Different Opinions....Who is right?

[exchemist]

Really!!!?

You are suggesting that individuals and individual consciousness has no role in the determination of change in species.

It is painfully obvious that individual decisions affect every aspect of individual lives and the effects of individuals on change in species are profound even over the lifetime of the individual and become far more important with each succeeding generation.

If nothing we do has any affect on the future then why are we even here? Do people just live out their lives waiting to see what it brings? Who makes their coffee in the morning?

"Consciousness" can obviously play a role, if by that you simply mean the awareness of an organism of its surroundings.

But science does not need to invoke a "soul" in order to account for that awareness.

 

[cladking]

"Consciousness" can obviously play a role, if by that you simply mean the awareness of an organism of its surroundings.

But science does not need to invoke a "soul" in order to account for that awareness.

Science hasn't defined "consciousness" any better than religion has defined "soul".

Organisms are aware of their own existence and their environment. From this they make decisions that drive evolution in the here and now which is where change in species actually takes place.

Looking at fossils is Look and See Science that simply seeks to explain what exists in reductionistic terms from linear perspective. Species don't exist and then they do and then they do no more. But if a niche develops something will arise to fill it. Nature creates the vacuum into which species arise. This occurs through consciousness whether we have a good definition or not. It is filled with "souls" if you choose to use such terminology. Your choice of terminology will affect "evolution" in some way and over the course of generations the effect will become increasingly extreme.

This is what science, real science, is trying to tell us but we don't hear it because we fixate on effect rather than cause. We fixate on what we can take apart and study in the lab.

 

[exchemist]

Science hasn't defined "consciousness" any better than religion has defined "soul".

Organisms are aware of their own existence and their environment. From this they make decisions that drive evolution in the here and now which is where change in species actually takes place.

Looking at fossils is Look and See Science that simply seeks to explain what exists in reductionistic terms from linear perspective. Species don't exist and then they do and them they do no more. But if a niche develops something will arise to fill it. Nature creates the vacuum into which species arise. This occurs through consciousness whether we have a good definition or not. It is filled with "souls" if you choose to use such terminology. Your choice of terminology will affect "evolution" in some way and over the course of generations the effect will become increasingly extreme.

This is what science, real science, is trying to tell us but we don't hear it because we fixate on effect rather than cause. We fixate on what we can take apart and study in the lab.

Science doesn't need to define consciousness in order to account for what we observe in evolution. It is a red herring. Just as a chemist does not need to agonise over the loose ends in the standard model of physics, in order to account for the reactions of sodium.

All we need to see is how organisms change in time - through the fossil record and through DNS kinships - and how environments create reproductive advantage for some of the variants within a population of organisms, which we see both in the lab and in nature. There is ample evidence for both.

 

[cladking]

Science doesn't need to define consciousness in order to account for what we observe in evolution.

This assumes consciousness is unrelated to change in species.

That's a wild assumption since we can observe the effects of consciousness on individuals and estimate the effect on change in species. If the only red head in a group taunts predators there will be less red headedness in the species in the here and now which is obviously and by definition where change in species must take place. You have put a crooked cart before a crippled horse. Whenever you get it moving you are soon in the ditch or moving about in circles.

Just as a chemist does not need to agonise over the loose ends in the standard model of physics, in order to account for the reactions of sodium.

He must know it IS sodium before mixing it. Evolutionists first assume change in species is the result of time and not decisions. I'm sure you never just assume something was sodium before experimenting or assume the the white liquid is milk before you drink it.

All we need to see is how organisms change in time

You are looking at the EFFECT of evolution and not its cause.

There is ample evidence for both.

There is no evidence that change in species is not tied to consciousness and until there is a definition and understanding it is impossible. There is no evidence that "survival of the fittest" drives any slow changes in change in species. There is no evidence that slow changes in species ever occur except minor ones. We are looking up the backside of a crippled horse.

 

[Etritonakin]

The arguments of science are not against God or some form of creator. There is simply no evidence that points to one or any for consideration. The arguments are based on the evidence and observations that are available. Adding causes that are not based on some evidence would be lying.

There actually is evidence -it just points beyond what many are presently considering -or how they are considering it -or how they perceive it at present -not simply what is truly "available". It is actually the same evidence which allowed for the reverse-engineering of the "physical" aspect of the universe. By looking at what is available, the unavailable previous states of that physical aspect could be known. Technically, a pre-universe creator would be just as real and "physical" -but would be of a pre-universe "nature" (our present nature/physics once did not exist as such).

