Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Book Of Enoch And The Flat-earth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jerry Smith" data-source="post: 264329" data-attributes="member: 2568"><p>Wow Cyclo! It seems you hold some opinions very strongly!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So far, there is no&nbsp;evidence that&nbsp;intelligence <em>can</em> create intelligence. Humans, being the only intelligent organisms on&nbsp;the planet, have so far failed in that endeavor. At the same time, even if there were evidence that intelligence could create intelligence, would this be good evidence that no natural process could? Let me answer that: no.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The evidence we have so far&nbsp;does show us that&nbsp;all living organisms do get here by reproduction of parent organisms,&nbsp;yes - but then that is very strong evidence of evolution, when taken with the further fact that most of the organisms&nbsp;that live on earth now do not appear in the fossil record&nbsp;until some time <em>after</em> the first, (now mostly extinct) organisms that appeared in it. Coupling the law of biogenesis with the fossil record's&nbsp;long-term&nbsp;pattern of divergence of new and more modern forms, together with observed instances of evolution and speciation, throwing in the evidence from comparative anatomy, biogeography, paleobiogeography, and genomic studies, and you have <em>strong</em> evidence for evolution... The point that "only life can create life" is&nbsp;only the "starting point" of the evidence for evolution!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree with you (at least on this second point), which is one major reason that I&nbsp;accept evolution.&nbsp;And I do so in spite of the fact that I expect science to eventually show that&nbsp;under&nbsp;certain circumstances, chemical self-replicators <em>can</em> turn into&nbsp;very primitive life. On the first point -&nbsp;I reckon there is a lot of study to be done there.&nbsp;Einstein's folks produced an intelligent baby, but I don't think they did it by spending a lot&nbsp;of time in the library if you know what I mean! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>It is somewhat frightening to think that someone would hijack the science of the Modern Synthesis of evolution and 'apply it to society'. If they really understand it, they will realize that it cannot be directly "applied" to society, even though its findings can be used to illuminate some sociological&nbsp;events that are not well understood, I suppose. If they don't really understand it, then we would be all better off if they didn't make the effort to apply it to society. I imagine you would agree that this could be the case in religion as well as science. Did Jim Jones understand religion correctly?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jerry Smith, post: 264329, member: 2568"] Wow Cyclo! It seems you hold some opinions very strongly! So far, there is no evidence that intelligence [i]can[/i] create intelligence. Humans, being the only intelligent organisms on the planet, have so far failed in that endeavor. At the same time, even if there were evidence that intelligence could create intelligence, would this be good evidence that no natural process could? Let me answer that: no. The evidence we have so far does show us that all living organisms do get here by reproduction of parent organisms, yes - but then that is very strong evidence of evolution, when taken with the further fact that most of the organisms that live on earth now do not appear in the fossil record until some time [i]after[/i] the first, (now mostly extinct) organisms that appeared in it. Coupling the law of biogenesis with the fossil record's long-term pattern of divergence of new and more modern forms, together with observed instances of evolution and speciation, throwing in the evidence from comparative anatomy, biogeography, paleobiogeography, and genomic studies, and you have [i]strong[/i] evidence for evolution... The point that "only life can create life" is only the "starting point" of the evidence for evolution! I agree with you (at least on this second point), which is one major reason that I accept evolution. And I do so in spite of the fact that I expect science to eventually show that under certain circumstances, chemical self-replicators [i]can[/i] turn into very primitive life. On the first point - I reckon there is a lot of study to be done there. Einstein's folks produced an intelligent baby, but I don't think they did it by spending a lot of time in the library if you know what I mean! :) It is somewhat frightening to think that someone would hijack the science of the Modern Synthesis of evolution and 'apply it to society'. If they really understand it, they will realize that it cannot be directly "applied" to society, even though its findings can be used to illuminate some sociological events that are not well understood, I suppose. If they don't really understand it, then we would be all better off if they didn't make the effort to apply it to society. I imagine you would agree that this could be the case in religion as well as science. Did Jim Jones understand religion correctly? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Book Of Enoch And The Flat-earth
Top
Bottom