Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Under Scrutiny


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#61 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 28 October 2005 - 02:16 PM

Not only every "fork", but the entire line leading up to the species, which must have been hundreds or thousands of species, am I to presume? Are you suggesting, then, that transitional species have to all go to extinction? That would mean that every micromutational occurance was dominant and penetrated the entire species. Is this the going theory?


The lines between species need not represent individual species, just changes that have occured between the old species and the new one. An example would be the species' average height increasing. This is happening in humans (at least in N.A.) but i'm sure you wouldn't consider the humans from 100 years ago a different species than those living today.

Evolution has never been observed, only inferred. [please don't counter with an example such as industrial melanism or sickle cell anemia... I'm talking about the kind of evolution that supposedly leads to new species.


These are examples of mutations. I've given examples of speciation already and nearly been banned for equivocating. I'm not going to do it again.

#62 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2005 - 11:43 AM

On the subject of transitional species, why is it that the evolutionary tree of life shows a total absense of them?  It they existed by the billions in the past, why is there no evidence of them today?  You suppose that  and ostrich or flying lemur may be evolving toward something else, but there is nothing today that is transitional between a flying lemur and some lower form.  Chance said on one of his posts that there is no reason for transitional species to become extinct.  Try doing a google search on evolutionary tree of life, and you will see no animal leading up to another.  Everything is a peripheral branch with a hypothetical common ancestor.

View Post


From what I've read, there are something like 400,000 named fossil species, so if you were to see a tree of life with all the named fossils it would have some 400,000 names, with a few hundred added each year. A full chart of all of the proposed lines would be rather cluttered. For some species that fossilize well and were widespread over millions of years, the fossil record is pretty good. We have, for example, some 10,000 species of trilobite. The trilobites in the lower layers had no eyes or "relatively" simple eyes. The trilobites in the higher levels have more complex eyes with larger number of ommatidia. One should also remember that you need to be quite well trained to 'prove' that an unusual looking trilobite is not one of the 10,000 already named. Paleontologists also argue a lot about these cladograms (the trees for a collection of species).

The second issue worth mentioning, is the very very clear evidence of speciation following great extinctions. For example, the greatest extinction event was the Permian extinction. At this Permian layer of rock, we suddenly see 96% of all marine species vanish (and 90% of all species), never to be seen in the fossil record again in higher levels (this marked the end of all trilobites, for example). This is true across the planet. Scientists are continuing to speculate what caused this but the large spike in carbon dioxide leads some scientists to propose a form of runaway global warming.

I have no idea how young earth creationists explain this.

Following the extinction, we find a number of layers of rock with almost no life (at least we haven't found where on the planet the surviving species survived), followed by increasing numbers animals, and an increasing numbers of new species. We start to see the first evidence of dinosaur like species, with increasing size and diversity as we move through higher and higher rock. This is true across the planet and easily verified by anyone with the time, the inclination, and a rock hammer.

A large proportion of dinosaurs (and a relatively large number of land animals over all) were buried in volcanic ash. The ash both killed many dinosaurs and preserved their fossils by cutting off oxygen and preserving carcass from predation.

Again, I have no idea how a young earth creationist explains these large volcanic layers. The size and of some of the volcanic layers are truely astonishing. The Siberian and Deccan trappes are tens of thousands of cubic miles of flood basalt on top of earlier geological layers, with further geological layers on top.

The KT boundary, is a black layer of sooty material found all across the planet as well. Above this layer, we do not find dinosaurs. 50% of all species present below this layer vanish at this point from the fossil record. Before this layer we don't find any modern mammals. The layer has a high level of irridium in it, and this along with a wide range of other lines of evidence (large forest fires, an unusual layer of mineral spherules, a large crater from this geologic period in the Yucatan), have led to the current theories of an asteroid that ended the era of the dinosuars.
http://www.cnn.com/2...tion=cnn_latest

Immediately above the KT layer, we find little life all across the planet. But again, as with the Permian layer, as we start to find fossils, we start to see new species with increasing diversity. Mammals in the early layers start out relatively small, with increasing sizes in the later layers (e.g., only small horse like animals in the early layers - and with toes rather than hooves and very regular progression towards larger hooved horses in successive layers.