Prior to Earth life, "science" does not SEE evidence of intent. The answer to "Why did this or that happen?" being "Because I willed it and made it happen -imagined it and made changes that that which exists" is rarely a consideration -NOT because there IS no evidence, but for many other reasons which have caused us to not see it as such -or not look for it.

Until science willingly looks back beyond the singularity to understand what was necessary between greatest possible simplicity and the singularity (just as it does when it sees complex devices and references present nature) -which it can do just as it has done thus far -and until the minds of individuals (not science in and of itself -science is adversely affected by psychology as most things are) do not find the idea of a creator distasteful for unscientific reasons (the development of such being an obvious intermediate stage between more basic things and purposefully-complex things -for which there are billions of examples all around us, including ourselves), it will certainly not find such -or see it as such even if it does. What is "available" truly has not changed over time -though some things are less immediately accessible. What people are willing to consider is that which changes.

I acknowledge that believers -even some of those with good pieces of evidence among the hogwash -have done much to clamp shut the minds of others at the mere mention of a creator.

However, no scientist can produce or presently recreate/make available the singularity and big bang.
Likewise, no "believer" can produce or make available a pre-universe creator -but that it not to say there is no evidence which points to or even proves the necessity for such.

 

[Etritonakin]

But do you think this poetic imagery as intended to be taken literally or metaphorically? The Old Testament writers frequently make use of repetition, in slightly different words, to emphasise a point. I see this passage as evocative of a heavenly state of peace in which all strife, anxiety and danger will be gone, the juxtaposition of the pairs of animals which are normally antagonists being chosen to make the point. The little child might even look forward to the infant Christ at Bethlehem.

Absolutely literally. That becomes apparent when you also read the may other specifics which describe that time. The present works on Earth being destroyed -the topography of Earth drastically changed to allow access to better resources, etc.

Many will find such unbelievable, but it is quite apparent that those associated with biblical scripture believed it would literally happen in the future.

 

[exchemist]

This assumes consciousness is unrelated to change in species.

That's a wild assumption since we can observe the effects of consciousness on individuals and estimate the effect on change in species. If the only red head in a group taunts predators there will be less red headedness in the species in the here and now which is obviously and by definition where change in species must take place. You have put a crooked cart before a crippled horse. Whenever you get it moving you are soon in the ditch or moving about in circles.



He must know it IS sodium before mixing it. Evolutionists first assume change in species is the result of time and not decisions. I'm sure you never just assume something was sodium before experimenting or assume the the white liquid is milk before you drink it.



You are looking at the EFFECT of evolution and not its cause.



There is no evidence that change in species is not tied to consciousness and until there is a definition and understanding it is impossible. There is no evidence that "survival of the fittest" drives any slow changes in change in species. There is no evidence that slow changes in species ever occur except minor ones. We are looking up the backside of a crippled horse.

Nope, there is no need to assume anything regarding consciousness. Consciousness simply isn't required to formulate a demonstrable theory of evolution. If it's not required, we don't consider it. Ockham's Razor.

It's risible idiocy to claim that scientists (there is no such term as evolutionist in science) assume evolution without evidence. The whole essence of science is that any theory must be testable by observational evidence. The evidence supporting evolution is unassailable and has been gone over on this forum many many times. I do not seek to persuade you of this because I realise you have decided to refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[cladking]

Nope, there is no need to assume anything regarding consciousness. Consciousness simply isn't required to formulate a demonstrable theory of evolution. If it's not required, we don't consider it. Ockham's Razor.

It's risible idiocy to claim that scientists (there is no such term as evolutionist in science) assume evolution without evidence. The whole essence of science is that any theory must be testable by observational evidence. The evidence supporting evolution is unassailable and has been gone over on this forum many many times. I do not seek to persuade you of this because I realise you have decided to refuse to acknowledge it.

You refuse to acknowledge anything I said.

The "observable evidence" merely shows that species do change. We can't tell by observation if that change is caused by God, survival of the fittest, or Kilgore Trout and the Sirens of Titan.

I believe it is the result of behavior and consciousness. This is what I observe both in nature and in experiment. Ignoring my facts and logic doesn't make them go away; it merely diminishes your own interpretations.

 

[exchemist]

You refuse to acknowledge anything I said.

The "observable evidence" merely shows that species do change. We can't tell by observation if that change is caused by God, survival of the fittest, or Kilgore Trout and the Sirens of Titan.

I believe it is the result of behavior and consciousness. This is what I observe both in nature and in experiment. Ignoring my facts and logic doesn't make them go away; it merely diminishes your own interpretations.

You've said nothing that makes any sense. You have produced no facts and exhibited no logic. Reciting what you "believe" offers neither facts nor logic.

