Evolution is illogical and non sense

[Etritonakin]

Mythology?



mythology?



has no place what so ever in this discussion.

It is only your opinion that it is mythology.

It does have a place in this discussion -even more so your post -as it accurately represents the human perspective.

Science -and those who employ scientific discovery -have often solved one problem and created others due to the fact that they know a few things and are ignorant of many more things.

 

[Etritonakin]

But hey wear tinfoil hats and have no credibility.



Imaginative ?

Yah - and it's not as if imagination ever has an effect on reality or anything -not as if evil people have ever used knowledge to adversely affect things....



Slashdot
(Targeting individuals based on their DNA)

Genetic engineering and biological weapons

 

[outhouse]

It is only your opinion that it is mythology.

And all of academia.

It does have a place in this discussion -even more so your post -as it accurately represents the human perspective.

Yes it does.

You keep proposing mythology is real. You never substantiate your claims with anything other then opinion.

Science -and those who employ scientific discovery -have often solved one problem and created others due to the fact that they know a few things and are ignorant of many more things.

They are not ignorant of mythology, they chose to ignore your personal faith.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is only your opinion that it is mythology.

It is a myth by the definition of myth. From the OED:
myth -noun
a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.
b. A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious).

 

[Etritonakin]

It is a myth by the definition of myth. From the OED:
myth -noun
a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.
b. A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious).

But not by the popular -yet not-necessarily-official -definition which assumes that something has no basis in reality.

 

[Etritonakin]

And all of academia.



Yes it does.

You keep proposing mythology is real. You never substantiate your claims with anything other then opinion.



They are not ignorant of mythology, they chose to ignore your personal faith.

I wrote "from a biblical perspective"... And gave the biblical perspective...

I would not waste my time substantiating things which will substantiate themselves in time -especially to people with no interest in the things in the first place.

With all due respect and the utmost positive regard, I don't care what you believe.


Furthermore, I was referring to scientific facts as yet undiscovered -which are sometimes discovered by scientific epic fails.....

 

[Ouroboros]

Evil is -at its core -that which adversely affects a system which is beneficial -and a person is evil when they will to do so.
...

So basically, you're saying that if someone does something and the outcome is evil, then, even if the person didn't intend it to happen, it's his/her fault and can be judged as evil? If you post something that hurts someone, (even if you didn't mean to) does that make you evil?

 

[Kirran]

Taking 'is' statements and turning them into 'ought' statements means objectivity is lost.

it cannot be said that anybody objectively should do something, or that anything is objectively good or bad, as these are relative and subjective concepts.

 

[Etritonakin]

So basically, you're saying that if someone does something and the outcome is evil, then, even if the person didn't intend it to happen, it's his/her fault and can be judged as evil? If you post something that hurts someone, (even if you didn't mean to) does that make you evil?

No -that is not what I said and not what I meant. I thought it was clear that I meant that a person is evil, generally, when they will to adversely affect a system (or the overal system) which is beneficial (including someone's 'feelings') -but perhaps it was not.

(Of course, there are situations where a specific beneficial system might be adversely affected for the greater good of an overall beneficial system, but only in an imperfect overall system -or something like that -like when Christ temporarily blinded Saul [ just an example, guys -don't freak out] in order to make a point.
Still.... That sort of thing can get pretty confusing unless there is some overall ideal state to reference.)

 

[Etritonakin]

It is a myth by the definition of myth. From the OED:
myth -noun
a. A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.
b. A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious).

Just found this definition of "myth" -internet said so, so I guess it's official....

1. 2.
   a widely held but false belief or idea.
   "he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous"
   
   
   
   Sometimes...... "All of Academia" can be overly argumentative.

 

[Ouroboros]

No -that is not what I said and not what I meant. I thought it was clear that I meant that a person is evil, generally, when they will to adversely affect a system (or the overal system) which is beneficial (including someone's 'feelings') -but perhaps it was not.

Well, I'm tired today, so, most likely, it wasn't you. I had a feeling that I misunderstood you. Hence the question.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just found this definition of "myth" -internet said so, so I guess it's official....

Personally, I prefer Joseph Campbell's view on mythology.

 

[Etritonakin]

Well, I'm tired today, so, most likely, it wasn't you. I had a feeling that I misunderstood you. Hence the question.

Sometimes I re-read what I wrote and have no idea what I was trying to say.