Again, all these 'facts' are easily verified by anyone willing to spend the time to look. Even if you don't think radiometric dating is accurate, or you don't like the theory of evolution or you don't think there are enough transitional fossils, fine, you still need to explain the data. This progression is true every location on the planet where there is a geological collumn. I don't see how the facts fit with any kind of flood theory - or any kind of young earth theory.

Anyone is welcome to come up with a new theory of how this progression came about. However, it does require an explanation.

A link to a few of the transitional species....
http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

More info...
http://www.asa3.org/...ces/Miller.html

#63 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2005 - 01:04 PM

Again, all these 'facts' are easily verified by anyone willing to spend the time to look. Even if you don't think radiometric dating is accurate, or you don't like the theory of evolution or you don't think there are enough transitional fossils, fine, you still need to explain the data. This progression is true every location on the planet where there is a geological collumn. I don't see how the facts fit with any kind of flood theory - or any kind of young earth theory.

Anyone is welcome to come up with a new theory of how this progression came about. However, it does require an explanation.


The Facts do not speak for themselves. All of the evidence is interpreted within a framework. Everything that you put forth as fact is debatable. The only fact is that you prefer your explanation to a creationist explation.

There are other theories about how the progression came about, and they also answer the issues that old earth evolution does not, e.g. the cambrian explosion, for which evolutionists have no good answer.

Terry

#64 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2005 - 01:35 PM

The Facts do not speak for themselves.  All of the evidence is interpreted within a framework.  Everything that you put forth as fact is debatable. The only fact is that you prefer your explanation to a creationist explation.

There are other theories about how the progression came about, and they also answer the issues that old earth evolution does not, e.g. the cambrian explosion, for which evolutionists have no good answer.

Terry

View Post



I would enjoy hearing how creationists viewpoint of the facts I outlined. The current theory makes a number of testable predictions. For example.

1. One will never find modern mammals in any layer below the KT boundary.

2. One will never find dinosaurs in layers significantly above the KT boundary.

3. One will never find dinosaurs below the Permian layers

4. One will never find any bones (other than placoderm exoskeletons) below the Devonian layers.

the list goes on....

I would love to hear the creationist theory. Does the theory make any testable predictions regarding the fossil record that have yet to be tested? This is the way theories are normally compared in science.

How do we explain all the fossils throughout the geologic column buried by volcanic dust?

Why did 96% of the marine species disappear at the Permian layer?

I really would enjoy hearing the theory (without attacking the messenger).

#65 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 29 October 2005 - 03:05 PM

Please explain what you see in “the big picture”.  Is the big picture consistent with you explanation of the world?



There was God= [God, Jesus and Holy Spirit]. God spoke the universe into existance, establishing the laws by which it would operate. Creation of Earth, Man and all was complete in 7, 24 hour days.= universe at 1 week old. Man lived in Eden on Earth, brought sin into the world by defying God. No death before this point. God told man to leave Eden. Man roamed the Earth for many centuries and sin increased with Man. God flooded the land mass(es) to punish Man. All land animals died except those in the Ark (4 men 4 women). Man & sin multiplied. Man pooled the available knowledge and resources together, and tried to become as God. God was displeased again and separated Man (by land and language) into smaller groups. Each region had different challenges so Man adapted. Those with characteristics promoting their welfare fared better and those without were not sought as mates. Ethnic differences were caused by this microevolution (lateral evolution) at this time. From here on historical record can finish up. Total history (literal Bible) about 5-7 thousand years. 2005

Thought experiment - Assume evolution and earth is true for the moment, is the current explanation of big picture, consistent with rates of fossilisation, (i.e. only a small percentage of life is fossilised)? Should it be possible to find an individual family tree with only say half a dozen representatives?

