LIIA
Well-Known Member
really? what is the contemporary senseOnly by the classical sense.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
really? what is the contemporary senseOnly by the classical sense.
Ok, back on track. The discussion was triggered by @blü 2’s question in # 6008 "what earthly use has creationism been to the betterment of humans?” I answered in my post # 7354What is odd is that he keeps extolling the advances that Islam the Arabic countries had, he calls it "the Golden Age of Islam"
And it is true. At one point they did pretty much lead the world in that sense. And then their religion was overtaken by fundamentalists.
Europeans definitely added a lot but I neither denied it nor it’s relevant to my point about the golden age.And since he did not want to know what important step that the Europeans added
One of the most important parts of the scientific method is communication. Open communication of findings and techniques allows others to check and verify or refute ideas. It also guarantees the widespread availability of that knowledge. That was one of the key steps never developed in Islam before fundamentalism shut down new thought.
This is the second most ridiculous claim I ever heard on this long thread. But don’t worry; you also get credit for the first one as well when you said, “Islam is not creationism”.The ToE is not " the modern synthesis".
False empty assertions. So why it was not falsified? Is it because any serious attempt of falsification whould only proves irreducibly complexity to be true?False beyond belief. The irreducible complexity of biological systems has not been falsified by any scientific research.
Irrelevant, your phone battery produce measurable energy and energy has its effects, does this prove that your phone is conscious or capable of qualia?False., as these cells produce measurable energy and energy has its effects.
Yes, materials may change over time, does this mean a pile of building blocks exposed to the environment, maybe some lightening, earthquake, volcano, tornado, etc, you give it some time and then voila “Sagrada Família”.Also, common sense through observations tells us that all materials appear to change over time and genes are material objects. Within the Eastern traditions, they recognized this reality many centuries ago.
You address the irrelevant and ignore the relevant. You’re concerned about bolded text and ignore the fact that it’s not my personal claim, the entire article (not only the bolded text) and conclusion with respect to the nature of consciousness is made by an expert and published by The New York Academy of Sciences. On the other hand, you merely make empty assertion based on subjective personal opinion. If you disagree, provide your reference.Your bolded assertions concerning what science has determined concerning the relationship of the physical brain and consciousness and intelligence are overwhelmingly false, based on ancient tribal agenda. You need to do your homework on the current knowledge of science.
This is also reflected in your claim of 'irreducible complexity.' Bolding stuff without knowledge of science does not help your agenda.
Totally irrelevant!! Please try to understand the context before you comment.None of this or your previous posts has any relevance to the sciences of evolution. Please reference peer-reviewed scientific publications to support your argument. So far you have only cited questionable sources.
there are 386 pages of responses...so i hope im not repeating something someone else has already noted...the above was of Aristotle origins not Charles Darwin...
Aristotle's theory of the “spontaneous generation” of life
It was debunked by Louis Pasteur
“Spontaneous generation” was the idea that living organisms can spring into existence from non-living matter. In the late 19th century, in a showdown between chemist Louis Pasteur and biologist Felix Pouchet put on by the French Academy of Sciences, Pasteur famously came up with an experiment that debunked the theory.
No biologists would say either about “randomness” or “perfection”, or about “from randomness to perfection”. These are actually your false claims; you are attacking strawman, the strawman you had created.
Natural Selection doesn’t work through randomness.
Natural Selection occurred, depending on the environment. When the environment changed, then it is better if organisms have necessary physical traits that ensured reproduction for population to flourish.
Say, for instant, a glacial period of no warmer seasons for several or more generations, then would populations of animals that grow thicker hairs or fur, or would populations of animals that are hairless, survive better in future generations?
It isn’t random, if animals are selected with thicker hair or fur, when there are no warm seasons in their lifetime.
Likewise, it isn’t “random”, when people explore the depth of oceans, only to find many species of marine life (eg unknown species of fishes, marine arthropods, mollusa or cephalopods) have no eyes, or do have eyes but are completely blind, because no sunlight can penetrate this depth. They often find their foods through other means.
To say, Natural Selection involved randomness, just demonstrates how little you understand the subject.
Even, with Mutations, there are still limits as to what changes can occur at genetic-level or at cellular-level.
When scientists introduce new antibiotics or new vaccines to fight off bacteria pathogens, over times, bacteria pathogen will change through mutations that new species becomes either resistant or immune to the new antibiotics or vaccines. Then scientists would have to find another ways to develop new antibiotics or vaccines.
Mutations are not random. See # 1245This changes via mutations, are not random.
Oh. I forgot
@LIIA
I had forgotten to say more about your faulty claim that evolution is about “perfection”.
Evolution isn’t about achieving “perfection”.
For organisms to continually reproduce, even when the environmental conditions have changed, they require to pass on heritable adaptable traits that are advantageous for that ”changed environments“.
The changes don’t have to be large changes.
For instances, trees around the world, are naturally “selected” for their environments.
The types of trees and shrubs with broad leaves in the tropical rainforests, are normally found in the tropic regions, around the equator, where the climate are often hot and wet, with much higher humidity.
