Evolutionists and credentialism

[Michael1975]

Only if the bigger brain gives said person an advantage in the mating game. Anyway, I doubt we would know a new mutation that increased brain size in humans if it happened. There's so much variation among humans today, and only quite small changes are going to be survivable, such that it seems manifestly unlikely that any such change would be detectable. At least, not at the present time.

I think it'd be more fruitful, then, to look at past mutations, instead of current ones. Mutations that separate us from chimpanzees. Many geneticists have been looking rather hard at the human genome for areas in our genes that have been positively selected for. These regions are known as HAR's, short for "human accelerated regions," and we have found a number of these, and yes, some of the genes that changed significantly between us and chimpanzees are active in the brain. This is an area of current research, though, and I suspect the arguments are still ongoing and the evidence to be rather subtle.

But for evidence that some of our genes give us bigger brains over some other potential gene combinations, one need look no further than microcephaly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephaly

Microcephaly is a disorder where there is a particular mutation in one of the genes that is active in brain development. A destructive mutation in this gene causes the person's brain to be much, much smaller than normal.

Ok, thanks

 

[Chalnoth]

Why does it being a Christian college change how smart teachers are?

Many Christian colleges have a reputation about caring more about the religious stances of their faculty than their knowledge of the material or ability to teach. A number of them are also degree mills.

When was creationism ever falsified?

Around the early-middle of the 19th century was the birth of modern geology, when geologists discovered incontrovertible evidence that the Earth was truly ancient.

No, he hasn't. Jesus was resurrected from the dead. In fact, I was watching an interesting argument on this not too long ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47Zd2AyeCg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5VE1lE0rzo&feature=related

Btw, there were 10 judges. 5 philosophers and 5 proffesional debate judges voting on debate techniques. 4/5 philosophers voted for Habermas (the Christian) while the last 1 was undecided. 3/5 debate judges voted for Habermas while 2/5 votes for Flew (the Atheist). Anthony Flew also began to express deist views soon after.

Yes, I've seen this before. I was deeply unimpressed by Flew. Perhaps once he had a sharp mind, but it seems that the years have taken a toll on him. The primary problem with all of Habermas' arguments is that evidence that people believed X once upon a time is no evidence whatsoever that X is actually true.

 

[Tomk80]

Why does it being a Christian college change how smart teachers are?

Because Christian colleges often do not give adequate biology lessons, teaching creationism instead.

When was creationism ever falsified?

At least as early as Lyell's publication of Principles of Geology.

No, he hasn't. Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

If you take a rediculous standpoint that we have to have seen something for us to be able to conclude something about it, you cannot draw this conclusion.

In fact, I was watching an interesting argument on this not too long ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47Zd2AyeCg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5VE1lE0rzo&feature=related

Btw, there were 10 judges. 5 philosophers and 5 proffesional debate judges voting on debate techniques. 4/5 philosophers voted for Habermas (the Christian) while the last 1 was undecided. 3/5 debate judges voted for Habermas while 2/5 votes for Flew (the Atheist). Anthony Flew also began to express deist views soon after.

Pity that truth is not decided by vote by judge. This merely states whom people found most convincing, not whether the discussion actually made sense. I'll watch the discussion later on.

 

[Michael1975]

Because Christian colleges often do not give adequate biology lessons, teaching creationism instead.

I wasn't talking about science but I guess my post was misleading. Let me rephrase. Why does it being a Christian college make teachers believe that a tree falling in the forest does not make a sound when nobody hears it?

At least as early as Lyell's publication of Principles of Geology.

Can you be more specific?

If you take a rediculous standpoint that we have to have seen something for us to be able to conclude something about it, you cannot draw this conclusion.

I don't take that standpoint, I was just saying that Jesus was seen after he was resurrected. Although, it means that someone who does take that standpoint has not proven their religion wrong.

Pity that truth is not decided by vote by judge. This merely states whom people found most convincing, not whether the discussion actually made sense. I'll watch the discussion later on.

Truth was decided by the judges. He was found more conving because what he said was true. Remember, 5 of them were philosophers.