The numeric probabilty (no I don't know it) must be exponentially lower than the possiblity of evolution. If only one family tree could be found intact, evolution could stand but the disparity between the evolutions is too great. The likelyhood that the similarity is for many other reasons is far more plausible.
  All cars are pretty similar. Because of the similar usage. God made everything on the planet to fit the planet. Of course there will be similarity.

P.S. what do you think of the Tree Kangaroo as a representative of a living transitional?

View Post


It is well adapted to its chosen llifestyle. Evidentally some kangaroos started taking to the trees a while back, likely due to a ground based preditor. Those that could not learn tree climbing died. Of the tree climbers some had dominant genes which gave them advantage. Mates chose the dominants and the disadvantaged did not breed. With the disadvantaged some genetics would be lost or lessened. The advantageous genes were passed on and the breed was specialized. Microevlolution. Lateral change. NO transition from Kangaroo to something else.

#66 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2005 - 03:12 PM

I would enjoy hearing how creationists viewpoint of the facts I outlined. The current theory makes a number of testable predictions. For example.


Well, I doubt it, but anyway.... :)

1. One will never find modern mammals in any layer below the KT boundary.


Who would expect to see modern mammals below a certain layer from a creationist model?

2. One will never find dinosaurs in layers significantly above the KT boundary.


The fact that dinosaur bones have been discovered not to be completely fossilized, and still have homoglobin like components and fibrous tissue in tact, brings their age and the supposed age of the layers they are buried in into serious doubt.

3. One will never find dinosaurs below the Permian layers


Who would expect expect a land dwelling creature to be fossilzed way down deep?

4. One will never find any bones (other than placoderm exoskeletons) below the Devonian layers.


An that doesn't makes sense from a creationist perspective? Most of the fossils buried deep would be from bottom dwelling sea life during the flood. Thats not surprise.

I would love to hear the creationist theory. Does the theory make any testable predictions regarding the fossil record that have yet to be tested? This is the way theories are normally compared in science.


Guessing about what happened in the past, and then massaging data to fit your paradigm is not science.

How do we explain all the fossils throughout the geologic column buried by volcanic dust?


Heavy volcanic activity during and possibly after a global flood.

Why did 96% of the marine species disappear at the Permian layer?


Because they were buried in a global flood that destroyed alot of marine life.

I really would enjoy hearing the theory (without attacking the messenger).


We'll see.... Here is a plausible explanation of the fossil record. Take a look at it, and see just how much you would like to hear another explanation that challenges your faith.

A nice flood/fossil scenario

Terry

#67 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 October 2005 - 02:24 PM

chance> Please explain what you see in “the big picture”.  Is the big picture consistent with you explanation of the world?

There was God= [God, Jesus and Holy Spirit]. God spoke the universe into existance, establishing the laws by which it would operate. Creation of Earth, Man and all was complete in 7, 24 hour days.= universe at 1 week old. Man lived in Eden on Earth, brought sin into the world by defying God. No death before this point. God told man to leave Eden. Man roamed the Earth for many centuries and sin increased with Man. God flooded the land mass(es) to punish Man. All land animals died except those in the Ark (4 men 4 women). Man & sin multiplied. Man pooled the available knowledge and resources together, and tried to become as God. God was displeased again and separated Man (by land and language) into smaller groups. Each region had different challenges so Man adapted. Those with characteristics promoting their welfare fared better and those without were not sought as mates. Ethnic differences were caused by this microevolution (lateral evolution) at this time. From here on historical record can finish up. Total history (literal Bible) about 5-7 thousand years. 2005


OK, is this situation consistent with what is found in the fossil record? If I may speculate, I would expect to see something like this:

Geology:

a. a clear geological boundary between non life and the first death of organisms, that may be sometime after creation or man’s expulsion from Eden.
b. at least one site where we find “out of place fossils”, and I’m talking of a “human skull in the Jurassic” type of find.
c. evidence of ‘super speed evolution’ to account for the species surviving the Noachian flood.
d. clear extinction boundary at the Noachian flood (and mix of all life in the flod layers).

is that reasonable?


