Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 183. (Read 108046 times)

Evolution as you are explaining it is simply a string of changes. The word "evolution" might be a great word to explain this, but it mixes people up with the evolution that is impossible.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today... without divine intervention.

The marvelous thing about what God has done is, God has given us (people) reasoning ability so that we can "evolve" things, like the string of changes that take us through philosophy, or the string of changes whereby we can make greater and more powerful weapons.

You contradict yourself. Evolution is not a hoax. If people are poor and are constantly creating new ways of killing it is also an example of evolution. Only that the evolution of human thought and weapons. Therefore, it is foolish to deny evolution can be challenged only some of her theories.

I have read some this most of the point are moot actually lol

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB402.html

I just pick this one among other, and Edelman explain how language formed.

Many other points are not up to date with latest science.

They have a very naturalist take on things, and it's already almost sure most brain advanced function are not made to understand natural environment but self and maintain cohesion among large group of individual.

But need to read Edelman, it out date most of the points in that link.

And it's based on experimental study of neurology.


http://www.agenthuman.com/product/evolution_social_consciousness_in_animals.html

=>

The Importance Of Categories

I see nowhere in this link and the external links where they even mention self understanding as the basics of consciousness evolution whereas from neurology study it show brain advanced function form to accomodate what they call "Primary consciousness" more than to understand nature / environment.





http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html


Intelligent design implies philosophical naturalism. As noted above, all science, industry, agriculture, and so forth is based on nature. That does not stop evolutionists, other scientists, engineers, manufacturers, and farmers from being able to look beyond the materialism and find spirituality in their lives.

The intelligent design crowd, on the other hand, seems unable to make that step. They seem to require objective, material evidence to back up their spirituality. But that, of course, makes their spirituality naturalistic. For all their complaints about materialism, people like Dembski and Johnson are trying to expand materialism into the field of religion.


This one also clearly lack philosophical perpective.

This is a very old debate that started between plato and aristotle in antiquity.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] argues that non-physical (but substantial) forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only objects of study that can provide knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] However, the theory is considered a classical solution to the problem of universals.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

The first references that are seen in The Republic to the Form of the Good are within the conversation between Glaucon and Socrates (454 c–d). When trying to answer such difficult questions pertaining to the definition of justice, Plato identifies that we should not “introduce every form of difference and sameness in nature” instead we must focus on "the one form of sameness and difference that was relevant to the particular ways of life themselves” which is the form of the Good. This form is the basis for understanding all other forms, it is what allows us to understand everything else. Through the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon (508 a–c), Plato analogizes the form of the Good with the sun as it is what allows us to see things. Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, “sun is not sight” but it is “the cause of sight itself.” As the sun is in the visible realm, the form of Good is in the intelligible realm. It is “what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower”. It is not only the “cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge”.

Plato identifies how the form of the Good allows for the cognizance to understand such difficult concepts as justice. He identifies knowledge and truth as important, but through Socrates (508d–e) says, “good is yet more prized”. He then proceeds to explain “although the good is not being” it is “superior to it in rank and power”, it is what “provides for knowledge and truth” (508e).




http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

This one is also inaccurate if not plain false.

Language, although symbolic, is still material.

It's even self defeating in the sense we have a word for god who according to them is not a material object.

Parmenides show the fallacy of this claim 800 bc.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB421.html

This one no comment ..

Maybe he should investigate who invented the first music scale, how and why.

It has nothing to do with social dancing.



90% of points in that link are not up to date science and ignore very basics of philosophy that are at the very root of rationalism.

John Crick who discovered dna and also LSD user told deep things on this link between all species through dna. He saw dna as common link between all forms of life.

It's generally easy to understand other animals or vegetals aka if a cat is meowing in demanding or agressive maner, or if a plante is in good health or not.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Mad_Pursuit

He was atheist but also didn't believe too much in earth abiogenesis, it's a bit cognitive dissonance where scientist get into if they are too much atheist.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/  

The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation. The most startling revelation in Overbye's article is that scientists have resuscitated a proposal once floated by Crick. Dissatisfied with conventional theories of life's beginning, Crick conjectured that aliens came to Earth in a spaceship and planted the seeds of life here billions of years ago. This notion is called directed panspermia. In less dramatic versions of panspermia, microbes arrived on our planet via asteroids, comets or meteorites, or drifted down like confetti.


But it's the problem a little in our modern society, scientist hate religion because of certain number of nuts ( who very often know very little of their own book and often do the opposite of what is told in it), and religious hate scientist because of the coldness and lack of interest in human affairs.

The thing is i see you more insulting religious people, with full of a priori, while you didn't even study religion, than making scientific point on evolution, other than anti religious points.

