Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

They are not in the same evolutionary line.

No, they're NOT? You know this for a FACT?
Just hoppin' along here -- bye for now...take care and let us know about evolution, death, Jesus, the resurrection, ok?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Of course. Your failure to respond meaningfully isn't your fault. It is the fault of others. Your limited ability to debate properly and refute anything to do with evolution is also not your fault but that of others. It is my fault.

I accept it as a backhanded compliment that my posts have stymied you.

Yes. I'm not seeing anything novel here. Thank you for fulfilling my expectations.

@Eli G is making a wise choice. The more I see "moderators" and other replies, well -- the more I see. Thanks.

 

[McBell]

No, they're NOT? You know this for a FACT?
Just hoppin' along here -- bye for now...take care and let us know about evolution, death, Jesus, the resurrection, ok?

Interesting how the "GodDidIt" ones want "facts"....

 

[cladking]

I just quoted to you what I was referring to:

I've said many times that humans are like sleep walkers. We can't even see our own consciousness or reality itself directly. We see everything through a kaleidoscope of what we believe. We can't communicate with animals or even our own young."


Good grief.

Now you've changed your mind and decided that babies are "little homo sapiens who speak Ancient Language" ... ?
Mmmkay.

Most people are not able to converse with babies!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, they're NOT? You know this for a FACT?

Yes.
Genetic fact.

Just hoppin' along here -- bye for now...take care and let us know about evolution, death, Jesus, the resurrection, ok?

Que?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Most people are not able to converse with babies!

Now you've changed it yet again.
Make up your mind and get back to me.

 

[viole]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

If according to the Wright brothers theory, humans learned how to fly, what is so strange that a guy like Superman was already able to that a long time before that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

I was nanny to my sister's kids when they were babies. I can assure you, I'm aware of what babies are capable of learning.

You were the one that was just telling me that babies can't communicate. I was disagreeing with you.

"I've said many times that humans are like sleep walkers. We can't even see our own consciousness or reality itself directly. We see everything through a kaleidoscope of what we believe. We can't communicate with animals or even our own young."

Babies can understand plenty of feedback.

Too bad they can't get out of their crib and do anything about it.

 

[al_berk]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

This is another misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution and the scientific method in general. We don't deny divine or super intelligence dogmatically, we reject it as practically useless and empirically untestable. In plain words, we are not "against" the idea, we simply don't know what to do with it and how to test its reality.

I should mention, though, that there are very serious scientists, who claim that consciousness is fundamental and develop scientific (read strongly mathematical) theories of Universal Consciousness, for example, Donald Hoffman's theory of Consciousness. I'm sure you will find it very useful as it criticizes the current Theory of Evolution.

So, again, atheism is NOT about conclusions, it is about the method.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

Science does not comment on the existence of God. The supernatural is outside its purview.

 

[MikeF]

Science does not comment on the existence of God. The supernatural is outside its purview.

This colloquial expression is a common misconception. The role of scientific inquiry and science in general is as a tool of demarcation between which of our abstract thoughts are abstractions that maintain correspondence to reality, the real world, and which thoughts do not. In this regard, no human thought is outside the purview of science. In other words, it is exactly within the purview of science to assess the claimed existence of anything.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This colloquial expression is a common misconception. The role of scientific inquiry and science in general is as a tool of demarcation between which of our abstract thoughts are abstractions that maintain correspondence to reality, the real world, and which thoughts do not. In this regard, no human thought is outside the purview of science. In other words, it is exactly within the purview of science to assess the claimed existence of anything.

Science by its very nature can only investigate things that can be empirically tested. For example, it cannot test what is moral and what is not. It cannot test whether an intelligence exists outside the universe. I'm not sure why you are arguing against this. It's pretty obvious.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science by its very nature can only investigate things that can be empirically tested. For example, it cannot test what is moral and what is not. It cannot test whether an intelligence exists outside the universe. I'm not sure why you are arguing against this. It's pretty obvious.

Here's the problem as I see it: it is said that our brains evolved, right? By the Darwinian type of evolution, I hope we're not talking "cultural evolution." Obviously gorillas and chimpanzees do not have the same type brain we as humans do. Just to clarify. As a further note, I haven't spoken to a gorilla or chimpanzee about this, and they (thankfully) have not tried to communicate with me about the following, but -- (1) they haven't invented telescopes, and (2) they are not known to contemplate whether God exists or not. At least not that I know of...
Now the point: only only only humans contemplate how things got started in the universe. (I think that's telling...but...that's me and my "worldview" as i see it described here by some)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Here's the problem as I see it: it is said that our brains evolved, right? By the Darwinian type of evolution, I hope we're not talking "cultural evolution."

Cultural evolution is part of evolution. The TOE has come a long ways since Darwin, which is why it is not called Darwinianism.

Obviously gorillas and chimpanzees do not have the same type brain we as humans do.

Depends what you mean. They have neurons grouped together just like we do. They have many of the same areas in their brains that we do. But there are also differences. For example, we have more neurons, and quantity matters. We have more surface to our cerebral cortex. The language center in our brains (broca's area) are larger.

Just to clarify. As a further note, I haven't spoken to a gorilla or chimpanzee about this, and they (thankfully) have not tried to communicate with me about the following, but -- (1) they haven't invented telescopes, and

Right. It is a matter of degree. Apes certainly do make tools, but their tools are more primitive. We are comparing termite stick kits to rocket ships.

(2) they are not known to contemplate whether God exists or not. At least not that I know of...