Around high mountainous terrains such as alpine, or in the much colder climates of the northern parts of the northern hemisphere, like the taiga regions, the forests found here tends to be of the conifer families. Conifers are more resistant to freezing than deciduous trees.
You won’t find tropical rainforest in the taiga or in alpine regions.
These trees growing in the environment suited for such forests, have nothing to with any tree being “perfect“.
you are being ignorant on the subject of evolution if you are making false claims that organisms are seeking to reach perfection.
Obviously, you cannot keep track of the argument. I’m not the one who claims that “perfection” in nature is the result of "planlessness" evolutionary process.Oh. I forgot
@LIIA
I had forgotten to say more about your faulty claim that evolution is about “perfection”.
Evolution isn’t about achieving “perfection”.
A random process cannot guarantee that advantageous heritable adaptable traits would emerge to suit that specific “changed environment".For organisms to continually reproduce, even when the environmental conditions have changed, they require to pass on heritable adaptable traits that are advantageous for that ”changed environments“.
Complex interdependent traits specifically suited for a niche have everything to do with being perfect. If you don’t have the capacity to see it, see # 7724 it may help.The changes don’t have to be large changes.
For instances, trees around the world, are naturally “selected” for their environments.
The types of trees and shrubs with broad leaves in the tropical rainforests, are normally found in the tropic regions, around the equator, where the climate are often hot and wet, with much higher humidity.
Around high mountainous terrains such as alpine, or in the much colder climates of the northern parts of the northern hemisphere, like the taiga regions, the forests found here tends to be of the conifer families. Conifers are more resistant to freezing than deciduous trees.
You won’t find tropical rainforest in the taiga or in alpine regions.
These trees growing in the environment suited for such forests, have nothing to with any tree being “perfect“.
Neither the organisms nor the purposeless evolution is seeking anything.you are being ignorant on the subject of evolution if you are making false claims that organisms are seeking to reach perfection.
I didn’t say that Evolution occurs in isolation. I’m saying that the survival of any organism whether an intermediate, transitional form, single-celled, multicellular, or any living system of any kind depends on complex interdependent constituents. The functionality of every single constituent is dependent on the other constituents and vice versa. You can neither exclude a constituent nor a constituent can be functional or evolve in isolation of the other interdependent constituents. It’s a fact that we witness in every single living system as previously explained in # 7495 & # 7403. You do understand my point? Don’t you?Neither of your links even address this matter, and that sentence doesn't describe what happens in nature. Evolution doesn't occur in isolation and no intermediate is missing a vital part.
LUCA is supposedly a single celled living system; as a living system, its survival is also contingent upon multiple interdependent functions/ constituents. No constituent can be functional in isolation of the other interdependent constituents, being nonfunctional means that the system cannot be alive without the necessary functions. Time is the absolute enemy of the process since dead organic molecules will not increase in complexity but rather decompose/disintegrate to simpler molecules.Every living organism is evidence that every form from zygote to mature adult is viable. There is no reason that abiogenesis followed by evolution could not have generated the last universal common ancestor and from it the tree of life including the extinct forms.
The language of the article was very clear that all central assumptions of the MS were disproved. The 21st century scientific finds in this context are specifically from within molecular biology as well as evolutionary developmental biology, epigenetics , physiology , genomics, ecology, population genetics, regulatory evolution, network approaches, behavioural biology, microbiology, systems biology, etc.You answered, "Your link doesn't support your claim that, "Latest 21st century scientific finds disproved all central assumptions of the theory." It proposes that the theory is incomplete."
Yes, seriously. What do you think that graphic does to support your claim?
When you get the point (I know you did) and realize that you were wrong, you shouldn’t argue.I wrote, "Where are you going with this? What's your purpose in discussing the definition of species? I presume that your ultimate purpose is to argue for an intelligent designer, but I need you to give me your larger argument to decide if this will be a profitable avenue to pursue further with you. Right now, I can't see any relevance to whether the theory is wrong or not."
Nothing has changed with your answer, so I ignored your subsequent comment about ring species. I have no further interest in discussing what you consider a species and a subspecies. You've already said what you believe, I disagreed, and since your purpose in pursuing this line of questioning if any is going to remain a mystery, that's a hard pass on spending more time there.
Mere denialDo you think you showed that to be the case with dog breeding? I don't.
It’s the other way around; you don't have a mechanism for macroevolution to proceed.You also don't have a mechanism to prevent macroevolution from proceeding.
It’s not about “never been observed”. This is not the point. Again, the point is that there are no means through which a new taxonomic family may emerge. Neither natural nor artificial.Do you think you showed that to be the case with dog breeding? I don't. You also don't have a mechanism to prevent macroevolution from proceeding. Saying that it's never been observed is meaningless. We wouldn't expect to have observed new taxonomic families arise in the time we've been looking.
A complete orbit of Pluto around the sun has also never been observed, but I dare say that if the possibility contradicted biblical scripture, we'd be seeing the same argument there - "nobody's ever seen a complete orbit, so macro-orbiting is impossible" and my objection would be the same: "What's going to stop Pluto from macro-orbiting given the necessary time?"
