veracity of evolution

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

would you say that gravity is an "opinion"

Nope. It's a word in an effort to explain an observation.

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

you don't believe in eugenics?

Nope, I didn't say that. I said those observations they have concluded I don't agree with and I explained that.

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

don't eat bananas or almonds then. or any other agricultural products for that matter

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

and if you've got a brilliant argument against evolution get it published

And become famous like Darwin did? I am sure even he is wearing his coffin out turning over in his grave. Personally, I find arguing utterly useless and prefer not to "compete". How tiring that all is, IMO. I don't claim, as some do, that all I espouse is "absolutely true"; I just observer the sparring and try to reason what the commotion is all about and on occasion offer my opinion. Keeps my blood pressure at a tolerable level, Ha!

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

there's a term for what you're doing, it's called "question begging"

Really? I think that is your opinion, I suspect. To me it was just a comment or my opinion (see above).

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

they're trying to get the human race not to be dimwitted

Ah, again another one of you opinions but at least you did use the word "trying" as I do find some solace in the phrase "ignorance is bliss". And than is my opinion.

http://splendidelles.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/science-vs-faith.png

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

we sometimes need extended vocabulary to explain new concepts with precision

Your assuming precision is complicated; I on the other hand think it inexplicably "simple".

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

this is nothing new, it started well before the scientific era when Middle English and Early Modern English were coming into being

You mean that language we developed after the dark ages, as they are so called? Perhaps we might ask if that language is getting better or worse? It certainly is a bit more "complicated" and a hell of a lot more vulgar. Watch any comedy lately? Dante himself would have even shuttered, ha!

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

why not just go back to eald Englisc?

You never know, we might?

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

way too late

Too late? If I might ask by who's calendar do you make such a judgment?

odenskrigare;86393 wrote:

also I will one day be among those tearing open the lid of what you call "Pandora's box," think about that when you go to sleep

I will not think of such and will sleep like a baby. You might just find a surprise for you there such as the one that greeted Pvt. Hudson as he descended into such a box if you truly represent what your avatar suggests you represent.

William

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

yes rich you insist on bringing up your pompous views on health care in every thread and we respond

I hope you have a point

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86440 wrote:

pompous views I hope you have a point

Yes. I do. You continue to reveal yourself all the time.

Rich

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

I have never made a secret of being an ******* rich

on the other hand you've never made a valid comment against the factual nature of my views

if you did you better believe I'd live this forum in a hurry

---------- Post added 08-28-2009 at 11:51 PM ----------

William;86439 wrote:

Nope. It's a word in an effort to explain an observation.

so is evolution

William;86439 wrote:

Ah, again another one of you opinions but at least you did use the word "trying" as I do find some solace in the phrase "ignorance is bliss"

why don't you go live stark naked in a cave

and stop posting on a philosophy forum, on the Internet

William;86439 wrote:

Your assuming precision is complicated; I on the other hand think it inexplicably "simple"

yeah but you're not a scientist or engineer so I don't think I should listen to you on this score

William;86439 wrote:

You mean that language we developed after the dark ages, as they are so called? Perhaps we might ask if that language is getting better or worse? It certainly is a bit more "complicated" and a hell of a lot more vulgar. Watch any comedy lately? Dante himself would have even shuttered, ha!

****, ****, piss, ****, etc. have all been around for centuries

in fact **** comes from Old English 'scitan,' 'to take a dump' and cognates in other Germanic languages like 'Scheisse' and 'skit' are considered pretty mild, like 'crap'

there is no such thing as a dirty word. words don't have that kind of magical power

why so squeamish?

William;86439 wrote:

You never know, we might?

unlikely

William;86439 wrote:

Too late? If I might ask by who's calendar do you make such a judgment?

the time for you to have stopped the march against ignorance would have been in the 17th or 18th century

hang on I need to check the calendar

...it's 2009, too late

William;86439 wrote:

I will not think of such and will sleep like a baby. You might just find a surprise for you there such as the one that greeted Pvt. Hudson as he descended into such a box if you truly represent what your avatar suggests you represent

the idea of engineering a life form with concentrated acid for blood and vagina dentata jaws strains credibility and since I intend to get into computational or biomedical uses of neuroscience I could only be marginally involved in such an undertaking, the real challenge would not be so much with the nervous system as protecting it from being turned to liquid

but hey on the other hand

http://www.topofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/250px-aliens-marines-bishop.png

please God, help me!!