Being anti religious doesnt make you more scientific.

And I see you more making scorning comments on other than posting interesting facts or studies.

There is very few scientist who are atheist btw.

By the way if you guys want to find out more about evolution and specifically creationists claims check out this : http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
It has basically all the stupid questions creationists ask and use to try to disprove evolution

All the evolution evidence can be applied to other things that are not part of evolution.

This means you need to make a choice as to what the evidence applies to.

The choice is a faith choice.

Evolution is as much of a religion as any other.

Yes, that's what it is. There is really no other model to explain what evolution explains, evolution is the only scientific theory right now. You don't need faith to believe in evolution because you have the evidence. People who deny evolution are only doing so because they have their own agenda, mostly believers in god. That's why religion is toxic.

However, understand that believing in something like evolution is similar to believing in a religion.

Evolution has "evolved" into a closed system. While evolution is possible within itself, in the things that it talks about, and in the "stuff" it includes in its theory, it still is extremely impossible in within reality.

Evolution is like a science fiction story, albeit a gigantic one. The story sounds great when comparing the parts of it with each other. But like the sci-fi story, it doesn't match reality.

Google "Evolution is impossible" to see loads of reasons why evolution IS impossible. Some are scientific reasons, and some are religious reasons. And if you find rebuttals to these reasons, put your thinking cap on before you read the rebuttals. Why? Because the rebuttals are merely cleverly written circular talk, which assumes evolution to be a fact, and continues to attempt to strengthen the case for evolution from that standpoint.

The point? If a person won't accept God and creation, so far there is no other understanding of how things came into existence. We have this great universe. The Earth is close at hand to examine. But we don't have any clear evidence where it all came from, or how it all got started... if the person does not understand the existence of God.

How do you propose then how we came to be? So far, evolution, though still has a lot to prove, is the most logical among all other creation theories. A lot can be argued about this theory however if you compare it to other's it explains a lot more than just basing on faith. Sometimes it's not all about faith. For now, until a better alternative is presented, i think i'll have to believe in evolution

But we still have no idea how to turn a monkey to einstein.

But we still have no idea how to turn a Coypu into a beaver..

But we still have no idea how to turn a beaver into a otter ..

Coypu - YouTube
Video for Coypu▶ 0:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taZBYXcGTbM

Turn a coypu into a beaver.. Can a coypu do what a beaver does?..

Beavers
3:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL5SD6z7AG8

Turn a beaver into a otter ..can a beaver do what an otter does?..

 Otter
 5:18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptkytDOVFN0


3 creature that are so alike but act different in many ways..
But evolved from the same specie ..      
Doesn't take a genius to see how close they look all 3 different BUT the same specie sort of..

Can a human swing from a tree as good as a monkey ..
Well a monkey is a different BUT the same specie ..

Just the same as a coypu beaver and otter all look alike but are not..

Also i wonder if a beaver understands what a otter is saying?
Or can it talk the same as an otter?

You said something about religion for some reason while I was only explaining that badecker ignores what a scientific theory means ??

Nothing, it was probably too complicated for you to understand. Go back to your lab.

What?

Picasso  

https://youtu.be/nceAGqfdykQ society suicide.


Maybe you should watch the serie "missions" on mars, it show a good view of "higher intelligence"

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

I dont really see the connection but ok ..

This guy look like an asshole.

What is said is more that he explain this repression because of lack of food resources during ice age.

But it stay very speculative.

If anything the concept of wedding and marriage come more from religion than science.


Rape is like ego- libido = narcissism, and  carry no reproductive value.

There is the section "selfish genes" that talk about this in the badcock ( lol The name   ) paper.


Freud is not perfect, but he is into the few ones who dare to see intelligence in "instinct" and evolutionary drive.

I like Edelman more but he is harder to grasp, and he still follow on Freud on many things.

That reminds me of this politician here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/us/politics/todd-akin-provokes-ire-with-legitimate-rape-comment.html

http://www.academia.edu/5437452/FREUDS_FORGOTTEN_EVOLUTIONARY_PROJECT




This show how biology can repress things due to "intelligent" process.



There are plenty of things in Freud not well known studied that show the mind can direct evolution, by repressing biology.

There are better demonstration than this.

And it show also how the effect of mutation is not known advance and tend to show intelligent pattern in evolution.


This one is good too

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289952422_PsychoDarwinism_The_New_Synthesis_of_Darwin_Freud

Having irrational and ignorant bias against religion doesnt make you more scientific.


https://youtu.be/CAj5aJRB3HE 

Vandal & the dsc no time to gaze