proving evolution as just a "theory"

[PsychoSarah]

Ok.. so you're saying that you and cats take multiple factors into consideration before determining a possible outcome? Like a X amount of force.. multiplied by Y amount of distance.. at angle of Z.. = Jump calculation?

No, the opposite. I'm saying cats determine if they can make a jump by trial and error, no equations of any sort. Muscle memory in the cerebellum, not conscious calculation in the cerebrum. Same goes for humans. In fact, a person can have a stroke that takes away the capacity for math, but as long as the cerebellum is fine, they won't be diminished in any of their physical skills. Heck, even with that guy that had his hippocampus removed that could no longer consciously make new long term memories could learn physical skills like playing the piano.

In short, the part of the brain responsible for jumping and the part of the brain responsible for understanding gravity are entirely separate.

 

[MrAnderson9]

I'm going to disagree with both you AND pitabread on this one, because I don't think the situation of "an explanation gaining logical credibility merely from the absence of other explanations" is even applicable. That is, I don't think there has ever been something for which there was only 1 explanation, nor do I think that just a single explanation existing would make it more likely to be correct (after all, there are limits on the understanding and imagination of our species, so the explanations we come up with could all be wrong).




Redundantly redundant sentence that doesn't describe the all important "why". As in, explain why you think your conclusion is the most logical one.


You know that it is perfectly valid to not know why or how, as well as have no ideas on why or how, right?

I'm gonna have to disagree with you.. because everything is based on the most logical conclusion from our perspectives.. Until you have Absolute truth.. everything is simply the most logical fit. And in most cases the most logical fit gives us the results we expect. but.. those results are just that.. expected.. there's nothing stopping today's historically expected result from having a different outcome tomorrow.

 

[MrAnderson9]

No, the opposite. I'm saying cats determine if they can make a jump by trial and error, no equations of any sort. Muscle memory in the cerebellum, not conscious calculation in the cerebrum. Same goes for humans. In fact, a person can have a stroke that takes away the capacity for math, but as long as the cerebellum is fine, they won't be diminished in any of their physical skills. Heck, even with that guy that had his hippocampus removed that could no longer consciously make new long term memories could learn physical skills like playing the piano.

In short, the part of the brain responsible for jumping and the part of the brain responsible for understanding gravity are entirely separate.

Those are still factors. the Cat takes factors into consideration before determining the best outcome based on the potential factors. This is a calculation whether you like it or not.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Those are still factors. the Cat takes factors into consideration before determining the best outcome based on the potential factors. This is a calculation whether you like it or not.

I misunderstood what you meant by "calculation", I took it too literally. My bad.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Except that it's not a logical conclusion; it's just an assertion that isn't tied to its premise.

You have to demonstrate how you go from the premise to the conclusion, demonstrate how they are linked. If you can't do that, you don't have a logical argument. And so far you haven't done that.



All you appear to have is a base assertion with no real argument to support it. And like many that have come before you, all you are doing now is engaging in repetition. Unfortunately, merely repeating something over and over doesn't make it valid.

When you come up with something more interesting, let me know.

Why don't you try to debate instead of giving all the different reasons why you can't? You have logic? You can communicate.. you know the limitations of modern thought on these particular subjects.. the point is to debate.. not constantly make excuses as why you can't.

I gave you a most logical conclusion and until you can present one more logical it stands.

 

[MrAnderson9]

I misunderstood what you meant by "calculation", I took it too literally. My bad.

It's fine.. : )

What is the difference between Creation and evolution? Why do these ideas appear to be at odds with each other?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you.. because everything is based on the most logical conclusion from our perspectives.

Maybe from our personal perspectives, but logic is actually pretty low on the hierarchy of how we learn about the world. It's below science, which is below math. Funny to think that the statement "reaching a conclusion through logic rather than through science is illogical" is a correct one, yes? Logic basically exists for the problems too subjective for science to handle, such as morality.

Until you have Absolute truth.. everything is simply the most logical fit.

Pretty sure 2+2=4 is absolutely correct without needing to use logic for it. Unfortunately for you, the philosophy subforum was permanently closed.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Maybe from our personal perspectives, but logic is actually pretty low on the hierarchy of how we learn about the world. It's below science, which is below math. Funny to think that the statement "reaching a conclusion through logic rather than through science is illogical" is a correct one, yes? Logic basically exists for the problems too subjective for science to handle, such as morality.



Pretty sure 2+2=4 is absolutely correct without needing to use logic for it. Unfortunately for you, the philosophy subforum was permanently closed.

: ) ..

How could you put such little value on logic? Without logic.. there is no Science or math. Logic is the language of our universe. Everything speaks logic. science does.. math does.. everything. To lose logic would be to lose your grip on our perceived reality. Logic and Intellect are a direct connection.. your ability to understand logic = your intellect.

I'm very surprised to see you place such a low value on logic.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's fine.. : )

What is the difference between Creation and evolution? Why do these ideas appear to be at odds with each other?

