Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You do not want to be taken seriously, now do you?

That is not reasoning. It is all just transparant debating tactics, all attitude with the goal of running knowledge about how choosing works into the ground.

That's the truth, and as you can see on the wiki on free will, this practise is very widespread.

How can it be that on the one hand anybody uneducated can efficiently and to practical effect talk in terms of choosing, but then on the other hand the answer to the question; how does choosing work, what is the logical structure of it, be such a mess as you can see on the wiki on free will?

The answer is there is something hihgly emotive about this issue of choosing, and that emotional aspect is people's desire to know as fact what is good and evil. People desire very much to know as fact what is good and evil, however this does not work with the concept of choosing as it is in common discourse. When you posit good and evil as fact, then the facts about what is good and evil act as sortingcriteria, you get a logic of sorting and calculating a result, without the possibility that any alternative option is made the present.

And evolution theory is the catalyst for this original sin of knowledge of good and evil. Evolution theory is phrased in social darwinian terminology of organisms "struggling for" survival, resulting in differential reproductive "succes". That gives the appearance that what organisms "like" is measurable as fact, that love is measurable as fact, and the derived good and evil are measurable as fact as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is not reasoning.

In many circunstances it would not be. Here it is. Unfortunately.

 

[Valjean]

It's 100 percent an attitude problem on your part. You try to get rid of all knowledge about how things are chosen. That is how you don't understand how choosing works.

My only attitude is one of frustration. I tell you I don't understand what you mean by this "choosing" and you refuse to explain yourself. Do you think I'm lying when I tell you I don't understand you?
It's your fault if I don't understand, because you won't explain your meaning even after repeated requests. You just keep repeating the same gobbledygook.

By "choosing" are you talking about natural selection?
Why aren't you answering my question about why there are so many species?

Suggestion: Write your explanations in your native language and we'll try Google Translate.

 

[Valjean]

="Mohammad Nur Syamsu,

The answer is there is something hihgly emotive about this issue of choosing, and that emotional aspect is people's desire to know as fact what is good and evil. People desire very much to know as fact what is good and evil, however this does not work with the concept of choosing as it is in common discourse. When you posit good and evil as fact, then the facts about what is good and evil act as sortingcriteria, you get a logic of sorting and calculating a result, without the possibility that any alternative option is made the present.

Biologists and "evolutionists," unlike creationists, are not highly emotive. Our beliefs have nothing to do with emotion, only a critical analysis of observed facts.
Good and evil have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolutionists do not think about good and evil. It is irrelevant.

And evolution theory is the catalyst for this original sin of knowledge of good and evil. Evolution theory is phrased in social darwinian terminology of organisms "struggling for" survival, resulting in differential reproductive "succes". That gives the appearance that what organisms "like" is measurable as fact, that love is measurable as fact, and the derived good and evil are measurable as fact as well.

Evolution theory has nothing to do with "knowledge of good and evil. Where do you come up with such ridiculous connections?

Muhammad, you seem to have a very poor understanding of the mechanisms of evolution.
If you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution, what do you believe in?
How did all the different species get here? Magic?

 

[Valjean]

="Mohammad Nur Syamsu,

If I ask 10 evolutionists how choosing works, I get 10 different ideas, and when I ask them a week later, each of them will have a different idea about it again.

You are obviously not talking to anyone who understands the ToE. Everyone who understands evolution agrees on it's basic mechanisms. EVERYONE!. There is no disagreement, anywhere in the world.

Like an automobile engine. Everyone who understands mechanics agrees about how it works. Everyone, everywhere.
The only people who believe cars move by magic and by choosing good over evil are those who have no understanding of mechanics.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Biologists and "evolutionists," unlike creationists, are not highly emotive. Our beliefs have nothing to do with emotion, only a critical analysis of observed facts.
Good and evil have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolutionists do not think about good and evil. It is irrelevant.


Evolution theory has nothing to do with "knowledge of good and evil. Where do you come up with such ridiculous connections?

Muhammad, you seem to have a very poor understanding of the mechanisms of evolution.
If you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution, what do you believe in?
How did all the different species get here? Magic?

See how they all fall down for the enormous temptation offered by Iblis, his knowledge of good and evil, and become irrational, hot under the collar, screechy.

One can see, very openly, the deep problems people have with understanding how choosing works, on the wiki on free will. What a mess it is, how sinful people are. We are only living on God's mercy.

The basic logic of how choosing works is about as simple as... the rules of tic-tac-toe? And whatsmore....we all already know the rules in a way, in using the logic correctly in common discourse in daily life. It seems impossible that we can fail to know how choosing works, and yet........

 

[Shad]

See how they all fall down for the enormous temptation offered by Iblis, his knowledge of good and evil, and become irrational, hot under the collar, screechy.

One can see, very openly, the deep problems people have with understanding how choosing works, on the wiki on free will. What a mess it is, how sinful people are. We are only living on God's mercy.

The basic logic of how choosing works is about as simple as... the rules of tic-tac-toe? And whatsmore....we all already know the rules in a way, in using the logic correctly in common discourse in daily life. It seems impossible that we can fail to know how choosing works, and yet........

