Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 5:08 AM
132 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 131 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,282 Year: 15,105/29,783 Month: 1,049/1,502 Week: 47/492 Day: 10/37 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
nwr
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 286 of 302 (320998)
06-13-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Crue Knight
06-12-2006 11:59 PM


Re: Question!
Why do we have moral judgment?

We learned it from our parents and our peers.

But where did it come from...if not the way the Bible says?

We evolved as a social species. That is, we are a species that depends on cooperation with other members of our group (or culture or tribe). Our moral judgement amounts to the practices that our culture follows to facilitate cooperation. Presumably these practices were developed through experience.

If you read some of the literature from anthropological studies, you will find that moral practices vary from culture to culture.

On embarrassment, arachnophilia corrected me. The origin is hard to track down. Religions have spread the idea of embarrassment. There are other cultures where people do not feel embarrassed to be naked. The "National Geographic" magazine sometimes prints studies of these cultures, including photos of people in their nakedness. That's what crashfrog was referring to in Message 280.

So does that mean there is another coincidence (besides the big bang coincidence of the earth life survived and we evolved) that religion (from the Bible) supports many correct scientific evidence such as:
The earth is round; The earth revolves around the sun; And many more??? Is it coincidently the works of man that his view of this earth was "mostly" if not all correct, then he tries to decieve others in his book bieng God's word?

I'm not sure what coincidence you are seeing there. Religions developed within a culture. Many of the religious traditions came from the cultures in the regions where those religions developed. That the earth was round was well known in the middle east cultures.

You should also be aware that many Christian theologians take parts of the old testament that meant something else, and reinterpret them to fit modern knowledge. That's not coincidence, it is quote mining.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Crue Knight, posted 06-12-2006 11:59 PM Crue Knight has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1724
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 287 of 302 (320999)
06-13-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Crue Knight
06-12-2006 10:40 PM


Re: Question!
Have they gotten anymore advanced in the way they live?
Behaviour doesn't fossilize so that question doesn't have a good answer. Before you get on me about contradicitng myself I took your question:
Why are they the same as they were thousands of years ago?

To be the usual creationist garbage along the lines of "if we come from monkies why are there still monkies?" and answered it in that vein.

Then we date it with our dating methods, but how do you know it's tottally reliable? Possibly you can tell for the past hundred years, but millions!?

The correlation between the multiple dating methods means we can be pretty confident about the accuracy of the dates produced, even to millions of years ago. Check out the various correlation threads in the Dates and Dating forum.

Why do we have moral judgment?

Dunno, thats more of a socialogical/physcological question than a biological one

Where did human embarassment from nakedness come from?

As crash has already pointed out shame at being nekkid is not a universal theme in humanity.

from your messgae 285

But where did it come from...if not the way the Bible says?

It came about just how the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Odin the Allfather said, obviously.

The earth is round;

I'm sure arach will correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the hebrew word in question actually describe the Earth as a circle, a flat 2D object, not a 3D sphere.

Edited by DrJones*, : Added last quote/paragraph


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Crue Knight, posted 06-12-2006 10:40 PM Crue Knight has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19565
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 288 of 302 (321051)
06-13-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Crue Knight
06-12-2006 10:40 PM


Re: Question!
DrJones* writes:

ok at the monkeys or any other animal. Why are they the same as they were thousands of years ago?

They aren't.

What are the differences? Have they gotten anymore advanced in the way they live?

Define "advance" and then tell me what part of evolution says that they should "advance" - cite scientific sources not creatortionista sites (like SWC's - that badly misrepresent the science).

Evolution is change in species over time. No "value" added to what the change is - that is a common creationist misconception.

Ex: If someone was a UFO fanatic, hw could create all kinds of theories about why they appear, ect. Then he sees a bunch of rusted material in a nearby field and inspects it. His mind of coarse will try to make it agree with his theories about UFOs. Does it mean it's true?

LOL. What's the difference between UFOism and religions?

You are applying the "logic" of creationism to the observation of facts. The creationist looks at evidence and trys to make it fit his preconceptions. His mind of course will try to make it agree with his preconception about life. The UFO fanatic is in the same boat as the creationist - convinced his world view will be justified by a proper evaluation of the evidence.

The scientist, however, first looks at the evidence, then makes theories about how rusted piles of metal could appear in fields, then he tests those theories. If he can come to no conclusive reason for the rusted piles of metal to be there he concludes ... that it is inconclusive. Only the UFOist and the creationist leap to the conclusion that it must be what they want.

I dont mean survival, I mean wise as in brains.

(1) But the selection is for {survival\reproduction} not for brains. Brains can help {survival\reproduction}, but they will only be selected for as long as they promote {survival\reproduction}.