Actually, it's interesting. Creationism (going by the literal biblical interpretation version that is often on here) conflicts with multiple scientific theories. In fact, concerning biology and chemistry, it conflicts with abiogenesis much more than the theory of evolution.

What makes it all the more interesting is that creationists on here generally don't attack the theory itself, but rather the observed phenomenon that the theory exists to explain. That is, they contend with the idea that populations can evolve rather than how and why it happens.

Plenty of people have hybrid views, such as people that think that a deity created the first life on Earth, and left it to develop and evolve on its own or even guided evolution.

-_- it does get annoying when creationists debating evolution act as if the theory or the phenomenon have anything to do with the Big Bang and other things. Creationism expands over more topics than evolution does, and I wish more creationists would recognize that.

 

[pitabread]

Why don't you try to debate instead of giving all the different reasons why you can't? You have logic? You can communicate.. you know the limitations of modern thought on these particular subjects.. the point is to debate.. not constantly make excuses as why you can't.

Who is making excuses?

My position on the subject is what I consider the most honest one: I don't have an answer. And indeed, if you look at competing hypotheses on the origin and nature of the universe, there is no singular, unified answer yet. We're still figuring it out.

All you appear to have done is basically replace "I don't know" with "Goddidit". Which I consider roughly equivalent in terms of answers, given they both hold exactly the same explanatory power (i.e. none).

I gave you a most logical conclusion and until you can present one more logical it stands.

You appear to be misunderstanding my point here. You haven't presented a logical conclusion in the first place. Thus far, all I've seen of your argument has boiled down to two forms:

1) Stuff exists, therefore Goddidit.
2) The universe had a beginning, therefore Goddidit.

In neither case have you tied the conclusion to the premise and demonstrated the necessity of the latter. Simply claiming over and over that you have a logical argument doesn't make it a logical argument.

 

[The Times]

we can also ask what if we will find a cell-phone with a self replicaition system. like a living thing.

Correct! Thankyou for you much appreciated input.

 

[pitabread]

Actually, it's interesting. Creationism (going by the literal biblical interpretation version that is often on here) conflicts with multiple scientific theories. In fact, concerning biology and chemistry, it conflicts with abiogenesis much more than the theory of evolution.

What I find really bizarre is that modern Young Earth creationism conflicts with evolution in the weird way that it requires evolution to operate at significant higher rates of evolutionary change than are observed to create the necessary diversity of life on Earth.

YECs are basically hyper-evolutionists and they often don't even realize that.

 

[pitabread]

There is no law in the universe that governs how embedded patterns should be, rather the patterns themselves use laws of nature and cosmic laws, in order to arrive at the intended function. Majority of scientists who don't believe in God agree that the Fibonacci pattern is a patent signature inherent within all creation, in the absense of other signitures. Random signitures would indicate random evolutionary cycles driven by other algorithmic signitures, where we do not see that.

Again, I don't know where you are getting this "random signature" idea, since we don't expect things in the universe to operate by sheer randomness.

In addition, there are other examples of various patterns in nature besides just Fibonacci. This can include everything from various types of waveforms to patterns involving symmetry, fractals, etc.

By your own argument, if a particular type of pattern points to a singular designer, then would not different types of patterns point to multiple designers?

 

[MrAnderson9]

Actually, it's interesting. Creationism (going by the literal biblical interpretation version that is often on here) conflicts with multiple scientific theories. In fact, concerning biology and chemistry, it conflicts with abiogenesis much more than the theory of evolution.

What makes it all the more interesting is that creationists on here generally don't attack the theory itself, but rather the observed phenomenon that the theory exists to explain. That is, they contend with the idea that populations can evolve rather than how and why it happens.

Plenty of people have hybrid views, such as people that think that a deity created the first life on Earth, and left it to develop and evolve on its own or even guided evolution.

-_- it does get annoying when creationists debating evolution act as if the theory or the phenomenon have anything to do with the Big Bang and other things. Creationism expands over more topics than evolution does, and I wish more creationists would recognize that.

You're right.. this is very interesting.. I typically don't debate the Bible because I don't know why anyone should pick it up and consider that it is the word of "God" based solely on it insisting on itself and stating that it is. I've asked many of my Christian brothers and sisters and have yet to receive an answer.. maybe someone here can enlighten me.

Abiogenesis is basically stating that life arrived from non life.. I find that interesting because from my own observation.. life requires life to survive. Animals eat other living things.. does abiogensis apply to life like the life in a human and insect.. or like the life.. in a plant? or both?

 

[PsychoSarah]

: ) ..

How could you put such little value on logic? Without logic.. there is no Science or math.

Logic is a tool of philosophy, which reaches conclusions through discussion rather than through testing and observation. Science and math don't need much in terms of logic because they physically measure.

Logic is the language of our universe.

The universe doesn't seem to have a language, given that its background static has no linguistic patterns

Everything speaks logic. science does.. math does.. everything. To lose logic would be to lose your grip on our perceived reality. Logic and Intellect are a direct connection.. your ability to understand logic = your intellect.

I'm very surprised to see you place such a low value on logic.