And this latest remark of yours is absurd. As I said in post 163, we have ample evidence both for the change of organisms over time, such that one form gives rise to another (e.g. archaeopteryx and thousands more examples, ring species, DNA kinships) and for the effect of the environment in causing them to change, in the lab and in nature (cancer chemo resistance, antibiotic resistance, Lenski's experiment, peppered moth etc).

 

[McBell]

This is what I observe both in nature and in experiment. Ignoring my facts and logic doesn't make them go away; it merely diminishes your own interpretations.

Please show your work.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Doesn't science call that "the food chain"? If these creatures have no morality or conception of their own demise, what do you see as wrong? The fact that these creatures are beautiful I believe, is for our benefit. I don't see other creatures admiring beauty for the sake of it...do you? I never see cows gazing at a sunset or admiring the beauty of a water view....they just eat and sleep and fertilize the grass.



In this world, for now, this is the way things are...but it is not the way God created it to be. No creature was designed to harm another. The only flesh eaters originally were the carrion creatures that God used as the clean up crew, disposing of dead organisms so that the earth doesn't become a stinking pile of dead things. Considering how many living things die every day, their efficiency is amazing.

According to scripture all living things were originally vegetarians. I believe that we will return to that diet, once God has sorted things out down here.



In this world everything is predatory in one form or another. It has to be to survive. But this is not the world that God created....it is the second rate imitation of life that was given to us by a pretender who hijacked the human race for his own agenda....he is the one who claimed that we should be able to do whatever we want. It made humankind into predators.....right from the beginning, humans have been killing other humans.
Their permission to eat animal flesh came later....after the flood. God even had to instill 'fear of man' into the animals to give them a fighting chance. He never told us why he changed our diet.....but there must have been a need.

I assume that you have no answers because no one ever gave you any. What is wildly incomplete is the worldview promoted by evolutionists. This view clouds all the issues and its frustrating when the answers are not forthcoming. We as a species have a need for purpose....a need to know why we exist. No other creature does.

How does evolution explain how life arose....or the existence of the great diversity of living things on this planet? Or the existence of the Universe? When you take God away, you take away all meaning to our existence. We are here for a reason and I believe that God will restore his original purpose for us once he has brought in the rulership of his Kingdom. I look forward to that.

I can't help it...I just have to clearly demonstrate how you contradict yourself with no apparent awareness whatever.

See these quotes:

Deeje: "...exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own..."

Deeje: "In this world, for now, this is the way things are...but it is not the way God created it to be. No creature was designed to harm another."

These two quotes are simply mutually exclusive. I've been reading through your other posts on this thread, and most of what you say is simply made up, in an ad hoc fashion, based on quite literally nothing but what you need to make what is fit with what you suppose. I find that very sorry.

But I'd really like to tackle one thought that you mention: "We as a species have a need for purpose....a need to know why we exist. No other creature does."

On that, oddly, you are mostly correct. Even those who thought of themselves as rational Humanists mostly wind up somehow doing the same. Auguste Comte, in his System of Positive Polity published 1846-1854 argued that to defeat religion, "educated people" fabricate a secular religion consiting of hierarchies, liturgy, canons and sacraments similar to RC, but just replacing God with "society" as the grand being to worship. SIlly nonsense, really, but it carries on. Humanist magazines (all with small circulation) do much the same today, while mostly trying to discredit various fundamentalisms, astrolgy, new ageism, Velikovsky and others. But they've always been outnumberd by "true believers" who follow Jean Dixon but have never heard of Denis Diderot or Ralph Wendell Burhoe. Men, it seems, would rather believe than know. As Nietzsche despairingly wrote, when science was so promising, they would rather have the void as purpose, than be void of purpose.

And yet, none of us has need whatever to be void of purpose -- all it takes is realizing that we can create and be master of our own purpose, for ourselves. What good would it do the Belgian Blue steer, or today's overbred turkey, to know that their purpose was to have extra meat to feed us? So what good would it do you, if you could even know it, what "God's purpose" for you is? It has, in the end, nothing really to do with you. It may satisfy "God," but wouldn't do a damned thing to make your life any more meaningful. (And if it turns out to be like the steer or the turkey, might even make it less meaningful.)

 

[Jimmy]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

I think it was a deliberately fluked creation

 

[cladking]

Please show your work.

I've gone all through this a ferw times and people ignore it because they CHOOSE not to see reality in this way. They choose to see everything from a different perspective withouit ever addressing a single point. Instead I get semantics, beliefs, and instruction about how to spell words. I get definitions instead of argument.