 

[Michael1975]

I saw your post after so the things I leave out will probably have been covered in my other post.

Around the early-middle of the 19th century was the birth of modern geology, when geologists discovered incontrovertible evidence that the Earth was truly ancient.

I don't know what incontrovertible means, but an old earth does not disprove creation (OECs believe the earth is old).

Yes, I've seen this before. I was deeply unimpressed by Flew. Perhaps once he had a sharp mind, but it seems that the years have taken a toll on him. The primary problem with all of Habermas' arguments is that evidence that people believed X once upon a time is no evidence whatsoever that X is actually true.

However, it does bring about this question: Why did they think it was true?

 

[Tomk80]

I wasn't talking about science but I guess my post was misleading. Let me rephrase. Why does it being a Christian college make teachers believe that a tree falling in the forest does not make a sound when nobody hears it?

My bad, I mistook the context that you replied too.

I don't know whether it is Christian colleges that would be more likely to teach the above. Nutters are found everywhere.

Can you be more specific?

Lyell showed that the geological patterns that are found in nature cannot be explained by theories that were proposed at that time by creationists/biblical literalists. This includes the "theories" proposed by young and old earth creationists today. For example, he showed that a single world wide flood was not an option given the evidence.

I don't take that standpoint, I was just saying that Jesus was seen after he was resurrected. Although, it means that someone who does take that standpoint has not proven their religion wrong.

But that was the logic Baggins responded too.

Truth was decided by the judges. He was found more conving because what he said was true. Remember, 5 of them were philosophers.

No, he was just found more convincing. That 5 of them were philosophers does not matter at all, especially without any further information. They might just have been very bad at their job. Unfortunately, debates are never a good way to settle truth.

 

[Markus6]

Why does it being a Christian college make teachers believe that a tree falling in the forest does not make a sound when nobody hears it?

This question makes absolutely no sense to me. I guess I've missed some of the discussion. Could anyone explain?

 

[Michael1975]

This question makes absolutely no sense to me. I guess I've missed some of the discussion. Could anyone explain?

Basically, someone said that because a teacher is stupid, he is from a Christian college. I wanted to know why him being stupid has anything to do with Christianity.

 

[Michael1975]

My bad, I mistook the context that you replied too.

Ok

I don't know whether it is Christian colleges that would be more likely to teach the above. Nutters are found everywhere.

Very true

Lyell showed that the geological patterns that are found in nature cannot be explained by theories that were proposed at that time by creationists/biblical literalists. This includes the "theories" proposed by young and old earth creationists today. For example, he showed that a single world wide flood was not an option given the evidence.

You are confusing Creationism with Christianity. The flood has nothing to do with the earth being created. Btw, what evidence are you talking about exactly?

But that was the logic Baggins responded too.

That may be, but my original post on this matter was to say that Jesus exists, not that I believe that everything we don't see never happened. I also don't think Baggins believed this either. If you look back, it looks like he said it to ridicule his teacher who believed this logic.

No, he was just found more convincing. That 5 of them were philosophers does not matter at all, especially without any further information. They might just have been very bad at their job. Unfortunately, debates are never a good way to settle truth.

Saying they might have been bad philosophers is a very big and unsupported assumption. This debate was done in front of 3000 people. I am sure that good philosophers would have been hired for this debate.

As I said, it was the professional debate judges who voted depending on debate tactics, which counts for how convincing their arguments seemed when delivered. The 5 philosophers judged on context. The evidence for Habermas' side of the argument was stronger and the philosophers picked up on this.

 

[Markus6]

Basically, someone said that because a teacher is stupid, he is from a Christian college. I wanted to know why him being stupid has anything to do with Christianity.

How does belief that a tree falling in the forest does not make a sound when nobody hears it equate to stupidity?

 

[Michael1975]

How does belief that a tree falling in the forest does not make a sound when nobody hears it equate to stupidity?

If you look back on the previous posts you'll understand.
Btw, you do realise it does make a sound, don't you?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

How does belief that a tree falling in the forest does not make a sound when nobody hears it equate to stupidity?

