|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 10/13/2005 : 11:31:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Me too! Though I don't like beer... I'll have a soft drink instead
But alas, I am too stranded in the southern hemisphere...
Well it's settled then...
PARTY at Siberia's house!
Great. I'll try to be there and I'll bring the Miller Lite, cause we all know Budweiser sucks. 
Chicago legend: In the 1890's, the Army Corps of Engineers reversed the flow of the Chicago river, sending all of Chicago's wastes downstream to St. Louis where they bottle it and send it back to us as Budweiser Beer. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 11:42:08 [Permalink]
|
I too, would like to meet up with y'all, but I fear that if it took place very far from the east coast, I couldn't make it; dat ol' debbil: $$$. Fixed incomes are a bitch.
quote:
Ah well, out on the limb I go again: the theory of evolution is so well supported by all of the available evidence found and studied thus far, it is a theory in name only, and only because of the scientific definition of 'theory'. For all practical purposes, it is a stone fact.
Now, who's gonna saw that limb off?
Sooo, no takers, eh? Didn't much think there would be; we've roasted that hog too many times before.
As mentioned, evolution's only concern, if you can call it that, it the survival of populations within a species. Exactly how the population does this is the gift[s] evolution passes on to that end. All individuals within the species might not get all of the traits the others have evolved and this might or might not put that individual at a disadvantage. If it is a grave disadvantage, those individual's prodgeny, if any, will experience a decline in breeding success and eventually die out. But that does not mean that the species itself will go into decline, merely that line and possibly the population that line is a member of.
Example: the North American Continent once had a thriving camel population as well as horses. For whatever reason(s), it no longer does. However, camels are still to be found in abundance in the Mid East and South America. Equines were confined to Europe, Asia, and Africa.
So, on the surface and looked to from a pure survival standpoint, the ant is our superior. Or is it?
As far as is known, none of the ant species that hobnobbed with the dinosaurs is in existance today. Of course, ancient ants rarely fossilized except in amber, thus no definite statement can be made. However, I suspect that our modern ants are much more diverse than they were. Evolution working again.
So, then are we superior to ants? Not from evolution's point of view, we're not. Hominids too, have suffered many extinctions on their way to the likes of G.W, Bush (and the fucker's successfully bred -- oy!). We are merely the surviving species of many; H. neandertalisis for the best known example.
Not so different from the ant, eh? Just a bit more complicated and fewer in numbers.
Therefore, here's the philosophy: we're all in it together, ants and ourselves, and neither is 'superior' to another in evolution's eye.
In the blinded eye of creation conjecture this is not so. But creationism is the product of creationists who do few observations of the natural world beyond hunting factoids in support of their previously written texts. The natural world that science studies had nothing to do with those writings and therefore, they are not even related to scientific inquiry.
Clear? Or have I gibbered again?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 11:44:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Chicago legend: In the 1890's, the Army Corps of Engineers reversed the flow of the Chicago river, sending all of Chicago's wastes downstream to St. Louis where they bottle it and send it back to us as Budweiser Beer.
Heh, I'll drink to that!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 12:06:10 [Permalink]
|
Id like to point out that it is very difficult to disprove something you dont even understand.
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE OR THE UNIVERSE BEGAN! It only applies on changing that first self-sustaining replication of a protein into other self-replicating molecular constructs and so on... |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 16:46:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
If that is true then name something that cannot be categorized in my definition of science/philosophy/mix
Your definition of science is anything that is concrete. Your definition of philosophy is anything that is abstract. And your definition of mix is anything inbetween those two.
So I challenge you this:
I will call anything that is completely red, love. Anything that is completely not red, joy. And anything that is partially red, a mix.
Find me something that isn't categorized in my definition of love/joy/mix.
what is truth? |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 17:00:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"How does this work" is a science question. "how much of this is there" is a science question.