Consider what logic actually is: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Abiding by those strict principles without nuance is how people end up frequently making logical fallacies. Not illogical fallacies, logical ones, because they are abiding by the rules of logic when they make them. Math can prove. Science can provide evidence. Logic can argue. I think that you have made the common misunderstanding that utilizing logic is synonymous with coherent thought and expression.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sarah, I know this is way off-topic; but just a quick question:

Did you ever get your Venus fly trap?

 

[Ophiolite]

YECs are basically hyper-evolutionists and they often don't even realize that.

They will once they have evolved.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Who is making excuses?

My position on the subject is what I consider the most honest one: I don't have an answer. And indeed, if you look at competing hypotheses on the origin and nature of the universe, there is no singular, unified answer yet. We're still figuring it out.

All you appear to have done is basically replace "I don't know" with "Goddidit". Which I consider roughly equivalent in terms of answers, given they both hold exactly the same explanatory power (i.e. none).



You appear to be misunderstanding my point here. You haven't presented a logical conclusion in the first place. Thus far, all I've seen of your argument has boiled down to two forms:

1) Stuff exists, therefore Goddidit.
2) The universe had a beginning, therefore Goddidit.

In neither case have you tied the conclusion to the premise and demonstrated the necessity of the latter. Simply claiming over and over that you have a logical argument doesn't make it a logical argument.

I think you're over simplifying my argument for the sake of you not having a logical rebuttal. " I don't know" ... and "We're a product of Intelligent design" are two very different answers. 1 makes no attempts at answering the questions .. while the other uses logic to come to the most logical conclusion our mind can process.

Everything we see is the result of a form of creation.. from the mountains.. to your house.. your body.. everything is the result of "creation" whether intentionally or accidentally or through the effect of another action.. everything appears to be the result of something. So I think it's very logical to assume that our universe is the result of something as well. What this something is.. is what we consider "God". Your perspective is that everything is the result of nothing or itself.. which isn't logical based on everything we know and understand.

Thinking that something sprang forth from nothing.. is the illogical stance.. and this is based on every day life. Everything appears to have a source and a definition behind it. Saying that everything always existed also isn't reflected by anything in the universe. Both of these conclusion go against the nature flow of things.

Me stating that there is a Creator is actually the most logical and natural conclusion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're right.. this is very interesting.. I typically don't debate the Bible because I don't know why anyone should pick it up and consider that it is the word of "God" based solely on it insisting on itself and stating that it is. I've asked many of my Christian brothers and sisters and have yet to receive an answer.. maybe someone here can enlighten me.

If they do, be sure to tell me. I've been waiting for that for about 4 years out of this website XD

Abiogenesis is basically stating that life arrived from non life.. I find that interesting because from my own observation.. life requires life to survive. Animals eat other living things.. does abiogensis apply to life like the life in a human and insect.. or like the life.. in a plant? or both?

The way you ask the question approaches life as if it is a force enacting within living things, which makes the question a bit... off in terms of trying to address it, seeing as there is no measurable difference in the "life" of a plant compared to a human, aside from having chloroplasts and cell walls. While all living things on the planet currently have formed symbiotic relationships to some extent, this symbiosis is not necessary for life absolutely. After all, autotrophs like plants utilize energy from the sun, not by taking it from other organisms.If it weren't for hundreds of millions of years of evolution resulting in organisms developing such strong symbiotic relationships that they die without each other, we would see plenty of organisms existing all by themselves.

As for abiogenesis applying to organisms like humans, absolutely not. I refer you to the work of Jack W. Szostak for more detailed information about abiogenesis and his successful experiment in 2013 that produced protocells in an environment meant to imitate the early conditions on this planet. However, in summary, abiogenesis is when collections of molecules come together through natural processes to produce a basic unit that can metabolize and reproduce itself that has genetic material. Based on Szostak's work, the first life didn't have any organelles and could be summarized as a lipid bubble with RNA in it that could replicate that, from time to time, would divide thanks to gradually increasing in size until the structure had to split into two. Much simpler than a modern cell.

Abiogenesis is molecules to first living cell, and evolution is first living cell onward. To also clarify something, abiogenesis is life arising from the basic molecules that make up living things, which are naturally occurring. Living organisms just process them such that the reactions are much faster than they would be outside of a cell.

 

[USincognito]

The evolution of the eye is only guesswork. We've never seen the eye come into being through evolution and we've never been able to test the theory in any fashion. You believe in evolution therefore the eye evolved. We don't therefore the eye didn't. Both are belief systems without "evidence" or observation or testing. Darwin didn't figure it out out at all. The "evolution" of the eye theory is merely a guess and assumption. As the poster pointed out it simply is not realistically possible. But that doesn't stop an evolutionist because they believe in evolution and no matter what argument is made it can't be true because they believe in evolution. It's a circular argument.

Oh my word, your tired boilplate rhetoric is utterly vacuous and droning on for a whole paragraph with the same platitudes and old saws doesn't make it any more substantive.

Either actually address the content of the link I posted or please don't waste your time expecting any of us to read droning, vacuous rhetoric.