who make the claim, not to those who doubt or disagree with it. Even so, natural selection has been amply demonstrated and tested, with very satisfying results. Do you have evidence for your claims of conscious determinism?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am careful with my choice words not to present my ideas as fact

If you don't see anything contrary, then give me the evidence you stand on that makes natural selection more probable then conscious determinism.

I'm not going by evidence....just common sense (as I said before) that stochastic processes are enuf to explain biological diversity & elegance.

At least we can see an example of proof that the octopus changes color, shape at will.

No argument about color changing. It just doesn't violate the ToE.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am careful with my choice words not to present my ideas as fact

If you don't see anything contrary, then give me the evidence you stand on that makes natural selection more probable then conscious determinism.
At least we can see an example of proof that the octopus changes color, shape at will.

Kindly look at this topic:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eference-faqs-tutorials-theory-evolution.html

Are you saying that moths choose to change color?

 

[Walkntune]

But I thought you said you were placing your money on intuitive reasoning over intellectual logic.

Did you mean only your intuitive reasoning?

All intuitive reasoning will be intellectually logical if it is true. The mistake is to try and rely on what we think is intellectually logical first which causes us to see effects as the cause.It is better to keep yourself open to all intuitive possibilities instead of closing yourself off with so called intellectual facts.