Chimps do exhibit behaviors that if humans did those things, it would definitely be considered religious. For example, they create rock cairns at special trees. But again, it is a matter of degree. Chimps to not build temples to deities. There is no way to know what they actually contemplate.

Now the point: only only only humans contemplate how things got started in the universe. (I think that's telling...but...that's me and my "worldview" as i see it described here by some)

I am reluctant to affirm this. We simply don't know what other apes think about. The limited nature of their language (about 400 words for chimps) and the fact that we are just beginning to understand them puts serious limits on what we can know about them. But if by chance they do wonder "where things came from" it would again be a matter of degree -- it would lack the sophistication and complexity of human thought.

 

[YoursTrue]

Cultural evolution is part of evolution. The TOE has come a long ways since Darwin, which is why it is not called Darwinianism.

Depends what you mean. They have neurons grouped together just like we do. They have many of the same areas in their brains that we do. But there are also differences. For example, we have more neurons, and quantity matters. We have more surface to our cerebral cortex. The language center in our brains (broca's area) are larger.

Right. It is a matter of degree. Apes certainly do make tools, but their tools are more primitive. We are comparing termite stick kits to rocket ships.

Chimps do exhibit behaviors that if humans did those things, it would definitely be considered religious. For example, they create rock cairns at special trees. But again, it is a matter of degree. Chimps to not build temples to deities. There is no way to know what they actually contemplate.

I am reluctant to affirm this. We simply don't know what other apes think about. The limited nature of their language (about 400 words for chimps) and the fact that we are just beginning to understand them puts serious limits on what we can know about them. But if by chance they do wonder "where things came from" it would again be a matter of degree -- it would lack the sophistication and complexity of human thought.

I'm speaking of morality. And the fact that the only ones in flesh talking or wondering in words about science and/or God are humans. I conclude some things from that, others conclude differently.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm speaking of morality. And the fact that the only ones in flesh talking or wondering in words about science and/or God are humans. I conclude some things from that, others conclude differently.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm having a hard time following you. What point about morality is it that you are trying to make, and what does it have to do with evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm having a hard time following you. What point about morality is it that you are trying to make, and what does it have to do with evolution?

I realize you think the Genesis account is a myth, but I consider it truthful. So for the moment let's consider for this discussion that God was (is) the one who ultimately determines good or evil. Just for the moment. That was for humans only. Which now that I think about it is amazing. Now it is interesting that the mosaic law code outlines what the Israelites should do or not do by Law. Back then of course. At the beginning of mankind, Adam was to consider what God wanted. He was not to lean on his own concept of good and evil. Remember in the account Adam heard the voice of God before the unhappy encounter when God asked him if he did what He told him not to do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I realize you think the Genesis account is a myth, but I consider it truthful. So for the moment let's consider for this discussion that God was (is) the one who ultimately determines good or evil. Just for the moment. That was for humans only. Which now that I think about it is amazing. Now it is interesting that the mosaic law code outlines what the Israelites should do or not do by Law. Back then of course. At the beginning of mankind, Adam was to consider what God wanted. He was not to lean on his own concept of good and evil. Remember in the account Adam heard the voice of God before the unhappy encounter when God asked him if he did what He told him not to do.

Yeah, I wouldn't even know where to begin to reply, since, yes, as you say, I do not consider Gen 1-3 to be historical. I accept the Torah as the religious text of my people, and am observant, but not all of those laws have anything to do with ethics. There is nothing specifically unethical about having a wool suit with linen button holes.

I think that our capacity to think morally has evolved. The foundation for moral thought is empathy and a perception of justice. I think by and large, people make moral decisions unconsciously, and then once having made those choices, come up with conscious rationalizations why they did so. This is why you have people saying things like, "It's just so wrong. I don't know why, but it's just WRONG."

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, I wouldn't even know where to begin to reply, since, yes, as you say, I do not consider Gen 1-3 to be historical. I accept the Torah as the religious text of my people, and am observant, but not all of those laws have anything to do with ethics. There is nothing specifically unethical about having a wool suit with linen button holes.

I think that our capacity to think morally has evolved. The foundation for moral thought is empathy and a perception of justice. I think by and large, people make moral decisions unconsciously, and then once having made those choices, come up with conscious rationalizations why they did so. This is why you have people saying things like, "It's just so wrong. I don't know why, but it's just WRONG."

I'm not speaking of mixing wool and linen. OK, so the idea is so foreign to you as to the morality or sense of right and wrong (good and evil) placed by God in the Genesis account that you would not consider discussing it as written for a while. OK, thank you.

 

[sayak83]

I realize you think the Genesis account is a myth, but I consider it truthful. So for the moment let's consider for this discussion that God was (is) the one who ultimately determines good or evil. Just for the moment. That was for humans only. Which now that I think about it is amazing. Now it is interesting that the mosaic law code outlines what the Israelites should do or not do by Law. Back then of course. At the beginning of mankind, Adam was to consider what God wanted. He was not to lean on his own concept of good and evil. Remember in the account Adam heard the voice of God before the unhappy encounter when God asked him if he did what He told him not to do.

Many animals have morality. They do not do abstract reasoning about their morality. That is all.
https://www.npr.org/2014/08/15/338936897/do-animals-have-morals
Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior (Published 2007)

It is firmly established in science now that there is nothing in humans that is special or unique compared to our animal kin. What we have is a difference in quantity....like the difference between the computing power of 1980 PC and modern PC.
I do not know how your religion's theology will deal with this, but that is what it is.