Its not about you or me, I gave you a reference.No evidence for you perhaps. I have plenty, albeit not conclusive.
I gave you a reference article published by The New York Academy of Sciences, and you gave me your subjective opinion. The fact that “you have no reason to believe” is merely your subjective opinion.My comment was, "I have no reason to believe that consciousness (and thought) is not a physical epiphenomenon of brains." Your comment doesn't address mine. I still have no reason to believe that mind is not an epiphenomenon of brain.
You contradict yourself; you acknowledge that physical processes don't Imply consciousness yet insist that consciousness itself is a physical process!!Cognition implies consciousness. Other physical processes don't.
If all life is made of the same stuff in the same way, then why you interpret observed behavior of input processing/decision making differently in different organisms? Do you judge by size? Is this why an ant is a harder call to you?I decide based in the behavior of the organism and the understanding that all life is made of the same stuff in the same way. So, when I see you acting like me - opening your umbrella when it begins to rain - I project my consciousness known to me directly and immediately onto you. A tree shows no sign of self/other awareness. An ant is a harder call. Although it's made of the same stuff and in the same way as a tiger or a man, it's believable that all of its behavior is mindless (unconscious) reflex and tropism.
It's harder with a human appearing robot (think Data on Star Trek: TNG or Robin Williams' character in the movie AI - robots with apparent emotion and human concerns), since it's not made of the same stuff in the same way as life.
I understand that an aggressive approach to semanticThis is the second most ridiculous claim I ever heard on this long thread. But don’t worry; you also get credit for the first one as well when you said, “Islam is not creationism”.
The ToE is a scientific theory. The contemporary scientific theory of evolution is " the modern synthesis". There is no other theory. Do you understand?
Again, the modern synthesis was disproved due to its inconsistency with latest scientific finds and it was not replaced with another agreed upon theory. Meaning, currently, there is no valid or agreed upon theory of evolution. Do you understand?
Projection. You have been the one that refuses to learn from your mistakes.then your case is hopeless
Rudeness is a method of defending self imposed ignorance. Try again.really? what is the contemporary sense
Ok, back on track. The discussion was triggered by @blü 2’s question in # 6008 "what earthly use has creationism been to the betterment of humans?” I answered in my post # 7354
Darwin's Illusion | Page 368 | Religious Forums
The intent is not to keep extolling, but you kept denying and I kept correcting you. That is why the discussion continued. And NO, I’m not the one who calls it "the Golden Age of Islam", the history does. See the link.
Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia
Overtaken by fundamentalists! Simply false.
As @exchemist told you, it’s a phenomenon that surfaced in the 20th century, it's by far a minority group. what/how/why it surfaced is something that you neither understand nor relevant to this thread. Don’t bring nonsense to advance a false narrative. the contribution of the golden age to the betterment of humanity is a fact that can't be denied.
Desperately siting people that accept the fact of evolution does not help you. He accepts the fact that people are apes. He is only arguing about the mechanisms.Europeans definitely added a lot but I neither denied it nor it’s relevant to my point about the golden age.
You make me laugh; here is what Gerd B. Müller said about the “open communication" with respect to the ToE challenges in the royal society conference in 2016:
“Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous, but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory”
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)
Does it sound familiar? But guess what! English is not my first language, I had to look both edifice & fatuous in the dictionary. To my surprise, in plain English, he literally (in the royal society conference) said that the traditional evolutionary theoretical massive structure is stupid.
Fatuous Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary
I agree that his words are a little harsh, he should have said it in a way that is less offensive, but I wonder who is shutting down his new thoughts about the ToE, I don’t think they are the Islamic fundamentalists, do you?
Or dontRudeness is a method of defending self imposed ignorance. Try again.
You can believe whatever floats your rubber ducky, I guess. Evolution simply is common sense and energy is involved-- period.Irrelevant, your phone battery produce measurable energy and energy has its effects, does this prove that your phone is conscious or capable of qualia?
I gave you an opinion of an expert and you gave me a personal subjective opinion.
Is There Life After Death? | The New York Academy of Sciences (nyas.org)
See #7673
Darwin's Illusion | Page 384 | Religious Forums
Yes, materials may change over time, does this mean a pile of building blocks exposed to the environment, maybe some lightening, earthquake, volcano, tornado, etc, you give it some time and then voila “Sagrada Família”.
Not all changes are equal. You need an explanation for the blocks to begin with, let alone “Sagrada Família”.
Didn’t I advise you if you want your words to be relevant, forget about the person and address the argument? Don’t fool yourself; we all know that such approach is merely a pathetic escape. Now forget about the nonsense and enlighten us, how is Islam not creationism and how the scientific theory of evolution is not the modern synthesis? Try to bring something of substance to the discussion. If all what you can do is some pathetic emotional nonsense, then please just keep it to yourself.I understand that an aggressive approach to semantic
games suits you.
And that it is impossible to be a well informed
and intellectually honest creationist.