I've already listed several FACTS and LOGIC to support my argument and you have already just blown them off like they didn't exist. Until what I've already said is actually addressed I'm not going to support my argument here. I will simply point out the errors of assuming the conclusion that change in species is caused by survival of the fittest.

 

[cladking]

You've said nothing that makes any sense. You have produced no facts and exhibited no logic. Reciting what you "believe" offers neither facts nor logic.

You have not even acknowledged I said this; "This assumes consciousness is unrelated to change in species.".

You have not acknowledged, attacked, or deflected anything I've already said. What is the point of posting logic and evidence if you can't even see it?

 

[nPeace]

What about unicorns?
Since the word “unicorn” appears in the King James Version of the Bible nine times – in Numbers 23:22 and 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9,10, Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10 and in Isaiah 34:7

Off topic. ...and no... Not everyone uses the KJV, and many are aware that it's not a very accurate translation.
What does this have to do with you being inaccurate in your claims... or the topic in this thread?

 

[McBell]

I've gone all through this a ferw times and people ignore it because they CHOOSE not to see reality in this way. They choose to see everything from a different perspective withouit ever addressing a single point. Instead I get semantics, beliefs, and instruction about how to spell words. I get definitions instead of argument.

I've already listed several FACTS and LOGIC to support my argument and you have already just blown them off like they didn't exist. Until what I've already said is actually addressed I'm not going to support my argument here. I will simply point out the errors of assuming the conclusion that change in species is caused by survival of the fittest.

The Believabliltiy of Evolution

So your reply is to whine about people not taking you seriously and then linking to a 850+ post thread that reveals just exactly why no one takes you seriously?

Are you serious?

 

[cladking]

So your reply is to whine about people not taking you seriously and then linking to a 850+ post thread that reveals just exactly why no one takes you seriously?

Are you serious?

I said; "I've already listed several FACTS and LOGIC to support my argument and you have already just blown them off like they didn't exist. ".

I will not go to the trouble to point out facts and logic if you are already blowing them off. I'll go back and delete the link since you obviously have no intention of discussing the subject outside your assumptions and premises.

 

[McBell]

Are you serious?

I said; "I've already listed several FACTS and LOGIC to support my argument and you have already just blown them off like they didn't exist. ".

I will not go to the trouble to point out facts and logic if you are already blowing them off. I'll go back and delete the link since you obviously have no intention of discussing the subject outside your assumptions and premises.

Your personal observations are not in any way "facts".
It matters not how much you jump up and down with your fingers in your ears claiming otherwise.

Now it appears you are not actually interested in honest discussion.
You simply want someone, any one it seems, to agree with you.

So you go right ahead and play the victim.
It is all you got on this topic.

 

[cladking]

"This assumes consciousness is unrelated to change in species."

First you must actually responds to ANYTHING I've said.

I'm hardly looking for agreement. I'm looking for relevant comment to any part of my argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There actually is evidence -it just points beyond what many are presently considering -or how they are considering it -or how they perceive it at present -not simply what is truly "available". It is actually the same evidence which allowed for the reverse-engineering of the "physical" aspect of the universe. By looking at what is available, the unavailable previous states of that physical aspect could be known. Technically, a pre-universe creator would be just as real and "physical" -but would be of a pre-universe "nature" (our present nature/physics once did not exist as such).

Prior to Earth life, "science" does not SEE evidence of intent. The answer to "Why did this or that happen?" being "Because I willed it and made it happen -imagined it and made changes that that which exists" is rarely a consideration -NOT because there IS no evidence, but for many other reasons which have caused us to not see it as such -or not look for it.

Until science willingly looks back beyond the singularity to understand what was necessary between greatest possible simplicity and the singularity (just as it does when it sees complex devices and references present nature) -which it can do just as it has done thus far -and until the minds of individuals (not science in and of itself -science is adversely affected by psychology as most things are) do not find the idea of a creator distasteful for unscientific reasons (the development of such being an obvious intermediate stage between more basic things and purposefully-complex things -for which there are billions of examples all around us, including ourselves), it will certainly not find such -or see it as such even if it does. What is "available" truly has not changed over time -though some things are less immediately accessible. What people are willing to consider is that which changes.

I acknowledge that believers -even some of those with good pieces of evidence among the hogwash -have done much to clamp shut the minds of others at the mere mention of a creator.

However, no scientist can produce or presently recreate/make available the singularity and big bang.
Likewise, no "believer" can produce or make available a pre-universe creator -but that it not to say there is no evidence which points to or even proves the necessity for such.

I do not know of any. Care to offer some specifics?