-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Rejecting evolution with science...
- Thread starter DJ...
- Start date
porchrat
Honorary Master
I don't know but I'm not taking you up on one of those R10 bets.
Arthur
Honorary Master
Haven't read the thread, but everyone in any case should read David Stove's writings on Darwinism, esp Darwinian Fairytales. Iconoclastic Australian atheist philosopher and lover/defender of science. It's a delightful read and a real eye-opener.
DrJohnZoidberg
Honorary Master
Only thing is that Stove didn't reject evolution.
You are right. He rejected Darwinism. Read Dawkins, he is a proponent of Darwinism (e.g. God Delusion).
I'm on the one extreme whereby, despite evidence or lack thereof, I don't see how it is possible to reject evolution. To me there is simply no other way.
From a layman's outside perspective barely keen on the subject I have still seen mounds of evidence to support evolution. So much so that at this point it can only be argued on a level that exceeds my basic understanding of biological processes (which I gained from High School) so who am I to interject or add any value to it?
That aside though, I still don't understand how evolution is outright denied by some.
I have no trouble seeing the connections presented in the theory. I have no trouble understanding how creatures have adapted in their environment in every form or fashion via this process. I have no trouble whatsoever understanding human consciousness and psychology fundamentally based on survival and (vis-à-vis?) evolution. I have no trouble understanding animal and social behavior owing itself to this process as well. I have no trouble understanding how speciation occurs and the "gaps" between them. I may not even have much difficulty, given enough time to research, understanding how advanced organs are formed. I'm a bloody IT Consultant not a biology professor
So either I must be horribly wrong or it just isn't that difficult to grasp.
The only counter argument to evolution is of course from whatever religion is imposed. Most of which I think implies that life as we know it in all its form and glory just popped into existence at the whim of a creator for a purpose unknown and not meant to be known by life itself. At this point I shrug and walk off. I don't find this discussion interesting anymore.
At the very best you might say that evolution is directed by a higher power, but then you still have a long way to go to prove this as well. Usually it comes down to if you believe that a higher power is necessary. I honestly don't think so but this is a headache on its own to talk about.
I will however still try to respect the arguments against evolution but at this point I honestly just don't see how anyone can strongly deny evolution. In my mind there is no alternative that presents a more realistic case.
From a layman's outside perspective barely keen on the subject I have still seen mounds of evidence to support evolution. So much so that at this point it can only be argued on a level that exceeds my basic understanding of biological processes (which I gained from High School) so who am I to interject or add any value to it?
That aside though, I still don't understand how evolution is outright denied by some.
I have no trouble seeing the connections presented in the theory. I have no trouble understanding how creatures have adapted in their environment in every form or fashion via this process. I have no trouble whatsoever understanding human consciousness and psychology fundamentally based on survival and (vis-à-vis?) evolution. I have no trouble understanding animal and social behavior owing itself to this process as well. I have no trouble understanding how speciation occurs and the "gaps" between them. I may not even have much difficulty, given enough time to research, understanding how advanced organs are formed. I'm a bloody IT Consultant not a biology professor
So either I must be horribly wrong or it just isn't that difficult to grasp.The only counter argument to evolution is of course from whatever religion is imposed. Most of which I think implies that life as we know it in all its form and glory just popped into existence at the whim of a creator for a purpose unknown and not meant to be known by life itself. At this point I shrug and walk off. I don't find this discussion interesting anymore.
At the very best you might say that evolution is directed by a higher power, but then you still have a long way to go to prove this as well. Usually it comes down to if you believe that a higher power is necessary. I honestly don't think so but this is a headache on its own to talk about.
I will however still try to respect the arguments against evolution but at this point I honestly just don't see how anyone can strongly deny evolution. In my mind there is no alternative that presents a more realistic case.
RiaX
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Messages
- 8,180
- Reaction score
- 4,501
that sir is the power of faith ... no amount of evidence can remove it to some.
Its not. You can practically prove it with bacteria. Ive done antibiotic testing in the lab and when the concentration is below minimum inhibition concentration the bacteria develop (evolve) new enzymes and new biological pathways can they actually begin to "eat" the antibiotic.
Again see above to why its so difficult. Faith tends to kill intelligence and this is true in science as well a scientist with blind faith in their own work is a useless scientist.
this is not a counter argument it could actually be true. It can be true is the creator of life is an advanced life form itself, like how we are able to clone and manipulate DNA/genes it is plausible with sufficient mastery of biology one could create life - however this will still not be a all powerful omnipotent being.
as aurther c clark said "any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic"
I agree. Even if this "god" created everything that does not mean evolution cannot proceed, only a person who completely misunderstands evolution will claim this.
The world isn't so black and white as you make it appear. You really should get out of that hole and realise that a person's beliefs are separate from the facts. Someone doesn't need to reject something to admit there are valid criticisms of it.
That's because you're not really listening to the counter arguments. Granted that's because of one particular group on here.