Thought experiment - Assume evolution and earth is true for the moment, is the current explanation of big picture, consistent with rates of fossilisation, (i.e. only a small percentage of life is fossilised)? Should it be possible to find an individual family tree with only say half a dozen representatives?

The numeric probabilty (no I don't know it) must be exponentially lower than the possiblity of evolution. If only one family tree could be found intact, evolution could stand but the disparity between the evolutions is too great. The likelyhood that the similarity is for many other reasons is far more plausible.
  All cars are pretty similar. Because of the similar usage. God made everything on the planet to fit the planet. Of course there will be similarity.


You avoided the hypothetical question, I asked if it were consistent.


P.S. what do you think of the Tree Kangaroo as a representative of a living transitional?


It is well adapted to its chosen llifestyle. Evidentally some kangaroos started taking to the trees a while back, likely due to a ground based preditor. Those that could not learn tree climbing died. Of the tree climbers some had dominant genes which gave them advantage. Mates chose the dominants and the disadvantaged did not breed. With the disadvantaged some genetics would be lost or lessened. The advantageous genes were passed on and the breed was specialized. Microevlolution. Lateral change. NO transition from Kangaroo to something else.


Well adapted!!! You have to be kidding!! I can hardly think of a more ridiculous animal to take to the trees, i.e. legs for hopping, short arms, no thumbs. It barley manages at all, the only reasons is there is for lack of competition. It’s the first step in a long climb (I’m all out of metaphors).

#68 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 30 October 2005 - 04:39 PM

Please explain what you see in “the big picture”.  Is the big picture consistent with you explanation of the world?



God creates the universe; beginning of the creation week (7-24 our days).
Man brings sin (disobedience) into the world.
God sends Man out of Eden. All Non-plant life forms are herbavours prior to Eviction from Eden, this punishment causes some plants and animals to be dangerous.
Man brings more sin.
God causes flood to punish Man.
Man keeps on sinning.
God disperses Man and causes many languages to make communication (and jint sin) more difficult.
Man keeps sinning - 2005

Much abridged bit I hope you get the idea.

Thought experiment - Assume evolution and earth is true for the moment, is the current explanation of big picture, consistent with rates of fossilisation, (i.e. only a small percentage of life is fossilised)? Should it be possible to find an individual family tree with only say half a dozen representatives?
P.S. what do you think of the Tree Kangaroo as a representative of a living transitional?

View Post


It is unlikely an entire chain can be found. But the claim is often made that all the proof we need of evolution is available. lacking the proof there should be experimenation. I belive it should be possible to put together enough evidence and information with the current technology to be able to recreate the action.

#69 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 October 2005 - 07:31 PM

Please explain what you see in “the big picture”.  Is the big picture consistent with you explanation of the world?

God creates the universe; beginning of the creation week (7-24 our days).
Man brings sin (disobedience) into the world.
God sends Man out of Eden. All Non-plant life forms are herbavours prior to Eviction from Eden, this punishment causes some plants and animals to be dangerous.
Man brings more sin.
God causes flood to punish Man.
Man keeps on sinning.
God disperses Man and causes many languages to make communication (and jint sin) more difficult.
Man keeps sinning - 2005

Much abridged bit I hope you get the idea.


OK now does the geological record support this view? My speculation on what I would assume you would find would be (repeating):

Geology:

a. a clear geological boundary between non life and the first death of organisms, that may be sometime after creation or man’s expulsion from Eden.
b. at least one site where we find “out of place fossils”, and I’m talking of a “human skull in the Jurassic” type of find.
c. evidence of ‘super speed evolution’ to account for the species surviving the Noachian flood.
d. clear extinction boundary at the Noachian flood (and mix of all life in the flood layers).


I think these are quite reasonable assumptions if one is to use naturalistic methods of investigation.

Thought experiment - Assume evolution and earth is true for the moment, is the current explanation of big picture, consistent with rates of fossilisation, (i.e. only a small percentage of life is fossilised)? Should it be possible to find an individual family tree with only say half a dozen representatives?

