- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,162
- 51,516
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It's a start.So you would like me to start believing that grasshoppers have just 4 legs?
Upvote
0
It's a start.So you would like me to start believing that grasshoppers have just 4 legs?
Not ever scientist accepts the evolution story.
...and next I need to believe that pi= 3.0?It's a start.
Hominids were getting ever bigger heads, and needed a solution to get babies down the birth canal. To try to write this of as a hypothetical problem only in my own mind is just plain silly.
The fact that you like their rejection of evolution doesn't make that rejection more valid.
Also, rejection of evolution doesn't do a jot or tittle to make creation a more viable alternative.
Hmm .. fascinating.SelfSim, are you just bluffing? You say you are a Humanist, but you post some really bizarre stuff. And I've seen you do this on another thread. Are you really a Humanist, or are you just pretending?
..
Can you show me a couple examples of posts where you actually posted anything positive about the Humanism you claim to be part of?
Not so much of 'an attack' .. more like a rigourous enquiry.doubtingmerle said:No, of course I won't add a note on my site saying that evolution is just "a solution" that those who believe in evolution claim. Evolution is real. It leads to real solutions to problems that animals have in the struggle for existence.
And for some reason you add the strawman argument that I said evolution "seeks" and "sees". I said neither of those. So why do you attack my writings for saying that?
There ya go .. so you're sayin' its people needing to solve problems they've posed, after all(?)doubtingmerle said:Which is just plain bizarre. Hominids were getting ever bigger heads, and needed a solution to get babies down the birth canal. To try to write this of as a hypothetical problem only in my own mind is just plain silly.
...
This is a misrepresentation of computer programming. Programmers write programs that can be used by other people to solve problems that those real people need to solve.
I don't have any issues with science's mainstream theory of Biological Evolution.doubtingmerle said:You continued to deny that it would be a problem for a hominid to have a baby with an adult-sized human head, which is just plain silly.
...
The rest of us were not debating the basics of evolution. We were discussing the best way to word statements about the evolutionary process that we all agreed on. But somehow you jumped into this healthy debate between skeptics with a frontal attack on evolution itself while pretending to take one side of the argument.
Its science going on there .. (and here).doubtingmerle said:I have seen you use this same tactic on another thread also (A thread about "Nothing"). What is going on here?
See critiquing the phrase 'Survival of the Fittest' here:doubtingmerle said:Evolving a hominid with a big brain is not a superficial problem. It took hundreds of thousands of years. Adaptions included not just a larger brain, but adaptions to brain structure; adaptions to delay growth of the skull until after birth; and many adaptions that allowed hominids to become fearsome hunters that could supply all the protein needed by those big brains.
And the evidence strongly indicates that it actually happened.
Survival of the fittest is not a well, err, uh, out of date concept. When you come here and tell us that survival of the fittest has been superseded, while making not a single argument for evolutionary science or humanism, I am left scratching my head. What are you doing here?
While the phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used to mean "natural selection", it is avoided by modern biologists, because the phrase can be misleading. For example, survival is only one aspect of selection, and not always the most important. Another problem is that the word "fit" is frequently confused with a state of physical fitness. In the evolutionary meaning "fitness" is the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants.
Twas my attempt at an honest & respectful withdrawl .. (a diffferent tack for me when I'm busy doing other things in real life).doubtingmerle said:Is that an apology, or a passive aggressive attempt to get in one last dig? You apologize for condemning my simplicity, for I must be writing nothing but simplicity? In context of what you have said in total, I'm not sure how to interpret this.
Science is not 'drivel', my friend. The trick is to distinguish Humanism as a belief, from the fingerprints left behind after application of the scientific method. Cheers.doubtingmerle said:Anyway, if you really are here as a Humanist, then please show us a few posts where you actually posted something in favor of humanism, rather than this drivel.
We don't need a research paper ..... we know what the two main world views are as they are debated unceasingly.
Evolution is just as much a scientific principle as it is a scientific theory. Ie: wherever an error prone self replicating entity is observably dependent on a resource constrained environment, we also expect to see the principles of variation, inheritance and selection over time.Evolution isn't a worldview. It is a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Data has been and is being gathered. Data gathered has to be interpreted ... the interpretations of the data gathered varies.
I understand the evolution theories require the physical .... creation does not require it ... because of that difference that does not neither confirm or deny either. Both are reasonable/plausible possibilities.
We have learned we live in an extraordinary complex and vast universe.
There can, and are a lot of "details" that are argued, however real basically without those details is ..... it just happened some how (and the theories vary) or it was designed by a supernatural intelligent entity.
Intelligent Design
God uses no preexisting material to create the universe. God's act of creation causes matter, space, time, and even the very laws which govern the universe to exist.
