Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
205 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, Hyroglyphx, jar, JonF, PaulK, Theodoric (7 members, 198 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,145 Year: 2,893/23,288 Month: 1,084/1,809 Week: 203/313 Day: 15/69 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2314 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 346 of 507 (601080)
01-18-2011 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Blue Jay
01-18-2011 9:41 AM


Re: Should Moderators promote their own topics ?
In all honesty, I think this is an example of over-scrutinizing the creationist.

I think you're missing my point. The term occurs in the title but not in the OP itself. The post begins "I used to think this was possible", apparently treating the title as a question he is asking himself but not discussing the terms of the question in any way. Then he proceeds to suppose, and wonder, and generally compose the sort of jibber jabber moderators are here to prevent.

A good Opening Post has its terms defined and its position clear already, it doesn't meander its way down to

slevesque writes:

Now if some things are disputed and/or unclear (which I'm sure some are) go ahead and ask a clarification or tell me what is wrong. Just make sure that the point you are raising hasn't already being raised.

and then spend the first couple of pages having its terms and position hammered out for it by people who are trying to debate it if they can just get what it is cleared up first.

But no, it's not the most important point, just the first one that comes to mind, because it's a disconnect between the title and the post itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Blue Jay, posted 01-18-2011 9:41 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 347 of 507 (601104)
01-18-2011 6:19 PM


Anyone had a look at Message 1 in New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.?

If so, I have two questions:

1) What on earth does this mean?
"But if we look carefully, we will see that exactly these functions are they who very clearly relate with some of basic mechanisms and faces of evolution."

2) Does anyone else think that zi ko is describing individuals evolving?

Even if you don't want to discuss it, the topic proposal is...an interesting read.


Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by nwr, posted 01-18-2011 7:57 PM Panda has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5592
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 348 of 507 (601118)
01-18-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Panda
01-18-2011 6:19 PM


Panda writes:
Anyone had a look at Message 1 in New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.?

Yes, I looked.

I'm wondering where you find the neural tissue in an oak tree.

I think he might really be talking about learning rather than about evolution, but there's a lot of confusion in that PNT.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Panda, posted 01-18-2011 6:19 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by jar, posted 01-18-2011 8:19 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 350 by Panda, posted 01-18-2011 8:30 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 351 by zi ko, posted 01-20-2011 9:41 AM nwr has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32174
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 349 of 507 (601120)
01-18-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by nwr
01-18-2011 7:57 PM


nwr writes:

Panda writes:
Anyone had a look at Message 1 in New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.?

Yes, I looked.

I'm wondering where you find the neural tissue in an oak tree.

I think he might really be talking about learning rather than about evolution, but there's a lot of confusion in that PNT.

I think it is right next to the line break.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by nwr, posted 01-18-2011 7:57 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 350 of 507 (601122)
01-18-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by nwr
01-18-2011 7:57 PM


nwr writes:

I think he might really be talking about learning rather than about evolution...


I read it again (after it was reformatted).

S/he appears to be saying that our environment forces are neural system to make our bodies evolve.
We 'learn' to make changes to our DNA (I think).

zi ko writes:

These changes are then transmitted between generations by empathy.
How all these informational staff ... could be transferred to next generations, so to be able to gear evolutionary process?
a) Through heredity? It is not logical, except if we accept that neural tissue has its own way to inherit its life experiences.
b) Through behavioral teaching? It is not convincingly possible. After all teaching may involve only technical information, not emotions.
Maybe we should need to resort to EMPATHY. Its presence is well established even in low scale living beings, and particularly between mother and offspring.