(2) How do you know they aren't? We have lots of examples of 'moral' behavior in animals, we have lots of examples of adults teaching young certain behavior (passing on their wisdom), and we have lots of examples of communication with animals that reveal they are not that different from humans.

I have a proper education, thank you. You cant look one way we gotta have open minds if we want to learn.

That's fine, but when you apply that {open mind} make sure you use it to test the validity of the sources of some of your information. You have just posted a couple of misconceptions on evolution -- that is not a fault of your {open mind} and it may not be a fault of your "proper education" but it is certainly the fault, somewhere along the line, of taking a source as valid that isn't.

Do you think "standing tall for the truth" means repeating misrepresentations and known falsehoods as if they were true?

msg 285 writes:

So does that mean there is another coincidence ...

Science is based on evidence, not coincidence. But no, in this case it is not a coincidence it is a circular reference system -- because some people (not all) behave according to the precepts of some traditional behavior code, this does not mean that observing people behaving according to some traditional code makes the code true, it's just evidence of some people (not all) behave according to the precepts of some traditional behavior code. This is YOUR rustly pile of metal in a field ...

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Crue Knight, posted 06-12-2006 10:40 PM Crue Knight has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:47 PM RAZD has responded

Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 302 (321578)
06-14-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by RAZD
06-13-2006 7:29 AM


Re: Question!

You are applying the "logic" of creationism to the observation of facts. The creationist looks at evidence and trys to make it fit his preconceptions. His mind of course will try to make it agree with his preconception about life. The UFO fanatic is in the same boat as the creationist - convinced his world view will be justified by a proper evaluation of the evidence.

If he can come to no conclusive reason for the rusted piles of metal to be there he concludes ... that it is inconclusive. Only the UFOist and the creationist leap to the conclusion that it must be what they want.


Creationists (at least I do), tries to fit what they see with the Bible. And it does! Then they can make a scientific theory as long as it doesnt go against the Bible. If all matter in this world would prove the Bible cannot be true, I wouldnt believe in it.

The scientist, however, first looks at the evidence, then makes theories about how rusted piles of metal could appear in fields, then he tests those theories.

It appears to me that scientists (evolutionists) makes theories about how rusted piles of metal could appear in HIS field.
For example: A scientist (i forgot who) in the National Geographic mag about the Hobbit, said the first thing he thought when he saw the skeletal remains, was the evolution of humans. Why? Because evolution was stuck in his mind.


Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at www.timehasanend.org
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2006 7:29 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by ringo, posted 06-14-2006 8:04 PM Crue Knight has not yet responded
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2006 8:41 PM Crue Knight has not yet responded
 Message 299 by Rob, posted 06-18-2006 2:06 AM Crue Knight has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 15393
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 290 of 302 (321584)
06-14-2006 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Crue Knight
06-14-2006 7:47 PM


Re: Question!
Crue Knight writes:

Then they can make a scientific theory as long as it doesnt go against the Bible.

You've got it backwards. You can make a Bible interpretation as long as it doesn't go against what we see in the world around us. If your Bible interpretation is that the sun moves around the earth or that there was a world-wide flood, you need to change your Bible interpretation, not the facts.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:47 PM Crue Knight has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19565
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 291 of 302 (321596)
06-14-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Crue Knight
06-14-2006 7:47 PM


Re: Question!
Creationists (at least I do), tries to fit what they see with the Bible. And it does!

Yep. The sun rises and the sun sets: evidence for a flat earth, and it fits with the bible, so it must be true.

Evidence for something is not sufficient reason to accept it as valid as long as there is evidence that INvalidates the concept involved: ignoring the rest of the evidence does not make the concept any less INvalid, it just makes the opinion more IGnorant.

Then they can make a scientific theory as long as it doesnt go against the Bible.

Why? Where is this stated in the scientific method? Where is this listed in the "rules" for evidence? What purpose does it serve?

The evidence that the earth is round is undeniable, real and based on science whether it fits with some interpretation of a certain book or not. That is all that is necessary -- and what is required -- of science, that it provide the best explanation of the evidence, regardless of what that explanation is. The search is for the truth of reality, regardless of where that leads.

The minute you DISallow explanations that DISagree with some preconception, not matter WHAT that preconception is, you are DISengaged from science.

This is not a standard for science, it is a standard for ignorance, ultimately promoting the willfull denial of reality.

It appears to me that scientists (evolutionists) makes theories about how rusted piles of metal could appear in HIS field.
For example: A scientist (i forgot who) in the National Geographic mag about the Hobbit, said the first thing he thought when he saw the skeletal remains, was the evolution of humans. Why? Because evolution was stuck in his mind.

Scientists make theories and then they TEST them. They don't just assume that the theory is correct, the look for ways to validate it, and for things that could INvalidate it. Faith, by definition does NOT operate that way.