So in order to substantiate your position you must invoke unfalsifiable magic and magical people. Well the great unicorn of Neptune says differently.

The average person has little knowledge of logic. Instead they use instinct, common sense (which is more often wrong than right) and intrusion (which is more often wrong that right). You confuse these 3 with logic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So in order to substantiate your position you must invoke unfalsifiable magic and magical people. Well the great unicorn of Neptune says differently.

The average person has little knowledge of logic. Instead they use instinct, common sense (which is more often wrong than right) and intrusion (which is more often wrong that right). You confuse these 3 with logic.

.....you use the same logic of choosing in your discourse as anybody else. But when you start to talk about what this structure actually is that you yourself use, then you will just write nonsense.

 

[Shad]

.....you use the same logic of choosing in your discourse as anybody else. But when you start to talk about what this structure actually is that you yourself use, then you will just write nonsense.

Negative, I am pointing out your errors if you think people actually use formal logic in their choices. Throughout history humanity has shown it rarely does. As I said you confuse common sense with logic. Common sense has been repeatedly proven wrong. "Common sense" is often the bias of a particular system of thought against all other unsubscribed systems., it is based on indoctrination of the social system(s). You are the prime example since you reject well established ideas and theories for outdated ideas. You have failed to establish any reason for your "common sense" views beyond empty statements.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Negative, I am pointing out your errors if you think people actually use formal logic in their choices. Throughout history humanity has shown it rarely does. As I said you confuse common sense with logic. Common sense has been repeatedly proven wrong. "Common sense" is often the bias of a particular system of thought against all other unsubscribed systems., it is based on indoctrination of the social system(s). You are the prime example since you reject well established ideas and theories for outdated ideas. You have failed to establish any reason for your "common sense" views beyond empty statements.

I said "discourse". In the way they talk about things, people use a structure. For example when talking in terms of "choosing" people will generally always refer to 2 or more alternative futures. For instance when talking about choosing a president people refer to Clinton can become president, or Huckabee.

And you can figure these things out yourself, if you just change your horrible attitude.

 

[Shad]

I said "discourse". In the way they talk about things, people use a structure. For example when talking in terms of "choosing" people will generally always refer to 2 or more alternative futures. For instance when talking about choosing a president people refer to Clinton can become president, or Huckabee.

And you can figure these things out yourself, if you just change your horrible attitude.

Most choice do not involve a discourse or a methodology of discourse. Most actions are based on intuition thus it is the basic but flawed starting point.

Your example has issues. People evaluate what both candidates have to offer, their plans, records and support in comparison to the voters views. This is the sort of categorizing you are against. Next time use an example you were not vocally against earlier in this thread.

 

[jtartar]

Philibo,
Very few people have had the time or the inclination to research information about evolution. If you really take the time, you will find that evolution is a colossal joke. There is not a matchbook of fossil record to support it.
First, what many people think is evolution, is really just different adaptations within a kind, and not one Kind evolving into another Kind, called Ontogenesis, Ontogenetics. Are you aware of the many years that scientist tried every way possible, under the sun to cause the, to cause the Tsetse Fly to show ant evidence of evolution. These flies reproduce in just a few days, so they were able to cause several generations of the flies in a few months. They caused different colored flies, larger flies, smaller flies, but all were still nothing but Tsetse Flies, even though they showes many differences, caused by development within their Kind.
There is something that does not allow evolution, called Prestabolism. This genetic Law is stated several times in the first chapter of Genesis, where the Bible states that all living things, plant and animal, will reproduce, After it's Kind, Gen 1:11,12, twice, 21,twice, 24, twice, 25. This is a law that God put in all things, so that mankind would be able to trust that what they planted was certain, and what they breeder was certain to be of the same Kind.
There are some interesting arguments, some being quite funny, such as; Which came first, the chicken or the egg???
One of the most comical is A term, Homoplasy. Can you imagine how something could wait for un told years, as they evolve along, unknown to each other, until they were matured and were able to mate. Real silly!!!
Another thing; imagine all the animal kingdom evolving over millions of years. There would be NO definite kinds, with everything evolving into higher Kind. This is NOT the case!!! Every fossil found when tested has differentiation, so that scientists are certain what the specimin is.
People who do not want to believe in God perpetuate this great lie, because they say, the only alternative to evolution is creation, and this is impossible to accept.
When Charles Darwin went to the Galápagos Islands aboard the Beagle, he made several statements that would need to be true, for his theory to be accurate. One was the fossil record would have to prove evolution. It does Not. Fossils have been found further underground than would seem to be the case, and many are found to near the surface. There is not a continuous evolution that can be found in the fossil record.
Another thing he said; for some new part of an animal to be, it would need the part. Let us compare the Giraffe and the sheep. These are relatives; can you say that one survived because it had a long neck? While the othe survived because it had a short neck?? Preposterous!!!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Philibo,
Very few people have had the time or the inclination to research information about evolution. If you really take the time, you will find that evolution is a colossal joke

Typically individuals that attempt to refute evolution are gravely misguided in their education of what evolution is. You have already shown this with your second sentence. I doubt that you have done any legitimate education on the subject from sources that are credible. If you have some sources of your education then please link me to them.