These changes are then passed to the next generation by empathy.
That is not exactly a satisfactory description of how genetic diseases are passed to our children.
Or maybe it is only 'good things' that are passed on by empathy. Who knows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by nwr, posted 01-18-2011 7:57 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by zi ko, posted 01-20-2011 10:14 AM Panda has responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2038 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 351 of 507 (601396)
01-20-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by nwr
01-18-2011 7:57 PM


this problem i had discussed it with myself. maybe trees have some way of internal and external communication!
it is true. in my theory learnig and evolution are entirly intermingled.learning is a prodromal function which leads lately to evolution' without leaning we can't have evolution.and we should'nt forget, both are taking place inside neural system

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by nwr, posted 01-18-2011 7:57 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by nwr, posted 01-20-2011 11:42 AM zi ko has responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2038 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 352 of 507 (601402)
01-20-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Panda
01-18-2011 8:30 PM


question 1:feeling and knowing of enviromental ghanges is the first part of the long act of evolution.these are exactly one of main function of neural system.
2: i realised the danger of restricting my theory to individual evolving. that is why i resorted to empathy.
empathy has nothing to do with genetic diseases.
by empathy only emotional experiences are transmitted and mainly those who help survival and as a general feeling.
i am much obliged and thankfull for your comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Panda, posted 01-18-2011 8:30 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Panda, posted 01-20-2011 1:58 PM zi ko has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5592
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 353 of 507 (601415)
01-20-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by zi ko
01-20-2011 9:41 AM


zi ko writes:
maybe trees have some way of internal and external communication!

Internal communication - plant hormones.

External communication - presumably pollen distribution via wind or insects.

Plants have a rather different lifestyle from animals, so they don't have the same communication needs.

zi ko writes:
it is true. in my theory learnig and evolution are entirly intermingled.

I consider evolution to be a kind of learning. But it is not intermingled with what we ordinarily consider to be learning. The idea that they are intermingled sounds Lamarckian, and is pretty well refuted.

zi ko writes:
learning is a prodromal function which leads ...

I had to look up prodromal. Having looked it up, I am still unclear on what you mean there.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by zi ko, posted 01-20-2011 9:41 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by zi ko, posted 01-22-2011 2:16 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 354 of 507 (601444)
01-20-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by zi ko
01-20-2011 10:14 AM


zi ko writes:

i realised the danger of restricting my theory to individual evolving. that is why i resorted to empathy.
empathy has nothing to do with genetic diseases.
by empathy only emotional experiences are transmitted and mainly those who help survival and as a general feeling.


If only emotional experiences are inherited, what emotions do trees have?
And what effect do these empathetically transmitted emotions have on the progeny?

Currently, it simply sounds like you are describing a parent educating its child about the world.
What is the difference between empathic inheritance and education?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by zi ko, posted 01-20-2011 10:14 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by zi ko, posted 01-22-2011 3:08 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3913
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 355 of 507 (601476)
01-20-2011 7:28 PM


NOT THE PLACE TO DEBATE CONTENT OF UNPROMOTED PNT
If zi ko wants to elaborate on the Proposed New Topic content, s/he should do such at New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.

It's kind of looking like that PNT is going to need promoting, even if it's not up to standards. I'm not yet going to do such, but we shall see what happens.

Or something like that.

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Admin, posted 01-21-2011 7:17 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 356 of 507 (601535)
01-21-2011 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Adminnemooseus
01-20-2011 7:28 PM


Re: NOT THE PLACE TO DEBATE CONTENT OF UNPROMOTED PNT
I wouldn't myself promote his recently posted revision, except maybe Free For All, but I don't have any problem if someone else does, maybe after working with him a bit more.

My concern is that he may be unable to articulate any position that can be clearly understood, that criticisms of his position will never turn out to be about his actual position but just a claimed misunderstanding of it, and so the position will be reexplained and a cycle of criticism/claimed-misunderstanding/reexplanation begun again.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-20-2011 7:28 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2038 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 357 of 507 (601611)
01-22-2011 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by nwr
01-20-2011 11:42 AM


nwr writes:

zi ko writes:
maybe trees have some way of internal and external communication!

Internal communication - plant hormones.

External communication - presumably pollen distribution via wind or insects.

Plants have a rather different lifestyle from animals, so they don't have the same communication needs.

thannks! this is what i am saying.

zi ko writes:
it is true. in my theory learnig and evolution are entirly intermingled.

