Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, then why did the “religious instinct” evolve if it has not benefit?........... (I don’t know is a valid answer, by the way)

Can you define religious instinct and demonstrate it is an evolved trait? What gene or genes is responsible?

 

[leroy]

Can you define religious instinct and demonstrate it is an evolved trait? What gene or genes is responsible?

religious instinct: the hypothesis that human beings are naturally drawn to believe in a higher power.



No I can not show that it is an evopvled trait, nor that there are genes responsable for this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

religious instinct: the hypothesis that human beings are naturally drawn to believe in a higher power.



No I can not show that it is an evopvled trait, nor that there are genes responsable for this.

So your question is moot, given that you cannot show that it is an evolved trait. I don't know that anyone can. It is likely a side effect of the cognitive traits that did evolve. I don't know of any evidence that points to it being an evolved trait.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No disagreement. I grant that intelligence could have selective benefits.

Thank you.
This was your original point and the one I replied to.

I have no interest in playing your moving the goal post games.

What I am claiming is that our ability to reflect upon deep philosophical stuff seems require an extra layer of complexity in our brain

Evidence required for this claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is a strawman, I never said that all testimonies are equal nor that testimonies such as “I saw a monster yesterday” are equivalent to the testimony of a scientists who publish his findings in a journal

So you are just being deliberatly confusing then?
AKA trolling?

All I said is that at least sometimes testimonies count as evidence. (I didn’t even used the phrase “mere testimonies”

Nobody calls scientific papers "testimony" except you.
When people use the word "testimony", science papers describing evidence is never what they mean.

So yes, if you are aware of this, then you indeed are being deliberatly confusing / trolling.

For example I am accepting your testimony as evidence that you are a father …….. Do you think I shouldn’t accept your testimony? Am I being irrational?

See, here you do it again.......................................

By calling my mere claim "testimony" and thereby pretending it is on par with scientific papers by calling those "testimony" also.

And then you wonder why people get frustrated with talking to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For example @TagliatelliMonster claims that he is a father, do you accept his testimony as evidence?

No, it's claim.

Claims aren't evidence of themselves.
Claims require evidence.

 

[leroy]

Thank you.
This was your original point and the one I replied to.

I have no interest in playing your moving the goal post games.

the goal post was not moved, feel free to quote my alleged “original point”

Evidence required for this claim.

Just my intuition, I don’t claim to have empirical evidence for it.

 

[leroy]

By calling my mere claim "testimony" and thereby pretending it is on par with scientific papers by calling those "testimony" also.

And then you wonder why people get frustrated with talking to you.

You didn’t answer my question.

Should your testimony of you claiming be a father be considered “evidence”? Is it rational for me if I trust in your testimony?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The difference between a testimony and a scientific paper are stark and numerous.

A testimony is a personal account that has no other tangible evidence to back it up, is not peer reviewed, does not publish the steps involved in coming to the claims of the testimony, cannot be tested by others gifted in the arts, is anecdotal and dependent on how believable the person providing the testimony comes off as.

A scientific paper includes all the authors names, contact information, a title that indicates what the paper is about, the aim and scope of the paper, an abstract that boils down the main points of the paper, prior work by others in the field and related fields, methods and materials, discussion of the data, analysis of the data, and conclusions about those data and analyses. It could include testimonies depending on the nature of the subject.

A testimony amounts to a claim with the only support being the character and credibility of the one making the claim. A scientific paper goes well and far beyond that. I can find no valid reason to claim that both fall under the description of testimony and doing so is another attempt that diminishes the value of a term by stretching to so far to fit over things it does not cover that it becomes a useless term. It has all the appearances of attempting to diminish scientific papers by claiming they fall under the definition of testimony.

 

[Audie]

So you are just being deliberatly confusing then?
AKA trolling?



Nobody calls scientific papers "testimony" except you.
When people use the word "testimony", science papers describing evidence is never what they mean.

So yes, if you are aware of this, then you indeed are being deliberatly confusing / trolling.




See, here you do it again.......................................

By calling my mere claim "testimony" and thereby pretending it is on par with scientific papers by calling those "testimony" also.

And then you wonder why people get frustrated with talking to you.

I don't

 

[leroy]

No, it's claim.

Claims aren't evidence of themselves.
Claims require evidence.

Wow, that is radical

 

[leroy]

The difference between a testimony and a scientific paper are stark and numerous.

A testimony is a personal account that has no other tangible evidence to back it up, is not peer reviewed, does not publish the steps involved in coming to the claims of the testimony, cannot be tested by others gifted in the arts, is anecdotal and dependent on how believable the person providing the testimony comes off as.

A scientific paper includes all the authors names, contact information, a title that indicates what the paper is about, the aim and scope of the paper, an abstract that boils down the main points of the paper, prior work by others in the field and related fields, methods and materials, discussion of the data, analysis of the data, and conclusions about those data and analyses. It could include testimonies depending on the nature of the subject.