A tree falling in the forest will always generate sound waves so it must make sounds. To say otherwise is at least ignorant if not outright stupid. I suppose you could say it doesn't make a noise if no one hears it if you specifically define noise as a sound that is heard by someone.

 

[Michael1975]

To test it, just put a tape recorder next to a tree which will soon fall, get the heck outta there, and listen to the tape recorder afterwards.

 

[Markus6]

A tree falling in the forest will always generate sound waves so it must make sounds. To say otherwise is at least ignorant if not outright stupid. I suppose you could say it doesn't make a noise if no one hears it if you specifically define noise as a sound that is heard by someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
Ignorant, stupid, or just thought about it a bit more than you did.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't know what incontrovertible means, but an old earth does not disprove creation (OECs believe the earth is old).

It means there's no reasonable objection to it. And when we say "creationist", we specifically mean evolution-denier. I doubt there are that many evolution denier OEC's, though I'm sure there are a few.

However, it does bring about this question: Why did they think it was true?

Why do the Mormons think that Jesus came to the Americas? Why do some Buddhists or Hindus think you can gain powers like levitation if you meditate long and hard enough? Why do some Muslims think that Muhammad really was visited by Gabriel? Why do some people think they've been abducted by space aliens?

Really, now, you can't honestly expect me to confer privilege to Christian beliefs over others. Simply for the reason that people are mistaken about the truth in droves all the time, I can't seriously take peoples' beliefs as evidence for anything but that they believe.

 

[Chalnoth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
Ignorant, stupid, or just thought about it a bit more than you did.

Nah, a person that claims that a tree falling makes no sound if nobody is around to hear it is just ignorant of physics. A falling tree disturbs the air, which causes a pressure wave to emanate, which is sound.

 

[Markus6]

Nah, a person that claims that a tree falling makes no sound if nobody is around to hear it is just ignorant of physics. A falling tree disturbs the air, which causes a pressure wave to emanate, which is sound.

How do you know that unobserved trees cause pressure waves to emanate in the same way as observed trees?

It also depends on your definition of the word 'sound'. Are pressure waves 'sound' or does it have to be heard to be sound?

This is philosophy not science, leave the assumptions that you are required to make in order to perform science at the door. This is a genuine philosophical question and an attitude that rejects anyone who spends time actually thinking about this as 'ignorant of physics' is severely unhelpful.

 

[Markus6]

It means there's no reasonable objection to it. And when we say "creationist", we specifically mean evolution-denier. I doubt there are that many evolution denier OEC's, though I'm sure there are a few.

Though some evolutionists would protest that use of the word creationist. Bundling assumptions of denying science on to the word 'creation' is not helpful to christians who respect science but still see the entire universe as God's creation. Some theistic evolutionists prefer to be called evolutionary creationists.

 

[Michael1975]

Why do the Mormons think that Jesus came to the Americas? Why do some Buddhists or Hindus think you can gain powers like levitation if you meditate long and hard enough? Why do some Muslims think that Muhammad really was visited by Gabriel? Why do some people think they've been abducted by space aliens?

Really, now, you can't honestly expect me to confer privilege to Christian beliefs over others. Simply for the reason that people are mistaken about the truth in droves all the time, I can't seriously take peoples' beliefs as evidence for anything but that they believe.

Erm, you didn't answer the question. The answer should probably have been "because they believed they saw Jesus". There is historical evidnece that Jesus once lived and that people claimed to have seen him after he died. The others don't have historical evidence of them happening. In fact, i'm not sure about the Muslim one. However, I do know that the Bible is more reliable than the Koran.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
Ignorant, stupid, or just thought about it a bit more than you did.

Sound waves will be produced whether anyone is there it hear them or not. Here is the definition of sound.
1. a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
d. Such sensations considered as a group.

A sound is produced by the falling tree whether anyone is there to hear it or not. You can make restricted definitions of sound such as c above the require an observer but the general definition subsumes the specific. Philosophy can get pretty silly sometimes and this is a case in point.