Ask two different people "how does this work" can get you two different answers. They are not wrong in their conclusions until the scientific question "Does it work like so..." is answered with yes or no. "How much hydrogen content is the sun? I say 0%, you say 70%" The question "Is the sun 70% hydrogen?" is subject to a law.
quote:
You cannot redefine words at your leisure and then expect others to conform to your redefinition. We'll stick with the standard definitions to words as it is necessary to have common definitions of words when expressing concepts. It cuts down on misunderstandings.
I have no choice but to redefine the words, because I see a law that you don't see. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 17:03:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, we know more about how evolution works, than we know how gravity works. Evolution is more fact that gravity.
Then why is gravity considered fact and evolution a theory? Because it cannot be argued, which is why it is the LAW of gravity, a distinction that is not shared with evolution.
|
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 17:21:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Love is an abstract thought which helps procreate the species. Merely a modification of the instinct to pro-create. Why do we have this? If we didn't, we wouldn't be discussing this in the first place, since humans would be an extinct species long ago.
Millions of species in the ocean, insects, and fauna that requires insects to procreate do all of this without love. The primal urge to have sex is what procreates the species, not love. Love sometimes ends in hate, ruining procreation with your mate.
quote:
War is more than a mere competition for resources though early in the human development war was only a competition until abstract thought evolved. Now, with the "advance" of abstract thought, humans have the capability to completely wipe themselves off the planet over ideas like "religion" or "politics", not over resources (though this still plays a major role and usuall the abstract is used to cover this)
What you say is that modern man heavily relies upon emotion for today's reasons for warfare. You say abstract thought brought upon new reasons for war. It is my contention that abstract thought requires emotion for the reasons to wage war, otherwise it would be peaceful contemplation.
quote:
Evolution does not care nor has the ability to care about what happens to humans as a species. If/when humans become extinct, then another species may evolve to fill the niche. Our existence may be keeping further devlopment of sentient beings on this planet from happening.
Evolution does not care that your presence on the planet exists, and would seek to create new life regardless then. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 17:27:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I'm really getting confused on the whole lets change the meaning of commonly used terms.
I think that based on ASR's definition of science, creationism is science as illustrated by the following question.
Q Is there any proof to support creationism?
A No.
Therefore creationism is a science.
Right??
That's a fact of the theory, the theory itself is outside of the bounds of science at the moment. The question
q: Is creationism correct?
a: we don't know
Until we know for sure it will be debated, and when we do know for sure, it will be a fact...a law. |
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 17:27:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
Then why is gravity considered fact and evolution a theory? Because it cannot be argued, which is why it is the LAW of gravity, a distinction that is not shared with evolution.
You're not listening. There is also a theory of gravity, as well as laws of evolution.
The fact of gravity is that masses attract each other. The law of universal gravitation says that F=Gm1m2/d2. The theory of gravity attempts to explain why gravity exists and how it works (and is woefully incomplete). None of these are yes/no questions (parts of them could be simplistically turned into yes/no questions, though that's usually an exercise for third-graders only), but all are a part of science, which is an epistemological philosophy about the natural world. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 17:41:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ASR
quote:
Evolution does not care nor has the ability to care about what happens to humans as a species. If/when humans become extinct, then another species may evolve to fill the niche. Our existence may be keeping further devlopment of sentient beings on this planet from happening.
Evolution does not care that your presence on the planet exists, and would seek to create new life regardless then.
Exactly, because evolution is not sentient. It simply happens, as gravity happens.
P.S.: YAY PARTY |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 10/13/2005 18:06:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 17:43:52 [Permalink]
|
This stuff cracks me up...quote:
Originally posted by ASR
This is where the tables have turned, for once, you cannot refute it because you do not understand how the human brain creates an emotion.
No, you continue to refute yourself. For example:quote:
Slighted dogs philosophize leaving excrement on a pillow to exact revenge. My sister's cat became sad when my sister moved out. When my sister got dogs, she became bitter and jealous (do I like my master? No. Why don't I? Because she got dogs.) Flipper commited suicide, I saw the interview with his trainer.