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86443 wrote:

please God, help me!!

Now.....................your talking my language!:a-ok:

William

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

I was quoting a sample from a Suicide Commando song

our life is a torment
paved with sorrow and pain
we are the martyrs
slaves of money and greed
we are the victims
cursed to live in hell
obey the system
show me the face of hell

is that your language

answer honestly

you can't seriously claim that I believe in God just because I said "please God help me" any more than you can say a German person believes in elves because he experiences an "Albtraum" ("nightmare")

also you ignored the rest of my post with a snide comment

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86448 wrote:

is that your language

Is that a question?

odenskrigare;86448 wrote:

answer honestly

I would never consider otherwise!

odenskrigare;86448 wrote:

you can't seriously claim that I believe in God just because I said "please God help me" any more than you can say a German person believes in elves because he experiences an "Albtraum" ("nightmare")

I didn't claim anything; I was just responding to the plea. Was it sarcastic, this......plea?

odenskrigare;86448 wrote:

also you ignored the rest of my post with a snide comment

I, considering the modern language were using, I decided not to engage. My comment was not snide, it was just a response to the the plea. I was merely indicating I understand that sort of language. I was perhaps being a bit frivolous in that it might not be sarcastic and we might be able to establish a language we both can understand. That's all.

William

1 Reply

@William,

William;86453 wrote:

Is that a question?

obviously because it has the syntax of a question

and don't upbraid me for my English when you write "your" instead of "you're"

see I can respond to one part of your post and ignore the rest too

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 12:36 AM ----------

odenskrigare;86443 wrote:

so is evolution

why don't you go live stark naked in a cave

and stop posting on a philosophy forum, on the Internet

yeah but you're not a scientist or engineer so I don't think I should listen to you on this score

****, ****, piss, ****, etc. have all been around for centuries

in fact **** comes from Old English 'scitan,' 'to take a dump' and cognates in other Germanic languages like 'Scheisse' and 'skit' are considered pretty mild, like 'crap'

there is no such thing as a dirty word. words don't have that kind of magical power

why so squeamish?

unlikely

the time for you to have stopped the march against ignorance would have been in the 17th or 18th century

hang on I need to check the calendar

...it's 2009, too late

the idea of engineering a life form with concentrated acid for blood and vagina dentata jaws strains credibility and since I intend to get into computational or biomedical uses of neuroscience I could only be marginally involved in such an undertaking, the real challenge would not be so much with the nervous system as protecting it from being turned to liquid

but hey on the other hand

please God, help me!!

quoted for truth

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;86454 wrote:

obviously because it has the syntax of a question and don't upbraid me for my English when you write "your" instead of "you're" see I can respond to one part of your post and ignore the rest too

I was only noting the lack of the question mark. And your right (oops), I need to work on that. ha!

William

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Evolution is/may be "true" and thats a body blow to fundmentalists, literalists and creationists but it does not phase naturalistic forms of theism.

1 Reply

@prothero,

Or any sensible spiritual belief. The simple fact that people object to evolution or any other scientific theory based upon some spiritual notion is nothing more than evidence that their spiritual notions are horribly corrupted. Science cannot show you God, nor can science deface God.

If you think that science has the potential to deface God, then you must, logically, believe that science can show you God. But that is atheism, not theism. You are turning God into something materialistic.

And so we see hordes of faithful lambasting evolution with pathetic attempts at undermining the theory's scientific credibility. Why? Because they were raised with and taught and practice every Sunday a God-is-Dead theology; it's neo-religion, atheistic religion - and not in the respectable Buddhist and Taoist sense, either. This sort of theology is dangerous because it threatens to retard scientific advance. What happened to the days when science was spurred by religious belief? I'll save it for another thread.