No problem.

 

[Etritonakin]

So.... What can we conclude from all of this?

(Probably inviting abuse here -better specify)

Is evolution illogical overall?

I'd have to say that "evolution" exists (and so what is known is obviously logical), but cannot be credited with causing life to exist -if for no other reason than something else caused what we call evolution to exist -even if there was no creative influence from what we call the Big Bang until the emergence of life. It would have been inevitable, so it would have been initiated long before.


I'd also have to say that it is more logical to conclude that there is an intelligence behind all that we see than to conclude that life was a series of fortunate accidents.
So.... If the definition of evolution did not allow for a creator, I'd have to say it would not be logical.

 

[McBell]

I don't think there's much point in continuing this exchange.

Nor do I.

Have a nice day.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Broadly religion is not wrong about how subjectivity works. The issue belongs to religion and they do a good enough job of dealing with it.

How science deals with subjectivity is to compete objectivity against subjectivity, destroying it.

And natural selection theory is the catalyst for this destruction.

One should just demand that science accepts the obvious fact that freedom is real and relevant.

That way subjectivity is protected and science is put on a path of more fundamental knowledge about the way things work.

 

[ArtieE]

I'd have to say that "evolution" exists (and so what is known is obviously logical), but cannot be credited with causing life to exist

True. That would be abiogenesis not evolution. Evolution just evolves existing life.

-if for no other reason than something else caused what we call evolution to exist

Evolution exists because life exists. Evolution and natural selection is what happens naturally to life.

-even if there was no creative influence from what we call the Big Bang until the emergence of life. It would have been inevitable, so it would have been initiated long before.

Life was inevitable in a sense when conditions became favorable for it to arise.

I'd also have to say that it is more logical to conclude that there is an intelligence behind all that we see than to conclude that life was a series of fortunate accidents.

True if life was only a result of a series of fortunate accidents but it was a result of the combination of fortunate accidents and chemistry and chemical and natural selection.

So.... If the definition of evolution did not allow for a creator, I'd have to say it would not be logical.

It doesn't matter to evolution where life came from. It could have been a result of abiogenesis, dropped in on a meteorite, been created by a god or an alien or whatever. Evolution describes what happens to life once it exists.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'd have to say that "evolution" exists (and so what is known is obviously logical), but cannot be credited with causing life to exist -if for no other reason than something else caused what we call evolution to exist -even if there was no creative influence from what we call the Big Bang until the emergence of life. It would have been inevitable, so it would have been initiated long before.

Correct. The emergence of life is under the domain of chemical evolution, while evolution, as we talk about here, is really biological evolution. Two different systems. Two different theories. Just like Big Bang or stellar nucleosynthesis are different theories, but have a lot in common.

I'd also have to say that it is more logical to conclude that there is an intelligence behind all that we see than to conclude that life was a series of fortunate accidents.

Perhaps the totality of things, life, world, matter is intelligent in itself, not just behind it, but part of it?

So.... If the definition of evolution did not allow for a creator, I'd have to say it would not be logical.

It does allow for a God. There's some 8% (if I remember the numbers I saw recently in some other post) of scientists who believe some form of God or intelligence is behind evolution. Personally, I don't think we can understand such an intelligence, so we might never really know for sure if there is or isn't. But as of now, evolution is true. It is as true as gravity, but no one is questioning if God exists or not because of natural gravity pulling you to stay on Earth.

 

[Yerda]

How science deals with...

Can I ask, what is your scientific background?

 

[Etritonakin]

True. That would be abiogenesis not evolution. Evolution just evolves existing life.Evolution exists because life exists. Evolution and natural selection is what happens naturally to life. Life was inevitable in a sense when conditions became favorable for it to arise.True if life was only a result of a series of fortunate accidents but it was a result of the combination of fortunate accidents and chemistry and chemical and natural selection.It doesn't matter to evolution where life came from. It could have been a result of abiogenesis, dropped in on a meteorite, been created by a god or an alien or whatever. Evolution describes what happens to life once it exists.

I agree that life arose when conditions became favorable by whatever means -but was saying that in the absence of creative influence from the Big Bang until life arose, it would have been inevitable that the conditions became favorable -that there would have been no chance that things could have happened any other way.
We can think of things happening differently, but they will happen exactly as they will happen except when it is decided that they will happen differently -and those decisions are acted upon.