And most people would call anger, sadness, bitterness, jealousy and despair emotions, not philosophies. But if you want to call them philosophies, your "equation" turns into "science + philosophy = philosophy," and a simple algebraic manipulation shows us that in your theory, "science = 0."
So, whatever it is you've got to say, science is clearly irrelevant. And it shows. You're not trying to redefine the word 'science', you're trying to redefine everything about science to turn it into a useless collection of facts instead of the tool it is for the collection of knowledge.
Science isn't a big pile of facts, kid.quote:
My problem is that who what when where why and how are not laws...
And yet, actual science is concerned with answering many of those questions.quote:
...natural law cannot construct unnatural thinking.
Prove it.quote:
God took physical form on Earth, he is a physical being.
Prove it.quote:
Otherwise, the thought of a spirit or a ghost is nothing new to science or philosophy and thus your point is mute.
You haven't demonstrated them to exist, though.quote:
If you read my argument on my website you would know that I was defining the HUMAN universe.
Ah, how terribly egocentric of you.quote:
I mentioned that we probably cannot comprehend how an alien thinks.
Thanks for agreeing with me.quote:
But with evolution you go with the facts that lead to a logical conclusion about how life began on earth, and if you examine it, it falls short of anything more than science and philosophy. This is an argument for creationism, for all the species on earth it seems unlikely that evolution will produce another form of thinking, since it hasn't yet.
Why should there be another form of thinking? What if geeblewizzit and spoofungeon are all that will ever be?quote:
If that is true then name something that cannot be categorized in my definition of science/philosophy/mix
Your definitions are confusing you, now. By defining 'science' as "hard facts," and 'philosophy' as "everything that isn't science," there's clearly no room for anything else, under your definitions. You've got all the bases covered.
But you seem to fault evolution for not being able to break out of the unbreakable box you've caged it in. Go figure that one. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 18:13:01 [Permalink]
|
I said:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the evolution of the human brain has contributed to the continued survival of the species, but as it turns out, a side affect of that is the ability to philosophize simply due to the way the construction of the brain has evolved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASR said:
quote:
An unintentional side effect of human evolution also led to the development of emotions?
Simply put, YES! Of course all results of evolution are unintended. But I did not say "emotions", as these may have some evolutionary use, but "the ability to philosophize".
quote:
Thus far no one has refuted that "Science + Philosophy = Emotion" The chemicals involved were mentioned, but something has to trigger that. The argument of creationism lies in the fat chance that emotions were an accident (even if philosophy was created by evolution, emotions are a BIG deal and that's some hardcore design going on). Pointed out to me was the need to prove evolution as a binary function. Everything evolution does seems to have a binary process (mutations, adaptation, you know more about it than I do, but I'm willing to bet that everything evolution has done is governed by natural laws, which must be true because if it weren't a law it could not exist) So we know for fact that evolution works in binary functions now, the question is can it develop philosophical functions? It would be necessary for people to have philosophy in order to love God, which is what he wanted from his children. How would evolution know that emotions, (which we will claim are necessary for survival, even though there is plenty of evidence that it is not) could be created by philosophy? Why aren't there other variations of thinking in the animal kingdom if it had to go through trial and error? All these species were wiped out? Wouldn't a race have an advantage if it could think in terms that are outside the bounds of science and philosophy? There is science based life on earth, scienctific and philosophical based life on earth, but nothing else? For all the accidental phenomina of evolution, it certainly fell short in variety.
This is all nonsense that completely ignores the argument I set forth.
So, let's make it real simple:
Your assertion:
Philosophy has no evolutionary purpose. Humans can philosophize. Therefore humans did not evolve.
My rebuttal:
Humans possess many abilities which serve no evolutionary purpose. We possess them because our physiology, which evolved based on mutation and natural selection, and does in fact serve to prolong the species, enables those abilities. For example the opposable thumb enables us to play the game of marbles, even though that ability is not why the opposable thumb evolved.