There is not a matchbook of fossil record to support it.

Are you aware of the fossils that we do have? As an estimate how many known fossils have we collected? How many fossils would be required to create a "matchbook" in your opinion?

First, what many people think is evolution, is really just different adaptations within a kind, and not one Kind evolving into another Kind, called Ontogenesis, Ontogenetics. Are you aware of the many years that scientist tried every way possible, under the sun to cause the, to cause the Tsetse Fly to show ant evidence of evolution. These flies reproduce in just a few days, so they were able to cause several generations of the flies in a few months. They caused different colored flies, larger flies, smaller flies, but all were still nothing but Tsetse Flies, even though they showes many differences, caused by development within their Kind.

Ontogenesis is actually the study of the development and origin of a organism from inception to birth but in some cases actually involve the study of its changes throughout its entire lifespan. What you were trying to say is speciation.

There is something that does not allow evolution, called Prestabolism. This genetic Law is stated several times in the first chapter of Genesis, where the Bible states that all living things, plant and animal, will reproduce, After it's Kind, Gen 1:11,12, twice, 21,twice, 24, twice, 25. This is a law that God put in all things, so that mankind would be able to trust that what they planted was certain, and what they breeder was certain to be of the same Kind.

This is not a true genetic law nor is it a biological fact. All evidence supports the contrary of this. But to repeat there is no evidence of what you are referencing and after doing a few quick searches I can't even find a scientific paper using the word.

There are some interesting arguments, some being quite funny, such as; Which came first, the chicken or the egg???

I don't know why this is silly. The egg was an evolutionary adaptation well prior to the chicken.

One of the most comical is A term, Homoplasy. Can you imagine how something could wait for un told years, as they evolve along, unknown to each other, until they were matured and were able to mate. Real silly!!!
Another thing; imagine all the animal kingdom evolving over millions of years. There would be NO definite kinds, with everything evolving into higher Kind. This is NOT the case!!! Every fossil found when tested has differentiation, so that scientists are certain what the specimin is.

Homoplasy is actually a very interesting subject that I have studied prior. Given the incentives of the environment there have been several different adaptations that seem to be imminent rather than accidental. This actually strengthens the argument that similar environments will shape similar characteristics Also there is no "higher kind". There are no "kinds". A species is just the most recent classification we can add to something. The scientific name takes the genus and the species name. Then you can go up one farther all the way till the most basic which would be eukaryotes and and prokaryotes

People who do not want to believe in God perpetuate this great lie, because they say, the only alternative to evolution is creation, and this is impossible to accept.
When Charles Darwin went to the Galápagos Islands aboard the Beagle, he made several statements that would need to be true, for his theory to be accurate. One was the fossil record would have to prove evolution. It does Not. Fossils have been found further underground than would seem to be the case, and many are found to near the surface. There is not a continuous evolution that can be found in the fossil record.
Another thing he said; for some new part of an animal to be, it would need the part. Let us compare the Giraffe and the sheep. These are relatives; can you say that one survived because it had a long neck? While the othe survived because it had a short neck?? Preposterous!!!

1) The fossil record on all accounts does support evolution. There is no cross sections of species that do not belong in their timezone. It would take just one modern animal fossil to be found in the lower depths of the earth and it would throw the whole theory into question. This has never happened. Every single fossil without fail has fallen into the record more or less as predicted.

2) Different populations will face different environments. The long neck of the Girraffee evolved from the steadily increasing height of the leaves that acted as the main sustenance of their diet. A sheep for example eats mostly hay and grass. It has developed another advantage that was different. Also the genetic changes are not set. There are very rare cases of homoplasy but the vast majority are unique to species or genus.

 

[Mohsen]

Typically individuals that attempt to refute evolution are gravely misguided in their education of what evolution is.

No.

DEBATE: Is Darwinian Evolution a Fact? - Aron Ra & Subboor Ahmad

Peace

 

[gnostic]

Godobeyer, Your question expresses a profound truth. The fossil record has consistently illustrated that the theory of evolution is invalid. Despite a few disproven claims, no fossil of any creature in transition from one species to another has ever been found. Even in the very oldest layers of strata, fossils of plants and animals are of creatures that first appeared on earth in their distinct, specialized forms.

You tried to tell that to your Pope.

Pope Francis is better educated in science than all past popes before him, and he accepted that the evolution is a well-substantiated theory.

FYI, a theory that is "well-substantiated" mean there are verifiable empirical EVIDENCES for evolution.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, I just realised that you have revived an old thread, Mohsen.

 

[Mohsen]

Oh, I just realised that you have revived an old thread, Mohsen.

Yes, necro bumping due to the interesting discourse within. The video I linked herein, is one which I have taken personal benefit from in terms of understanding the polemic between theistic and atheistic POV surrounding evolution. I felt the video had to be shared, gnostic. Hopefully it can revive an already amazing yet somewhat dead thread with plenty more opinion and debate.

Peace