Well that's just it, you don't have trouble seeing it because that's what you believe. But none of that is based on evidence but on numerous assumptions that have been made. It all comes down to having faith no matter which view you have.I have no trouble seeing the connections presented in the theory. I have no trouble understanding how creatures have adapted in their environment in every form or fashion via this process. I have no trouble whatsoever understanding human consciousness and psychology fundamentally based on survival and (vis-à-vis?) evolution. I have no trouble understanding animal and social behavior owing itself to this process as well. I have no trouble understanding how speciation occurs and the "gaps" between them. I may not even have much difficulty, given enough time to research, understanding how advanced organs are formed. I'm a bloody IT Consultant not a biology professor
There are plenty of non-religious counter arguments. Why is this such a hard reality to accept? If God exists it is a very real possibility. Just shrugging it off seems more like personal incredulity.
SaiyanZ
Executive Member
Jonnstar, if you value your sanity, do not bother responding to Swa. We all know he is cookoo. What you said made perfect sense.
Says you.
Well RiaX, you talk about baby sitting but it seems that I am the one who must babysit you. There is a difference between evidence and extrapolations you make based on that evidence. Perhaps if you learn to differentiate the map from the territory you will learn to be unbiased. Let us recap, you said:
Can you please point to evidence assigning motivation to the brains activity? Show evidence that the brain does this 'to maintain your thinking aspect and sanity'. And don't tell me to go find it, because it doesn't exist and I'm not one for wild goose chases.
Then, you went on to say:
Once again, please provide evidence that the concept of infinity/eternity and death are essential for survival. You used the correct words when you said 'believe it or not' because that's what it comes down to - belief - these are statements of faith
that you are making, not science. There is no empirical evidence to support your assertion that the concept of infinity/eternity and death are essential for survival. Nor is there evidence that the brain will activate this line of thought for self preservation.
Then you go on to post this video:
Well, I'm not sure how you think this supports any of your assertions. It shows that when the researcher stimulates parts of the brain with weak fluctuating magnetic fields, then the subject experienced presences in the room that apparently were not there.
It doesn't say anything about what is going on there. Is the brain really seeing presences that are not there? Is the brain opening up to presences that are there but not normally sensed in ordinary waking states? It doesn't answer these kinds of questions at all.
Aside from that you chose an example of pseudo-science to prove your point! Well done! You shouldn't believe everything you see on youtube RiaX:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
RiaX
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Messages
- 8,180
- Reaction score
- 4,501
Its how the brain works. Its the mirrored side of logic in the right hemisphere of the brain. LOL you asking for "evidence" in neuroscience how cute.
because those are daft questions. Just because you can formulate a question does not mean it warrants an answer or has a right to an answer. The is nothing there fact. Again showing your lack of understanding WRT to the brain. Do you think when you look with your eyes your brain interprets everything the eyes see ? what you think you see in real time is actually rebuilt using memory.
Anyways its far more plausible that the brain creates these bodies by stimulation of its tissue rather than being able to sense a being actually present in some strange state. So no the brain isnt opening anything its creating, it does this in extreme stress (flight or fight response) hence the white light and all the rubbish people claim when they close to death, they arent lying (this is dubbed as the god delusion). As far as the human senses are subject to the interpretation of the CNS the digital camera isnt.
Yes, you asked for an example so I presented a single experimental model in progress thats at the frontier of the question, obviously there will be issues with it HENCE WHY ITS AN EXPERIMENT.
as I said "HERE IS AN EXPERIMENT" ... that is all i said.
Furthermore its not some random youtube video, its a clip taken from into the wormhole shown on discovery channel and the person in the video is actually a neurologist and is an A-rated scientist within the field of neurology.
oh yes wikipedia is totally an acceptable source to say a neurologist who has an international rank and published works is wrong
.. he could be but you need equally strong academic works that STRONGLY disagree. However with the flight and fight response i mentioned earlier good luck finding it.
Last edited:
In other words, you don't have evidence, can't point me to any evidence so will resort to just telling me the answer is 'because I said so' and then tell me I'm cute which, despite being true, is totally irrelevant... OK.
Just as I thought, no evidence.
In other words, you have no answer for me so you'll call my questions stupid, tell me it doesn't warrant an answer and call me stupid in the hope that I'll forget you don't have any answers.... Okay, as I thought, you have nothing
And throw in some stuff about the brain rebuliding from memory like that's relevant to anything....
I was asking for evidence, not your opinion on what is plausible or not. Your opinion reflects the paradigm you are operating in, it doesn't prove anything.
Ah yes back pedal faster why don't you. You gave me that EXPERIMENT in response to my request for EVIDENCE.Yes, you asked for an example so I presented a single experimental model in progress thats at the frontier of the question, obviously there will be issues with it HENCE WHY ITS AN EXPERIMENT.
as I said "HERE IS AN EXPERIMENT" ... that is all i said.
Furthermore its not some random youtube video, its a clip taken from into the wormhole shown on discovery channel and the person in the video is actually a neurologist and is an A-rated scientist within the field of neurology.
oh yes wikipedia is totally an acceptable source to say a neurologist who has an international rank and published works is wrong
The fact that it comes from wikipedia is irrelevant, the point is no-one has been able to reproduce his results
- that's all...
RiaX
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Messages
- 8,180
- Reaction score
- 4,501
sigh ... you cant converse equally WRT to neuroscience.
First lets start with the basics. Define the type of evidence you want unfortunately the brain doesnt work on languages it works on chemical messengers so first reformulate your question WRT to neurochemistry
First lets start with the basics. Define the type of evidence you want unfortunately the brain doesnt work on languages it works on chemical messengers so first reformulate your question WRT to neurochemistry
Smile and wave boys, smile and wave.....
