To Twhitehead:
My main point was that the consensus of modern science
is that the order (sequence of events) of the emerging of
live forms basically agrees with a book that was written
thousands of years ago. I still do not see what is so false
about that statement. The Biblical account is basically like
an outline. It does not fill in the details.
RJHinds
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are dealing with a base materialist, everything that conflicts with his world view is a lie, he only knows and speaks from his own disposition.
To Twhitehead:
My main point was that the consensus of modern science
is that the order (sequence of events) of the emerging of
live forms basically agrees with a book that was written
thousands of years ago. I still do not see what is so false
about that statement. The Biblical account is basically like
an outline. It does not fill in the details.
RJHinds
“If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.”
This geologist, Wallace Pratt, also noted that the order of events, from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals, is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd my main point is: The Biblical account does not agree with science even after several attempts at fudging it by you.
To Twhitehead:
My main point was that the consensus of modern science
is that the order (sequence of events) of the emerging of
live forms basically agrees with a book that was written
thousands of years ago. I still do not see what is so false
about that statement. The Biblical account is basically like
an outline. It does not fill in the details.
RJHinds
So I will ask you again: why do you so badly want them to match?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow badly do you want to believe this process of DNA Replication involves no intelligent design ?
And my main point is: The Biblical account does not agree with science even after several attempts at fudging it by you.
So I will ask you again: why do you so badly want them to match?
&feature=related
(not a Creationist video)
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...I used the word "concerned" in the same way that you have used the word "predisposition".I know we are discussing a process and not a living entity. But there are obvious linguistic limitations in such arguments.Let us not jump on each other's language but try to see each other's point of view. After all "
I used the word "concerned" in the same way that you have used the word "predisposition".I know we are discussing a process and not a living entity. But there are obvious linguistic limitations in such arguments.Let us not jump on each other's language but try to see each other's point of view. After all "
Natural Selection" is obviously not a very good ...[text shortened]... was why this wide range of emotions developed in humans apart from their intelligence ?
Natural Selection" is obviously not a very good combination of words. ...”
fair enough 🙂
I took your meaning the wrong way.
You were giving a non-standard meaning to "concerned" just like a non-standard meaning is given to “selection” in “natural selection”.
“...Which being other than humans use such a complex language or have developed various systems to acquire and retain Knowledge and which other living being can internalize its thinking i.e.carry a dialogue with oneself inside one's brain. ...”
for all we know, dolphins and whales do this. That would be at least plausible.
“... My main point was why has a human being acquired a far bigger capacity to learn,to think, to have a fantastic range of emotions when these characteristics are NOT REQUIRED at this stage of evolution of the human being ? ...” (my emphasis)
I am not sure in what sense you mean by “ NOT REQUIRED” in the above context.
Do you mean “NOT REQUIRED” in the sense of it 'not being required' for the survival of the species?
If so, evolution does not 'know' (in the literal sense) what is required for the survival of the species so it would not respond to that EVEN if it WAS required the survival of the species!
Evolution works on the gene and individual level (although there is also often some “group selection&rdquo😉 but not directly on the whole species level.
So, to answer your question, the reason why we evolved to have “ a far bigger capacity to learn,to think, to have a fantastic range of emotions” is because there was some mutations that gave some people those things and then natural selection selected those mutations (thus they spread to the whole population) because having those mutations were advantageous in passing on genes because having the characteristics those genes gave was advantageous in passing on genes.
“...Are we not evolved enough? ...”
evolution has no concept of “ evolved enough” and so would not say to itself one day “OK, that is a good enough job, I think I can give it a rest now and stop making any more improvements or adaptations”. Evolution would inevitably and automatically just keep making adaptations no matter how well evolved/adapted a living thing is already.
“...Humans cry,laugh,are happy or unhappy,they are sullen,angry,loving,full of devotion, they blush from pleasure or from shame,they are contrary or cooperative,creative or violently anti-artistic etc. Which Animal has this range of emotions ? ..”
possibly dolphins whales and elephants have a similar range of emotions albeit not necessarily exactly the same emotions.
“...My point was why this wide range of emotions developed in humans apart from their intelligence ? ...”
Just like in other animals, those emotions leads to the kind of behaviour that generally helps with passing on genes.
Originally posted by jaywillI watched:
How badly do you want to believe this process of DNA Replication involves no intelligent design ?
[b] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jtmOZaIvS0&feature=related
(not a Creationist video)[/b]
&feature=related
it is a good video 🙂 (although I found it a bit difficult to hear the commentary without turning the volume up full-pelt ) .
But how does it show/imply intelligent design?
All that complexity (if it is the complexity you are referring to) is just what you would expect as a result of evolution that has no limit on how much complexity it can create (if you refute this, then what is the barrier that puts a limit on the amount of complexity evolution can produce? ) and naturally repeatedly adds one layer of complexity on top of another.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy can't you just admit you were wrong? It is blatantly obvious that you were wrong. You said birds came before land animals. This is quite definitely not the view that science takes. Is it one of your religious tenets that the Bible agrees with science? Would the Bible be proved wrong if it disagreed with science on this point? I really don't get why it is so important to you that they agree with each other. Why can't science be wrong?
To robbie carrobie:
Thank! I guess there is no point in continuing
on the subject with him.
RJHinds
Originally posted by twhiteheadbirds are reptiles, reptiles came before mammals, so strictly speaking he is not wrong. Though don't let the facts get in the way of what you have already made your mind up on.