But here's the deal: evolution... well, the theory may be incorrect. It may be wildly incorrect. But that's beside the point. At the moment, evolution is the leading theory, by far, for the explanation of the origins of life. Therefore, it should be taught in school as such. Bottom line. Our children should have at least a basic understanding of the predominant scientific theories: not the most popular theories of the untrained, but the most credible theories, those with the best and most conclusive evidence, those with the widest support of our most noted men of science.

There is no sense teaching creationism in the science classroom - it simply isn't science. There is no sense rambling on and on about the fact that evolution is nothing more than a theory - we know that already. Evolution is taught as a scientific theory. When I was in school, science teachers made a big fuss over defining "theory". No one who managed to stay awake in freshman biology should be confused about the meaning of that word. Science classes are meant to teach science - surprise! Thus, science teachers should teach evolution. Checkmate. Game over.

Look: believe whatever you want. Really. You don't like evolution for some reason, for any reason: it's your brain and your belief, do with it what you will. But enough whining about evolution. It's going to be around as long as evidence supports it, and until some better theory is advanced and increasingly confirmed by evidence, until evolution's explanatory value has met it's match. And until these things happen, to teach our children an alternative explanation for the origin of species, to undermine evolution is a disservice to those children: it's a threat to the competency of their eduction. The only undermining of evolution should be the work of science, not the work of ideology and belief.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;86365 wrote:

Yep. Without science the world would be full of disease. The great thing though, is that luckily, we don't have to worry about disease anymore. Well, maybe a little bit.

What? Is your shen completely out of whack, or do you just have a completely different definition of disease than I do?

richrf;86365 wrote:

I like your scare tactics, but they don't work on me. For me, it is no different than a commercial for deodorant which threatens a person of horrible social relationships unless they spread this gunk on their armpits. Scare tactics are as old as they come, and science has done nothing more than perfect it. Science loves putting that you will die thing out there, without qualifying it with the hundreds of thousands that it kills every year.

So basically you're saying you're scared to go to a physician. Also, you don't believe people should use deodorant. That's cool though, man. I respect that. It takes a real rugged individualist to get on a bus smelling like a gym sock stuffed with feta cheese. "Screw my fellow passengers, right? Right on, man. If they don't like it, let 'em breathe through their mouth. It's natural, man." And by the way, you are going to die. That's a fact, not just "something science is putting out there."

richrf;86365 wrote:

I am a very healthy 58 year old, by ignoring advice such as yours for three decades. If you can find someone my age who is doing better, let me know. I will talk to that person.
Rich

You're becoming confused now. I offered no advice to you. None.

And how do you know you are healthy? Because you feel good? Given your feelings about health care, I'm guessing you haven't had a prostate exam recently. Any weird moles? Ooh! Ooh! How about brain tumors? I've known two people now who've had brain tumors, both young and in good shape who felt just fine until they tipped over and began convulsing. Oh, and by the way, one of them has won awards in martial arts tournaments for his Tai Chi (Yang style, long form) performances. He is also a practitioner of Chi Gung, and performs the 8 Pieces of Brocade daily. Oh well. Maybe he was doing them wrong.

Oh man, there I go . . . using scare tactics again. Ha ha, well, I'm a jerk. Never said otherwise. Have a swell weekend!

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 01:33 AM ----------

Didymos Thomas;86463 wrote:

, to teach our children an alternative explanation for the origin of species, to undermine evolution is a disservice to those children: it's a threat to the competency of their eduction. The only undermining of evolution should be the work of science, not the work of ideology and belief.

Outstanding Didymos. Well said. Seriously, bravo!

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;86394 wrote:

Actually, Pathfinder, the reason for this has been shown to you, but you don't want to stop there, and that is the problem. The reason the cell is not alive in the circumstance that we call death, just as the organism (that build of cells) is not alive in the circumstance we call death, is because there is no process; that's it.