A testimony amounts to a claim with the only support being the character and credibility of the one making the claim. A scientific paper goes well and far beyond that. I can find no valid reason to claim that both fall under the description of testimony and doing so is another attempt that diminishes the value of a term by stretching to so far to fit over things it does not cover that it becomes a useless term. It has all the appearances of attempting to diminish scientific papers by claiming they fall under the definition of testimony.

Nobody is denying that the paper is more than just a testimony……………as you explained very well testimonies go beyond “just testimonies”

But my point is that YOU only have access to the testimony, if a paper says that people with Covid Vaccines are 90% less likely to die from COVID … you are trusting the testimony the authors and trusting that they did the proper experiments with the proper data etc………….. for your point of view the evidence is the testimony of the authors.



But my point is that it is ok, to trust them, i´ts ok to trust the testimony of an author of a peer review paper because

1 the author is an expert, he is well infomred

2 his testimony vas validation form his peers

3 it is very hard to lie or to make things up in a peer reviwed paper

A testimony amounts to a claim with the only support being the character and credibility of the one making the claim.

says who? whay can´t a testimony have additional support?




Anyway…………. My claim is that at least some testimonies are evidence,,,,,,,, do you accept or do you reject this claim?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you quote a single claim made by me, that has been batten by scientific literature?

My comment was, "Leroy's one of several creationists that gets beaten up by the scientifically literate when he makes his creationist arguments and whose net effect is to reassure those people that they made a good choice rejecting a literalist view of scripture and zealous religion." I guess that you didn't understand that. Batten and beaten are different words, and the scientifically literate and the scientific literature aren't the same, either.

We've discussed this tendency of yours where the ideas intended by words morph into something else in their comprehension. You also forget the past easily and continually ask to be shown where you did this or that. They're both tedious.

Ask me any question

What's your purpose here? What are you trying to accomplish? You get a lot of rebuking, which can't be pleasant, and there's no evidence that you're learning or teaching, but there is evidence that your efforts are counterproductive to any constructive purpose you might imagine for them. So why do this?

I don’t have a secret agenda, but even if I did, that shouldn’t be relevant

It's relevant to me to know why you are focusing on something like testimony if I'm to engage you or read you engaging others, because presently, nothing you've said there is interesting or useful. I would want to know what part it plays in your larger creationist message. Why do you think it's relevant to call scientific knowledge testimony and point out that sometimes testimony is evidence?

.you should grant that atleast some testimonies are evidence because the statement is true

I'd also like to know why my words seem to have no impact on your posting. If they did, you wouldn't have written those words. I've already done that twice.

 

[gnostic]

No, it's claim.

Claims aren't evidence of themselves.
Claims require evidence.

Just my intuition, I don’t claim to have empirical evidence for it.

You didn’t answer my question.

Should your testimony of you claiming be a father be considered “evidence”? Is it rational for me if I trust in your testimony?

As I can recall, @TagliatelliMonster said something about like being “father of two”, but you were the one questioning him whether he was father or not. You just kept bringing them up, repeatedly demanding answers as to whether you should accept his words or not.

But actually, @TagliatelliMonster did answer your question, when he wrote “claim”, from the 1st quote of my post, but I will repost his reply below:

No, it's claim.

Claims aren't evidence of themselves.
Claims require evidence.

That was his answer. And, yet you continue to demand answer from him, when he had already answered you.

His claim was that of PERSONAL ACCOUNT about him being “father of two”.

As this is forum, his claim being personal one, shouldn’t require chasing evidence, but about trusting his word to be true.

From my experiences with discussing & replying both to you and to TagliatelliMonster, i think he is more trustworthy than you, because I have read many of your posts in past threads, where you have been less than honest. But that’s besides the point.

As I said, TagliatelliMonster’s claim about being a father, is a claim of “personal account”…he wasn’t making scientific claim.

You would only chased claims being scientific, not personal one, meaning any scientific claims, you would ask for evidence, BUT YOU WOULDN’T BE DEMANDING EVIDENCE FOR PERSONAL CLAIM.

You repeatedly demanding evidence from TagliatelliMonster for personal claim, is just silly of you. No one would demand that TagliatelliMonster should have his DNA and his children’s DNA to be tested.

You would only ask for evidence for “scientific“ claim, and not for personal claims.

As TagliatelliMonster clearly have already answered your question, which you didn’t understand, then you shouldn’t be a bloody troll by keeping repeating asking the same question.

 

[gnostic]

No disagreement. I grant that intelligence could have selective benefits.

What I am claiming is that our ability to reflect upon deep philosophical stuff seems require an extra layer of complexity in our brain, and it seems that this layer has no selective benefit

@It Aint Necessarily this reply is also for you because you made a similar strawman

You still don’t understand what Evolution is, leroy.

The “selective benefits” as you call it, is about something biological and physical trait that you could pass on, “genetically”, when you reproduce offspring and have descendants that shared this trait from you.

Natural Selection required both the -

1. The ability to successfully reproduce
2. And the ability to pass traits that allow future descendants to continually to reproduce and sustain the population.

And selective traits would have to be encoded in the DNA, in order for offspring and descendants to inherit that trait. Not every traits get pass down genetically.