Philosophical thought is not necessary to the propagation of the species, but the physiology of the brain, which evolved to better our chance of survival through higher level thought and problem solving ability, enables us to have philosophical thoughts.
Therefore your contention that the ability to perform a function which conveys no evolutionary advantage somehow negates evolution is flawed.
Please confine your response to the above argument. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
ASR
Skeptic Friend
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 22:04:17 [Permalink]
|
Alright, I concede, I cannot disprove evolution with this theory. Keep in mind all I wanted to do was save good people such as yourselves from a dire fate. That said, I would like to continue the discussion as Science+Philosophy = Emotion.
quote:
And most people would call anger, sadness, bitterness, jealousy and despair emotions, not philosophies. But if you want to call them philosophies, your "equation" turns into "science + philosophy = philosophy," and a simple algebraic manipulation shows us that in your theory, "science = 0."
What I meant by this was that dogs must philosophize as well as think scientifically to produce an emotion, I explained that with the cat (Do I like my master? No:Why don't I like her? Because she got dogs) resulting emotion jealousy. The dog, "Am I angry at my master? Yes. Why am I angry with my master? I am being ignored." Emotion: Anger. Then "What do I do? Leave mints on the pillow. Will this show my dissatisfaction? Yes." and proceeds to follow through with revenge.
quote:
We can thank Nobel Prize Winner (1981) Roger Sperry for this next contribution. Sperry conducted what are sometimes called the "split-brain" experiments. Here's how it went: A patient suffering from uncontrolled seizures had an area of his brain removed by surgery in an attempt to control his illness. This area just happened to be the corpus collosum, which was suspected of having developed lesions (short circuits).
Following his surgery, Sperry's patient seemed completely normal -- almost. A series of tests were conducted where each "half" of the patient was isolated from the other. Different visual and tactile information could then be presented to the patient's left or right side, without the other side knowing. The results were astounding.
With their communications link severed, each side of the patient's brain was functioning independently. Although this did not prevent his ability to walk, talk and eat, some unexpected findings were encountered in some of the higher brain functions when each side was examined independently of the other.
The right hand and eye could name an object, such as a pencil, but the patient could not explain what it was used for. When shown to the left hand and eye, the patient could explain and demonstrate its use, but could not name it.
What happened here is science and philosophy. Science asks "Is this a pencil? Yes" but could not ask "What is it used for?" When the creative brain was prompted with the same pencil it could ask "What is it used for?" But could not comprehend "What is this?" because the fact had to be established witht the science thought "Is this a pencil? Yes"
Asking "What is the hydrogen content of the sun?" is a philosophical question as you can now see, since it cannot be defined by the philosophical brain without aid from the science brain which asks "Is the hydrogen content of the sun 70%?"
Now let the argument begin.
|
From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2005 : 23:23:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Millions of species in the ocean, insects, and fauna that requires insects to procreate do all of this without love. The primal urge to have sex is what procreates the species, not love. Love sometimes ends in hate, ruining procreation with your mate.
My point was the love is not this mystical thing which cannot be understood. It is simply a modification of the primal urge. Love aids humans in procreation but is not the only force. It is one reason why humans are so successfull. If humans did not love, they would still procreate.
Some birds keep the same partner for life. Do they "love" each other? If not, how do you know?
quote:
What you say is that modern man heavily relies upon emotion for today's reasons for warfare. You say abstract thought brought upon new reasons for war. It is my contention that abstract thought requires emotion for the reasons to wage war, otherwise it would be peaceful contemplation.
And so?
quote:
Evolution does not care that your presence on the planet exists, and would seek to create new life regardless then.
Damn straight. Except that it doesn't seek anything.
quote:
Keep in mind all I wanted to do was save good people such as yourselves from a dire fate.
What, pray tell, is this dire fate? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/13/2005 23:25:39 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