Now what you are trying to say, is that that circumstance, that process, IS a 'spiritual' thing...something non-material...something of a creator's gift or thought, or some other imagination. What you are missing is that the process is a process of material things, so death is a material state . . . there is hardly any room at all to consider that the circumstance we term 'death' is anything other than a material state of breakdown in process. That, Pathfinder, is why.

Well at least now I am certain that you do understand exactly what I am saying, that at least is a move forward for me, thank you.

Yes, I am trying to get you to admit that there is more to this than what you are saying. You have even said as much yourself. You keep calling it ' the process'. Thats fine. call it whatever you want to call it but 'the process ' is what I am asking you about. So what you are saying is that this process suddenly stops at the death of the cell.

I am asking why the process stops. Not what physically caused the trauma. But exactly what is the force behind the process' sudden stoppage. Is there some sort of an unconscious decision making process that the process makes that tells it stop processing?

You have to think deeper with me KJ to get to this. It is the root of what we are all talking about and you guys are just simply not going all the way.

To say that death is simply the stoppage of ' the process'...is not answering the question of what death is.

Thats like my sayiong the ball game just stopped. A few seconds before there was a ball game taking place, now the process of the ball game is no lomnger taking place.

A man has a heart attack, thee heart can no longer pump blood, the other bodily functions suffer the loss. death comes.

But every single cell remains in tact exactly as it was. Nothing has changed in the biology of the man except that he is now dead. We know what caused the death to occur, but we do not know why the process stopped. We do not why the life suddenly disappeared from that body. What made the process of life disappear?

I am not calling this spirit or naming it anything at all right now other than this process that you have already named it. I am just asking what biological program kicks in to tell this process that it must now stop working? Is that programming something within the brain? Is it like the final turn of the two keys together that when activated can fire the final missile or what?

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86410 wrote:

Appreciate the warning. Now, can we get on with the subject.

And next time, before you become so indignant and so huffy and puffy, please check out the thread, and check out who keeps on bringing up my health style.

Rich

rich i have observed it is you that brings up your health and lifestyle in every thread and it is not always relevant. i dont know why you do, and i find it strange. if you were trying to sell something it would make sense.

my question is this: if it was so easy to be healthy, and i assume you are also going to defeat death altogether, why wouldnt the whole world have caught on by now? why are you so special? you say your family is also on the bandwagon, but what about all your friends? you werent able to convince them by your example of perfect health? why not?

sorry, just curious...

2 Replies

@salima,

Pathfinder;86476 wrote:

But every single cell remains in tact exactly as it was. Nothing has changed in the biology of the man except that he is now dead. We know what caused the death to occur, but we do not know why the process stopped. We do not why the life suddenly disappeared from that body. What made the process of life disappear?

Dude: he had a heart attack and the heart stopped working. That's what happened, no more blood coursing through his veins, thus death.

What made the process of life stop? A heart attack, the end of a functioning circulatory system. Which, by the by, is a biological change. The circulatory system goes from functioning to non-functioning due to a heart attack - that's biological.

And if you want to know what causes heart attacks, there is ample information available with a google search. The answer to this question is also biological.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

So what you are saying Diymous is that the human requires the cooperation between organs to keep it alive.

That is a known, I agree with that. What you and KJ are not doing is looking deeper into the question, KJ knows what I am asking, maybe if you read the quote I posetd from his thread within mine you will better understand.

Look at it this way, Didymous.

The body is a factory of working machines all linked to each other in a way that when one is damaged in some way, it affects the others, and so there is an automatic safety switch that shuts them all down.

My question is what/who is that switch? Somewhere there is a main power switch that runs everything, that without nothing runs.

In death, what is this switch that puts out the lights, shuts off life?

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 03:39 AM ----------

When something happens to someone's bioligical workings, it can lead to death, death being the shut down of the entire system. all the systems are interconnected to main systems.

What is it that the main systems require to continue functioning that without they cease to function altogether in one final countdown?

