Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then it clearly needs to be said again: How about moving on past three year olds and taking some interest in what grown-ups who have studied this stuff their entire lives have to say about it?

Dogs produce dogs...and I have no reason to believe that the dogs of today are the descendents of non-dogs of yesterday...nor do I have any reason that the dogs of today will produce a non-dog....whether suddenly or gradually.

So spare me of the bio-babble and voodoo science.

 

[Bunyip]

Dogs produce dogs...and I have no reason to believe that the dogs of today are the descendents of non-dogs of yesterday...nor do I have any reason that the dogs of today will produce a non-dog....whether suddenly or gradually.

So spare me of the bio-babble and voodoo science.

Denial is no argument. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that dogs evolved from an ancestor that was not a dog.

 

[MD]

Shahz

The 'hard problem' in neuro science is that they believe consciousness may not be fully explainable in purely scientific terms - it does not infer that consciousness has or needs any external source.

Please look into the 'hard problem' before you make any further comment on the issue,

Please don't try to teach me something you know very little about, especially judging by your prior post.

When you cannot explain something fully physically, it means Physicalism is incomplete. I didn't mention once anything about an external source, but it does mean that science has limitations, especially with regards to the most fundamental aspects of our own existence.

 

[Bunyip]

Please don't try to teach me something you know very little about, especially judging by your prior post.

When you cannot explain something fully physically, it means Physicalism is incomplete. I didn't mention once anything about an external source, but it does mean that science has limitations, especially with regards to the most fundamental aspects of our own existence.

What on earth is 'physicalism'? And as I said, the 'hard problem' does not conflict with the fact that consciousness is a product of the mind.

If by 'physicalism' , you mean science - of course it is not complete. Science is just a way to learn - not a claim of complete knowledge in any regard.

 

[outhouse]

but it does mean that science has limitations, especially with regards to the most fundamental aspects of our own existence.


.

Such as?


Examples please.

 

[outhouse]

And as I said, the 'hard problem' does not conflict with the fact that consciousness is a product of the mind.

Exactly.

If by 'physicalism'

Physicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- of course it is not complete

Exactly, the difference is we do not stuff mythology in the gaps of our knowledge.

 

[Bunyip]

Exactly.






Physicalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Exactly, the difference is we do not stuff mythology in the gaps of our knowledge.

Sure. The criticism that physicalism is not complete does not even make sense.

 

[fantome profane]

When you cannot explain something fully physically, it means Physicalism is incomplete.

No it does not. When we can't explain something fully that only means that we can't explain something fully, nothing more. It may just be too complex for us to understand. We (the human species) just might not be that smart. Or maybe we have just started to look into it.

When you try to draw the conclusion you have based on our ignorance (again I am referring to the human species) is not only arrogant (on behalf of the human species) but it is also a logical fallacy.

 

[idav]

Please don't try to teach me something you know very little about, especially judging by your prior post.

When you cannot explain something fully physically, it means Physicalism is incomplete. I didn't mention once anything about an external source, but it does mean that science has limitations, especially with regards to the most fundamental aspects of our own existence.

Physicalism accounts for unseen forces and mind, they are physical forces.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Denial is no argument. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that dogs evolved from an ancestor that was not a dog.

What evidence? Fossils aren't evidence, and any similarities in genetics could mean common designer.

 

[idav]

Fossils aren't evidence,

Yes it most certainly is very good evidence. Nice denial.

and any similarities in genetics could mean common designer.

Then the designer designed one template that all lifeforms came from. Thats how much similar all organisms are but not just that but down the timeline we don't have any leaps that can't be naturally accounted for.

You keep saying your open minded for OEC but I think you'd rather deny it is real. The earth is 4 billion years old which is a major factor to say that there was no "real" adam and eve, just metaphorical for when we evolved to be human.

 

[idav]

T
Pay attention, cot. I said "IF THE UNIVERSE (STEM), BEGAN TO EXIST, THEN AN EXTERNAL CAUSE IS NECESSARY".

Now you can argue whether or not the universe began to exist all you like, but what you can't deny is the fact that if all natural reality began to exist, then it follows intuitively that there must have been an external cause. Otherwise, you are saying that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing...and if that is the price of unbelief, then by all means, have at it.

This still isn't logical when it makes an exception. Things need a cause, then so does god.

The issue with universe having a beginning means, if that is the beginning of all existence then there is not one thing outside of it. All existence counts anything including god.

Let me put it yet another way. If God created the universe then there was a time the creation happened, that is a before time even existence existed, which throws a wrench in your whole beginning argument. You can't have it both ways, by trying to destroy an eternal universe or one with a beginning you destroy the same concept for any existing god.

Call I have to say your giving a pretty good argument for god not being necessary or able to logically exist. Which is why I think god exists as existence itself.

Your saying god just popped out of nothing. Eat your own argument for consistencies sakes.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes it most certainly is very good evidence. Nice denial.

No it isn't...a fossil is not evidence of anything other than "this once living thing has now died".

Anything beyond that is voodoo.

Then the designer designed one template that all lifeforms came from. Thats how much similar all organisms are but not just that but down the timeline we don't have any leaps that can't be naturally accounted for.

Point?

You keep saying your open minded for OEC but I think you'd rather deny it is real. The earth is 4 billion years old which is a major factor to say that there was no "real" adam and eve, just metaphorical for when we evolved to be human.