Why can't you just admit you were wrong? It is blatantly obvious that you were wrong. You said birds came before land animals. This is quite definitely not the view that science takes. Is it one of your religious tenets that the Bible agrees with science? Would the Bible be proved wrong if it disagreed with science on this point? I really don't get why it is so important to you that they agree with each other. Why can't science be wrong?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThanks for the reply ! Although the part about" mutations were advantageous in passing on the genes----in passing on the genes" is wonderfully circular leaving a less evolved being like me in total confusion. Please do clarify.
“...I used the word "concerned" in the same way that you have used the word "predisposition".I know we are discussing a process and not a living entity. But there are obvious linguistic limitations in such arguments.Let us not jump on each other's language but try to see each other's point of view. After all "
Natural Selection" is obviously not a ...[text shortened]... otions leads to the kind of behaviour that generally helps with passing on genes.
I have assumed that evolutionary process has a Logic embedded in it and follows a structure. Darwin and others seem to suggest that from primordial beings, more complex beings developed because there was a directive thrust( at least the thrust to proliferate) in that process.Now that humans have dominated this planet (and in fact wiped out wholesale any number of species because of the human activities),the thrust should have died out,as further development esp. in the area of Intelligence and Emotions was not needed . Perhaps the word "evolution " is overly evocative and needs to be changed to" Random mutations going around in circles or other erratic paths having no connection between generations".
Originally posted by DowardBirds are not reptiles and reptiles are not birds. He is wrong and so are you.
birds are reptiles, reptiles came before mammals, so strictly speaking he is not wrong. Though don't let the facts get in the way of what you have already made your mind up on.
I ask you the same question: why is it so important to you that the Bible agrees with science? Couldn't science be wrong?
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...Although the part about" mutations were advantageous in passing on the genes----in passing on the genes" is wonderfully circular leaving a less evolved being like me in total confusion. Please do clarify. ...”
Thanks for the reply ! Although the part about" mutations were advantageous in passing on the genes----in passing on the genes" is wonderfully circular leaving a less evolved being like me in total confusion. Please do clarify.
I have assumed that evolutionary process has a Logic embedded in it and follows a structure. Darwin and others seem to sugges going around in circles or other erratic paths having no connection between generations".
yes, I made a misprint:
the whole sentence was:
“...because having those mutations were advantageous in passing on genes because having the characteristics those genes gave was advantageous in passing on genes. ...”
I made a misprint here and it should have been:
“...because having those mutations were advantageous in passing on genes because having the characteristics those mutations gave was advantageous in passing on genes. ...”
now this is not circular.
“...Now that humans have dominated this planet (and in fact wiped out wholesale any number of species because of the human activities),the thrust should have died out ...”
No, evolution does not suddenly stop just because a species becomes dominate. Evolution does not even “know” (in the literal sense) when a species has become dominate so it would not respond to that.
“...as further development esp. in the area of Intelligence and Emotions was NOT NEEDED . ...”(my emphasis)
Evolution does not “know” (in the literal sense of the word) when or where something is “ NOT NEEDED” and so would not directly respond to this. Natural selection simply would continually select for advantageous mutations and therefore advantageous changes REGARDLESS of whether they are really “NEEDED” in some sense! This is because natural selection is an automatic process with no defined “off” button.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou really ought to stop claiming these things and accept that your belief is based on faith alone. Besides, if there were such corroborating evidence, your faith would be debased.
... the Biblical stories have corroborating scientific, historical, archaeological and sociological evidence...
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI will do no such thing! There is a plethora of archaeological evidence which backs up the Biblical accounts, as well as cultural and historical. From observable science we draw many inferences which you cannot disprove. Indeed, faith is not the same as mere belief, the Bible itself alludes to this,
You really ought to stop claiming these things and accept that your belief is based on faith alone. Besides, if there were such corroborating evidence, your faith would be debased.
(Hebrews 11:1) . . .Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.
Please note the phrase, 'evident demonstration of realities', which is indicative of the need for faith to be substantiated. You really out to stop assuming that a Christians faith is blind acceptance for nothing could be further from the truth.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI will do no such thing! There is a plethora of archaeological evidence which backs up the Biblical accounts, as well as cultural and historical. From observable science we draw many inferences which you cannot disprove. Indeed, faith is not the same as mere belief, the Bible itself alludes to this,
I will do no such thing! There is a plethora of archaeological evidence which backs up the Biblical accounts, as well as cultural and historical. From observable science we draw many inferences which you cannot disprove. Indeed, faith is not the same as mere belief, the Bible itself alludes to this,
(Hebrews 11:1) . . .Faith is the assured expe ...[text shortened]... uming that a Christians faith is blind acceptance for nothing could be further from the truth.
There is no archaeological or historical evidence supporting anything other than the most mundane details of the stories disseminated in the bible. What do you mean by 'cultural' evidence? I don't understand the purpose of the 'science' sentence. To you, faith and 'mere' belief are different. To me, not so much.
(Hebrews 11:1) . . .Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.
Please note the phrase, 'evident demonstration of realities', which is indicative of the need for faith to be substantiated. You really out to stop assuming that a Christians faith is blind acceptance for nothing could be further from the truth.
The best place to go for word definitions is a dictionary, not scripture.
(Faith, according to TheFreeDictionary.com)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Ok, I'll grant you that when we're talking about 'a' faith, it's a bit different from 'mere' belief. More like 'a set of' 'mere' beliefs. The loyalty-based definition is the only part of that which you could reasonably argue didn't constitute 'mere' belief - is that what you're getting at?