In a cell KJ said something about it requiring sustenance in order to remain living. What is the exact thing that shuts it down when it ceases to attain sustenance. Where is this shut off valve in a single celled organism? We can see the various components of a cell under the electronscope, but what is this shutoff device and where is it? We can see the damaged cell wall, but how does damage itself turn off the life force that was there a millisecoond prior?

In my mind when you can answer this question, then and only then can you move forward with theorizing around how a cell evolves through mutations. But when there is always that mystery unerscoring the theorizing, it will continue to remain more mystery than fact.

Therefore if one wants to teach it to our children as fact, regardless of the library of supporting theories, or even evidence, you are teachjing the children a lie.

If you want to teach theory, than teach it as theory, if you want to define it by degrees of credibility, than do that as well, but do not teach it as foregone conclusion when it is still being debated with reputable questions. There is still and alwyas will be the question of the origin of the force, ' the process', behind the thing you are theorizing about.

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

pathfinder-
if you are working in a shop and fall asleep and your machine runs out of oil and gets seized up and quits, where was the force that caused that to happen? same thing with the human body. why cant you accept that the body dies because it cant perform its functions any longer and if you want to believe there is a soul, then you can assume it has to leave the body. where is the problem?

the soul doesnt animate the body-it uses it until it is no longer functioning.

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;86487 wrote:

pathfinder-
if you are working in a shop and fall asleep and your machine runs out of oil and gets seized up and quits, where was the force that caused that to happen? same thing with the human body. why cant you accept that the body dies because it cant perform its functions any longer and if you want to believe there is a soul, then you can assume it has to leave the body. where is the problem?

the soul doesnt animate the body-it uses it until it is no longer functioning.

I think you will find that many here have a huge problem with the statement you just made Salima, however I will not be one of them, lol

however to answer your question, the body is not a series of mechanical parts rubbing together that can be stooped by friction. There is no living force of energy behind the operation of machines. In humans there is a spark of life force process that makes the human alive. This force is somehow required to leave the body upon the disfunctioning of its biological parts because of some trauma.

What initiates the final decision for that life force process to give up the ghost? What/who throws the switch to cause the life, force, process, THAT, thingythang, to disappear from the body? Or to anser your question in the way that you posed it, WHY does the spirit have to leave the body?

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86488 wrote:

I think you will find that many here have a huge problem with the statement you just made Salima, however I will not be one of them, lol

however to answer your question, the body is not a series of mechanical parts rubbing together that can be stooped by friction. There is no living force of energy behind the operation of machines. In humans there is a spark of life force process that makes the human alive. This force is somehow required to leave the body upon the disfunctioning of its biological parts because of some trauma.

What initiates the final decision for that life force process to give up the ghost? What/who throws the switch to cause the life, force, process, THAT, thingythang, to disappear from the body?

i dont think there is any spark of life...no decision has to be made, the body simply becomes uninhabitable.

i am not really sure about the soul, but i can see how one could fit in with everything and not be a problem, so if there is one or not it is ok with me. but this really has little to do with evolution being true or false or possible. i see no conflict between evolution and spirituality.

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;86491 wrote:

i dont think there is any spark of life...no decision has to be made, the body simply becomes uninhabitable.

i am not really sure about the soul, but i can see how one could fit in with everything and not be a problem, so if there is one or not it is ok with me. but this really has little to do with evolution being true or false or possible. i see no conflict between evolution and spirituality.

well whether you see it or not Salima there is a conflict taking place between those who do not see the body as habitable and those that see the body as inhabited by something other than its own bioligical aspects.

The reason it is pertinent to evolution is that for evolution to have any credibility it must denounce anyting extrabioligical so that there is no other force other than the basest bioligcial clockwork taking place., For them to suugest anything else poinst to design and purpose. That is something they cannot contend with..

What I do not undertand about you salima, is how you can on one hand say you see no problem with a soul, and call the body habitable, and then on the other hand say that you not believe in a spark of life.

Whjat do you believe this possible soul would be if not related to what we may call a spark of life that brings life to the human?

1 Reply

veracity of evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know