There was an Adam and Eve, it is just that on your view, Adam and Eve existed in the form of apes.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This still isn't logical when it makes an exception. Things need a cause, then so does god.

The argument is everything that begins to exist needs an external cause...not "all things that exist needs an external cause".

The issue with universe having a beginning means, if that is the beginning of all existence then there is not one thing outside of it. All existence counts anything including god.

You have to explain why it began to exist, idav.

Let me put it yet another way. If God created the universe then there was a time the creation happened, that is a before time even existence existed, which throws a wrench in your whole beginning argument.

No it doesnt, because the creation event WAS when time began...and there is no temporal/chronicle time "before" this event.

You can't have it both ways, by trying to destroy an eternal universe or one with a beginning you destroy the same concept for any existing god.

These minsicule objections have already been noted and refuted. I am sorry to break the bad news to you buddy, but you are not offering anything new under the sun.

Call I have to say your giving a pretty good argument for god not being necessary or able to logically exist. Which is why I think god exists as existence itself.

I am sorry you feel that way hahahaah

Your saying god just popped out of nothing. Eat your own argument for consistencies sakes.

You are one of those individuals on here where I just keep thinking to myself..."he just doesn't get it".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course they do. They explain consciousness to be a product of the physical brain.

Yes, thank you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is like asking "If the Model-T came first, how can it be an automobile kind"

Question is meaningless.

Your assertion is meaningless and your analogy is worse.

Wolves came before dogs, yet wolves are "dog kinds" rather than dogs being "wolf kinds?" Ummmm okay.

I'm gonna stick with scientists who actually know what they're talking about and make some kind of sense. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Willamena]

No it isn't...a fossil is not evidence of anything other than "this once living thing has now died".

Anything beyond that is voodoo.

Forensic science is voodoo?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dogs produce dogs...and I have no reason to believe that the dogs of today are the descendents of non-dogs of yesterday...nor do I have any reason that the dogs of today will produce a non-dog....whether suddenly or gradually.

So spare me of the bio-babble and voodoo science.

Then you are clearly ignorant about evolution, as you've already admitted to me anyway. So you are not qualified to speak on the matter and anything you say about it is irrelevant and misinformed, despite the fact that I've (and many, many others) explained it to you several times and in several different ways.

People who study this stuff for a living have reason to believe it. So should we go with them, or should we go with someone who's never studied any of it and admits to have stopped reading about evolution when it made him uncomfortable? Tough choice.

 

[idav]

No it isn't...a fossil is not evidence of anything other than "this once living thing has now died".

Anything beyond that is voodoo.

So palentology is voodoo science. Wow. I will be sure to let my sister in law working on her doctorate know who specializes in human evolution.

Point?

It is strong supporting evidence for how life evolved.

There was an Adam and Eve, it is just that on your view, Adam and Eve existed in the form of apes.

Not really, homo sapiens have been around for over 100 thousand years and Adam and Eve likely never met, as far as mitochondrial dna goes.

The argument is everything that begins to exist needs an external cause...not "all things that exist needs an external cause".

No science has said how anything "began" to exist, we only know the point things started changing. Thats why saying the universe began is nonsensical. If it really did begin then before is absurd as would be anything external to it.

You have to explain why it began to exist, idav.

See above. I don't. The singularity was in a timeless state, it can't begin its absurd. It is still timeless at the fundamental level of all matter and energy.

No it doesnt, because the creation event WAS when time began...and there is no temporal/chronicle time "before" this event.

Yet the matter and energy that is the universe was in a timeless state before existing. So that needs reconciliation on your end.

These minsicule objections have already been noted and refuted.

Thats a good laugh, thank you. I don't know what you think refuted means. It isn't just arguing a premise logically.

I am sorry to break the bad news to you buddy, but you are not offering anything new under the sun.

Yes and I say the same things everyone else says yet you still don't understand.

I am sorry you feel that way hahahaah

Sorry you can't fathom it.

You are one of those individuals on here where I just keep thinking to myself..."he just doesn't get it".

A premise isn't enough especially when they have been invalidated as illogical. Logic is nothing if you have faulty premises. I do get it I just don't agree. You disagree without ever realizing or understanding whats being said to you in rebuttal.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your assertion is meaningless and your analogy is worse.

Wolves came before dogs, yet wolves are "dog kinds" rather than dogs being "wolf kinds?" Ummmm okay.

What? Adam and Eve (on the Christian view) came before all other humans...that doesn't stop them from being human because they "came before" humans.

Wolves are dogs...they may have been the first dogs...they may have been one of the original dog kinds...I don't know. But they are clearly the same kind of animal as what we call "dogs"...which is why I keep resorting to the 3 year old...give a three year old a piece of paper with a picture of a wolf, coyote, husky, jackal, dingo, and lion...and ask the kid which animal is different, unless the kid inherited a "Darwinism" trait or something, the kid will point too the lion, recognizing the lion as the different "kind" of animal. We (animals included) tend to look like the ancestors that we came from, which is why the siberian husky and wolf look a lot alike...so there is absolutely no reason for the siberian husky to be a "kind of dog", but the wolf to not be a "kind of dog".

None whatsoever.

I'm gonna stick with scientists who actually know what they're talking about and make some kind of sense. I suggest you do the same.

You stick with the scientists...like Darwin, Dawkins, Piguluci, Miller, etc...and I will stick with Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, John, etc.