What was your first thought? That evolution was false? LOL. Your opinion of scientists, whether justified or not, is still just your opinion and not fact. It is also wrong.

Recognizing that the pile of metal is a pile of metal is not the answer to how the pile of metal got in the field. Recognizing that the bones are hominid bones did not take rocket science and does not answer the question to how that pile of bones got in that field.

The first thing he thought of was evolution, hominid evolution ... likely because they were different from other fossils, and evolution is change in species over time. "Stuck" in his mind was the explanatory power of the theory of evolution to show change in species over time, and how it was challenged -- tested -- with each new discovery as unusual as this one ... instead of the reliance on ignorance and superstition.

If the first thing he had thought of was that elves must have been real THAT would have been something to comment on.

The predominant scientific concensus on Homo Floriensis is that we don't know where and when they branched off of which line of hominid ancestor. That makes it an interesting question.

Edited by RAZD, : deleted last paragraph


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:47 PM Crue Knight has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3767 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 292 of 302 (322759)
06-17-2006 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
06-09-2006 5:53 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Sorry Percy, it wasn't message 180 ( www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=688&m=180#180 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=688&m=180#180">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=688&m=180#180 ) It was this I wanted to respond to.

This is my question... I concede that the amount of information is irrelavant as to the complexity of the organism (i.e. the amoeba in question).

Is the complexity of the information relavant in your opinion?

In other words, an amoeba may contain a lot more information, but is that information as complex and specified as the genetic information for a Mammal of Reptile?

In your opinion, does that complexity in the genetic information of the higher animals originate from a random process? or do you assume a pupose or design somehow other than by a pre-creation designer?

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 06-09-2006 5:53 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by kuresu, posted 06-17-2006 11:13 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 294 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2006 11:37 PM Rob has responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 293 of 302 (322766)
06-17-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Rob
06-17-2006 10:53 PM


Re: on pairs and tells
Your post was directed towards Percy, but I'll take a crack at it too.

Humans, while having roughly 25000 genes, can get more than one protein per gene in quite a few cases. This is all I can think you mena when you say that:

In other words, an amoeba may contain a lot more information, but is that information as complex and specified as the genetic information for a Mammal of Reptile?

And this increased "complexity" (because I don't know exactly what you're driving at) was arrived at by a not entirely random process called evolution. So while God (I assume that's who you refer to in your last statement) may not be necessary for it, that doesn't mean that the process was random and unguided.

It'll help when I know what you're driving at though.


All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 10:53 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8810
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 294 of 302 (322769)
06-17-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Rob
06-17-2006 10:53 PM


Measuring complexity
In other words, an amoeba may contain a lot more information, but is that information as complex and specified as the genetic information for a Mammal of Reptile?

We've seen how information can be measured and assigned a quantitative value. Can you tell us how one does this with "complexity" and "specificity"? I've never seen them defined well enough to be able to assign a number to. Without a number I can't tell if a mammal or a reptile or an amoeba has "more" or "less" of this stuff.

The important thing to note is that one needs to be able to arrive at a number before you can talk in terms of more or less.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 10:53 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Rob, posted 06-18-2006 12:16 AM NosyNed has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3767 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 295 of 302 (322776)
06-18-2006 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by NosyNed
06-17-2006 11:37 PM


Re: Measuring complexity
I think I understand, but have no number to give you. I only offer the concept which is intuitively recognizable without such a value.

1+1=2.

What is the square root of 4,567,896,345?

Differnet scales of problems no doubt! However, it is the same simplicity of 1+1=2 that offers the 'reason' or logic, for both problems.

Very interesting regardless...

If I may interject a metaphysical analogy to this observation, perhaps you may find it interesting as well:

An excerpt from an unpublished article of mine called, 'The Fanatic!'

Now, If there is a God (and most believe so), He would be the truth. Or, the truth would be of God; that is, begotten by God; part of God; a dimension of God. The truth would be God. It is very much just the way addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are a dimension of mathematics; and in fact they are math. They are not the totality of math, but they will lead us to the higher mathematics faithfully.

Continuing along this line, the truth in math (the logic of it) is the same in the lower mathematics, as it is in the higher. There is simply more or less information when comparing the two. They have a different function. Trying to put a value on either is really a rather individual and subjective project that requires a lack of the very essence of logic that opens into objectivity. For objectivity is itself the nature of logic. Logic has an objective. In that sense the lower math is just as pure and wonderful as the higher. I make note of this for obvious reasons; the Son is just as beautiful as the Father.

Together they are God, and as individuals they are God. There is no better than, but only love for each other and their mutual function and purpose. In this way, their Spirit is the very essence of logic and is also God. Jesus spoke of the abundant life; it is eternal and is therefore absolute. It is unlike our life that is a bound and limited life; limited by food, water, air, and death (entropy). Jesus spoke about having food that we new nothing about, living water, the clouds of heaven, and eternal life (the absence of death).