God does not need the material to create.
So the divide in the beliefs will continue and always be debated.
Yes, I agree. Perhaps I haven't been expressing myself well, but this is what I have been trying to say. If the baby and mother are at high risk of death during childbirth, then that evolutionary path is probably a failure.If the baby has a tendency to die during childbirth then evolution will select against the genetic make-up of the mother. Obviously, as the genes don't get passed on. But if it survives, then any pain the mother goes through during the process is completely irrelevant. Evolution wasn't (and didn't) 'look for a solution' to maternal discomfort. If the birth canal is just big enough so that enough babies (and mothers) survive, then nothing will change.
One could also justifiably say that a 'spiritual world', which can be shown as contradicting the laws of Physics, could only be said to exist, by way of believing that it does.A spiritual world could exist, but that would not invalidate the physical evidence for evolution.
Typically spiritual seems to be a different substance to the matter and energy of the physical universe, but does apparently exist outside the imagination and thoughts of believers.One could also justifiably say that a 'spiritual world', which can be shown as contradicting the laws of Physics, could only be said to exist, by way of believing that it does.
Which is a rather curious claim, IMO ..
I wonder whether such spirits evolve? If not, they must still be very primitive, I'd guess(?)Typically spiritual seems to be a different substance to the matter and energy of the physical universe, but does apparently exist outside the imagination and thoughts of believers.
(Which is pretty consistent with the operation definition of a belief).Shemjaza said:The concept is typically unfalisiable and undemonstratable ...
You seem to be asking several different questions here. I will address them one at a time.For what it is worth, IF God exists, all truth comes from him, all reality comes from and depends on him, including math and logic, fact (the principle —not just 'facts'), even existence itself and all non-falsifiables like art, beauty etc. and all goodness and justice. If not, there is no God. There could be super-human beings, perhaps —'gods', as such— but not THE GOD.
If one disallows "could not be otherwise" by way of being a non-argument for the existence of God, they must disallow it for the existence of anything else.
Anyhow, as far as I can see, you have not shown what causes nature, unless you limit 'nature' to what we see present day. To me the whole matter is nature, right down to first cause, if you deny his implicating himself into the results of his causation. All you've done is kick the can down the road.
There's preachers who don't believe in God!Sure, and there are scientists out there who don't accept the general theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the efficacy of vaccines, universal gravitation, plate tectonics or the heliocentric model. There's probably not a major model or theory in the entirety of the sciences that you can't dig out some "scientist" who opposes it.
We generally dismiss their opinions though, usually because they are fringe beliefs not supported (or poorly supported at best) by the evidence.
The fact that you like their rejection of evolution doesn't make that rejection more valid.
Also, rejection of evolution doesn't do a jot or tittle to make creation a more viable alternative.
So, "It just is", like magic. And they want to know why I say First Cause is with Intent!You seem to be asking several different questions here. I will address them one at a time.
1. What caused the physical causes that caused the universe and its physics?
I address this in the section, What caused the cause of the Big Bang at Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free . I admit that this section was weak, so I have now updated it to better address this question. Spoiler alert: We don't know.
2. What caused the basic nature of quantities and basic logic?
These principles simply are and could not be otherwise. See The Ontology of Logic • Richard Carrier .
3. What caused the verbal systems that describe mathematical laws, physical laws, logical laws, etc.?
These are simply human constructions to express what reality is about. Reality exists. People use languages and systems of words to communicate with other people. People want to describe reality. Therefore, they event languages and systems of words to express thoughts about reality. These systems include mathematics, logic, and sciences.
None of this requires God.
Are their names O'Neal?There's preachers who don't believe in God!
Evolution isn't a worldview. It is a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
explanations in and of themselves are not necessarily true, nor necessarily false, explanations are used to clarify whatever is being discussed.
Definition of worldview
: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint (ie evolution or intelligent design) - two different specific standpoints.
What is meant by world view?
A worldview is a collection of attitudes, values, stories and expectations about the world around us, which inform our every thought and action. Worldview is expressed in ethics, religion, philosophy, scientific beliefs and so on
There are many worldviews .... evolutionism or intelligent design are a couple of them.
explanations in and of themselves are not necessarily true, nor necessarily false, explanations are used to clarify whatever is being discussed.
Definition of worldview
: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint (ie evolution or intelligent design) - two different specific standpoints.
What is meant by world view?
A worldview is a collection of attitudes, values, stories and expectations about the world around us, which inform our every thought and action. Worldview is expressed in ethics, religion, philosophy, scientific beliefs and so on
There are many worldviews .... evolutionism or intelligent design are a couple of them.