I consider evolution to be a kind of learning. But it is not intermingled with what we ordinarily consider to be learning. The idea that they are intermingled sounds Lamarckian, and is pretty well refuted.

i see learning as very deep and wide proccess, not as ordinarrily we consider it. it is knowing, feeling, understaning, elaborating about somebody's experiences and results of his actions upon himself and so on. even collective subconcious and archetypes, inherrited to next generations(Carl Young), is a kind of learning. maybe intermingled is not the right word.i would rather say that evolution is the extension ,the final stage of knowledge.

zi ko writes:
learning is a prodromal function which leads ...

I had to look up prodromal. Having looked it up, I am still unclear on what you mean there.

it is what i had said before


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by nwr, posted 01-20-2011 11:42 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 2038 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 358 of 507 (601614)
01-22-2011 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Panda
01-20-2011 1:58 PM


Panda writes:

zi ko writes:

i realised the danger of restricting my theory to individual evolving. that is why i resorted to empathy.
empathy has nothing to do with genetic diseases.
by empathy only emotional experiences are transmitted and mainly those who help survival and as a general feeling.


If only emotional experiences are inherited, what emotions do trees have?
And what effect do these empathetically transmitted emotions have on the progeny

plants have a different life style from animals.so their way of communication is different. different of course are their emotions as well. we can not be sure that they don't exist.

empathetically transmitted emotional ejperiences are ebout the same by what Carl Young had suggeste by collective subconscious and archetypes inherited to next generations.

they form, with others, the basis for the oncoming evolutional changes.

Currently, it simply sounds like you are describing a parent educating its child about the world.

learninig has many facets. this is a one.empathic learning is deeper, more lasting and drastic as refers to evolution. it is what is connecting old and new species generations.

What is the difference between empathic inheritance and education?


education is a conscious function. empathic inheritance is mainly unconscious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Panda, posted 01-20-2011 1:58 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 359 of 507 (603606)
02-05-2011 8:38 PM


RAZD's evidence topic
RAZD has proposed a topic that appears to address the question of the existence of gods. His position seems to be that neither the existence nor nonexistence can be supported by evidence, so the only logical position is that of agnosticism. Petrophysics1 has apparently indicated an interest in participating to defend the position that at least one god exists. I would be interested in participating to challenge both positions and in support of the proposition that gods do not exist.

I have not read any of RAZD's previous discussions on this subject in any detail, so I would ask that this discussion begin at step one. I have no problem with anyone copying anything from previous discussions, but would strongly prefer that nobody simply link to previous discussions and ask that I read them. I'd like this debate to stand alone.

I recognize that a three person Great Debate is out of the norm, but there appear to be three distinct positions outlined in RAZD's O.P., so it would seem appropriate to have three participants. If either RAZD or Petrophysics1 prefer it to be a 1 on 1 debate, I will retract my request.

Edited by subbie, : subtitle


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by petrophysics1, posted 02-07-2011 3:17 PM subbie has responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 360 of 507 (603772)
02-07-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by subbie
02-05-2011 8:38 PM


Re: RAZD's evidence topic
Hi subbie,

First let me say I have enjoyed reading your posts over the last almost 5 years and consider you to be intelligent and thoughtful.

I do not post here very often, but that is because I can read very fast but I can not type. So I have read everything of RAZD's and the atheist's discussions over the last year or more.

For me to comment requires me to use my two index fingers while looking at the keyboard and then check the screen to make sure it is correct.

That takes time, which sometimes I do not have a lot of.

RAZD is a prolific writer, I had to think long and hard about going into a debate with him. I decided to do it and would spend the time typing. I do not think I could handle two people.

Subbie if you and RAZD came to my house and sat down over a couple of beers I'd kick your ass and his too, or at least have you both leave thinking "maybe my position isn't completely correct".

Beers over my dining room table is not the format here, so I'd prefer to do this with just RAZD.

Thanks for your interest and good post.

Petrophysics

Edited by petrophysics1, : typo, God what a surprise!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by subbie, posted 02-05-2011 8:38 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by subbie, posted 02-07-2011 3:55 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020