The “deep philosophical stuff” you were talking about, isn’t a physical & biological trait, and it offer no selective benefits to descendants to continue reproduce.

The philosophical stuff is a learned process, not a biological process. Do you understand that, Leroy?

What you require learning, and doing what you learn, aren’t necessary for your DNA to encode, and not require for any of descendants to inherit. Your DNA would only pass on physical & biological traits.

And learning any philosophy isn’t biological.

Take for instance, during the Ice Ages, where population of brown bears getting trapped in region covered by thousands of square kilometres of deep ice sheet that won’t melt for over a thousand years. So if no annual summer seasons can melt the ice, then those brown bears must adapt to environment of severe freezing condition, then they to be physically enabled, to stay warm, to continue to reproduce.

some times about over 125,000 years ago, fossil of the earliest polar bears…which would mean at some points 150,000 years ago or more, the brown bears have gradually evolved into a new species (the point of divergence occurred around 150,000, based on DNA estimation, not fossil age) - and eventually became population of polar bears in that icy region.

What could benefit physically to survive to the present day.

Certainly not some stupid philosophies.

To physically adapt,

• they would have to consume a lot body fat in their diet, like eating sea seals, they cannot hibernate.
• They need to grow thickness and texture of their hair and fur that must be more wind proof and water proof (polar bears do a lot more swimming than any other family of bear species) than their sister species of brown bears.
• The white fur is better cameroflage than brown fur among the white ice, during hunting.
• They need to be able to swim better than brown bear, from floating ice to floating ice, to hunt seals, so they have longer hands and feet.

These are just some of traits necessary as selection benefits for polar bear’s continual survival of their population. And when the ice sheets retreated during the Holocene epoch, the polar bears stayed in the icy region of the Arctic, being the alpha predator.

Philosophies are useless to biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nobody is denying that the paper is more than just a testimony……………as you explained very well testimonies go beyond “just testimonies”

But my point is that YOU only have access to the testimony, if a paper says that people with Covid Vaccines are 90% less likely to die from COVID … you are trusting the testimony the authors and trusting that they did the proper experiments with the proper data etc………….. for your point of view the evidence is the testimony of the authors.

A research paper is not a testimony. And for the reason's I stated, that you haven't refuted and merely ignored and hand-waved away. You can keep repeating it like a mantra, but that won't magically make you right and cause research reports to suddenly become testimonies.

By your attempted redefinition of the word, every written work becomes a testimony and the meaning of testimony becomes useless. How do you not understand that? I think you do. I think the intent here is do exactly as everyone else has sussed from your efforts. Reduce science down to baseless claims.

By the way, I've actually repeated work from research papers and written papers on my own original work. It is part of my job. What you got?

But my point is that it is ok, to trust them, i´ts ok to trust the testimony of an author of a peer review paper because

1 the author is an expert, he is well infomred

2 his testimony vas validation form his peers

3 it is very hard to lie or to make things up in a peer reviwed paper

How is anyone supposed to take this seriously when you don't trust the work of scientists and reject most of it.

says who? whay can´t a testimony have additional support?

I said that it. Don't you know who you are responding to? What would be additional support of a testimony? More testimonies. If there is additional evidence, then you really don't need testimony. You'd go with the actual evidence that can be verified, validated and tested.

Anyway…………. My claim is that at least some testimonies are evidence,,,,,,,, do you accept or do you reject this claim?

I've come to expect this sort of bait and switch, so my acceptance or rejection of this specific statement has no meaning in the discussion. You have claimed that science reports are testimonies. Changing that after all this time isn't going to fly. Scientific papers are not testimonies and you are now aware of this having just agreed that those papers are not testimonies.

I'm done.

 

[leroy]

By the way, I've actually repeated work from research papers and written papers on my own original work. It is part of my job. What you got?

One week ago I would have believed you...... But I was told by you atheist friends that testimonies are not evidence..... So apparently there is no evidence that you have written any papers

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow, that is radical

I have no doubt that you are interested in nature and in science. But you have personal biases that you entertain with a vigorous tenacity and little if any serious scholarship from what I have seen. All your efforts here are to twist scientific explanations and conclusions to fit your personal religious views. Understandably, a typical effort from a creationist position that is a priori correct by fiat, but not logically or scientifically valid.

Have you considered taking some sort of adult education class in basic science? I'd recommend something on the study of logic as well. I think you might enjoy it and your understanding and knowledge in these debates and discussions would benefit.

Just a thought for a practical next step.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One week ago I would have believed you...... But I was told by you atheist friends that testimonies are not evidence..... So apparently there is no evidence that you have written any papers

I don't care. This has no place or value in this discussion. This is just sour grapes and lashing out.

 

[F1fan]

One week ago I would have believed you...... But I was told by you atheist friends that testimonies are not evidence..... So apparently there is no evidence that you have written any papers

You play word games to give your bad beliefs cover. Another poster said you weren't honest in your posts and they are correct. You are very deceptive. The question is whether you know it.