This whole manner of illustrating God by use of mathematic symbolism may provide a look into another mystery. In Mathew, chapter 12; 31, Jesus says that all blasphemy and sin will be forgiven except blasphemy of the spirit. I can’t help but think of the Spirit in the confines of our mathematical example as the essence of God. In our mathematics, the logic itself is to be revered and embraced. However, I think we must be careful with keeping our example too close to our minds, as it does not very well express the wholeness and power of the real thing. Our example is only a concept within the intellect, and the Spirit of God is very much alive and Holy. We should not confuse them.

just thinking...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2006 11:37 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by NosyNed, posted 06-18-2006 1:18 AM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3767 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 296 of 302 (322783)
06-18-2006 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Wounded King
06-07-2006 9:14 AM


Sorry it took so long
We can test and find over and over in the lab that mutations cause a loss of information.
*snip*
When the occasional accident or 'error' does occur, it almost exclusively results in death or an inability to procreate. Statistically irrelevant exceptions due occur.

Would you care to furnish any evidence to support these contentions?

I finally found my source... Specifically his name is Dr. Lee Spetner. But in addition, there is Michael Denton, Werner Gitt, and Don Batten.

The arguments Are compliled on a DVD documentary called, From a Frog to a Prince. Produced by Keziah, and available from www.AnswersInGenesis.org.

I know it is not your kind of source... but who can say what the truth is, when the truth is absolute?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2006 9:14 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by nwr, posted 06-18-2006 8:24 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8810
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 297 of 302 (322784)
06-18-2006 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Rob
06-18-2006 12:16 AM


Re: Measuring complexity
I think I understand, but have no number to give you. I only offer the concept which is intuitively recognizable without such a value.

Loosly translated as:

I was fooled when I read about it because it sounded so scientific.

or

I have not clue what it means.

Given what I understand complexity to mean it is probably that both a mammal and a reptile are more complex than an amoeba (but I can't prove it since I don't know what complexity is). I am pretty darn sure that a reptile and a mammal are about the same in complexity and it would be very difficult indeed to figure out if there is an difference.

Guessing what "specificity" is (and making up a bit of definition of my own)I would say that in that sense they all have very close to zero specificity. So close as to be safely approximated by zero. If you think it is significantly greater than zero you will have to show that.

Rob, you've been had. You've read this stuff somewhere and thought it was really hot stuff. It is just random words made up to sound good. When questioned on it you've gone off into words without any more meaning that the ones that were used to fool you. Try again. I'm not fooled.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Rob, posted 06-18-2006 12:16 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Rob, posted 06-18-2006 1:45 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3767 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 298 of 302 (322786)
06-18-2006 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by NosyNed
06-18-2006 1:18 AM


Re: Measuring complexity
(and making up a bit of definition of my own)I would say that in that sense they all have very close to zero specificity. So close as to be safely approximated by zero

Thank you for approximating an answer. unfortunately that does not qualify as truth. So... touche'. I offer none myself!

Fortunately for me, I do not need proof that we (as life on earth) are devolving, as oppossed to evolving. Your photograph speaks volumes...

I imagine that's it for me...Oh well, I'm tired of the games anyhow. My Lord was right... wipe the dust off my feet lest they deystroy me. Pride is so contagious. I must flee!

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : Offended that I'm offended!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by NosyNed, posted 06-18-2006 1:18 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3767 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 299 of 302 (322788)
06-18-2006 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Crue Knight
06-14-2006 7:47 PM


Re: Question!
Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at www.timehasanend.org

Thanks for that Crue. I used to catch that old fart on the radio and was enamored with Him. I don't know about the 2012 stuff, but hey... the old man was good! I'll read it...

(sorry I self destructed on the last post... I'm only human!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Crue Knight, posted 06-14-2006 7:47 PM Crue Knight has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by nwr, posted 06-18-2006 8:28 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5583
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 300 of 302 (322840)
06-18-2006 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Rob
06-18-2006 1:10 AM


Re: Sorry it took so long
Sorry to say, but you have been paying attenting to intellectual scam artists. These intellectual scammers have befuddled you with their sophisticated-sounding arguments.

In order to say that information has been lost, you would need a way of quantifing the amount of information. But look at what Spetner does when asked about the amount of information. He weaves and dodges, so as to pretend that he is answering, but he completely evades the question.

You mention a DVD as your source. Your link doesn't seem to take me to the DVD, but it does lead to the AnswersInGenesis site. You mention Michael Denton. I seriously doubt that Denton is actually supporting these sleight-of-hand arguments about information. But I'm not about to watch a long video to find out. If you can find a transcript of what Denton said, that would be appreciated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Rob, posted 06-18-2006 1:10 AM Rob has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018