It is unlikely an entire chain can be found. But the claim is often made that all the proof we need of evolution is available. lacking the proof there should be experimenation. I belive it should be possible to put together enough evidence and information with the current technology to be able to recreate the action.


Agreed, indeed it would be extremely unlikely. I would say there is enough proof to make certain claims, i.e. old earth/universe, and evolution. The inability to see evolution happening before our eyes is likely the cause it was not discovered earlier. Some would say that experiments with bacteria is evidence of evolution.

#70 Guest_Aristarchus_*

Guest_Aristarchus_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2005 - 02:28 PM

Here is a plausible explanation of the fossil record.  Take a look at it, and see just how much you would like to hear another explanation that challenges your faith.

A nice flood/fossil scenario

Terry

View Post


Well, I like your link. I think it is a great start with any investigation to first lay down all the acceptable facts. I think if the chart on the link was extended to include all of the known layers and fossils we would have a better picture. With all the data layed out, I don't see how anyone gets a flood interpretation, but I would love to see the logic.

Many geologic columns have large layers of volcanic ash and large layers of salt, neither of these makes any sense to me in a flood scenerio. In South Dakota, the layered geological column includes 15,000 feet of sediment.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

To quote
"There are 11 separate salt beds scattered through four ages: 2 Jurassic Salt beds, 1 Permian salt bed, 7 Mississippian salt beds, and one thick Devonian salt. Half of these salt beds are up to 200 feet thick. The top Mississippian salt is 96% pure sodium chloride! Since they are sandwiched between other sediments, to explain them on the basis of a global, one-year flood, requires a mechanism by which undersaturated sea water can dump its salt."

Other layers contain many feet of volcanic ash which buried the land creatures of the period. Looking at where this ash layer exists across the country, one can trace one of the largest ash layers (26 feet thick) to a volcano in New Mexico.
www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Newsletter/ NLjune05/pdfs%20for%20web/volcanic.pdf

I am not sure how many days you want to lay down the 15,000 feet of sediment, but don't you get just a little bit curious as to how the salt and ash could get laid down by a flood?

Or do believe that your faith must force you to accept only one interpretation?

#71 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2005 - 02:55 PM

I am not sure how many days you want to lay down the 15,000 feet of sediment, but don't you get just a little bit curious as to how the salt and ash could get laid down by a flood?


From what I've seen, if you made up your mind to it, you would have no problem imaging that any more that you imagine that darwinsim applied to non-living material could produce a genetic code and life.....

I don't know how things all worked out the way they did, but the flood was by definition a supernatural event, so I do not expect everything as a result of it to be worked out with naturalistic explanations.

Terry

#72 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 01 November 2005 - 07:30 PM

I don't know how things all worked out the way they did, but the flood was by definition a supernatural event, so I do not expect everything as a result of it to be worked out with naturalistic explanations.


Very honest of you to acknowledge this very important point. I think most of the animosity in public life and current legal going’s on (e.g. Dover) would vanish overnight if more people thought like this. Science is blinkered to investigate in the natural world only. Some may say this is enough, others may not.

#73 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2005 - 03:03 PM

Very honest of you to acknowledge this very important point.  I think most of the animosity in public life and current legal going’s on (e.g. Dover) would vanish overnight if more people thought like this.  Science is blinkered to investigate in the natural world only.  Some may say this is enough, others may not.


Intelligence is part of the natural world. Therefore, its not scientific to assume that all scientific results end at a cause that doesn't involve intelligence.

That's not to say that intelligence is the result of a natural cause, its not, and that's really the puzzle you have to solve.

Terry

#74 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 November 2005 - 01:51 PM

Intelligence is part of the natural world.
Therefore, its not scientific to assume that all scientific results end at a cause that doesn't involve intelligence.


Intelligence is a part of the natural world I agree, any creature with a brain qualifies.

The second sentence however is interesting, because not all results do end in saying there is no intelligence involved. Investigation could determine if something originates from intelligence, e.g. One could examine a car is find it was manufactured, or decipher the Morse code into English, or see a spider spin a web.

The quandary usually comes about if one is claiming beyond the “it’s possible” to “it is”, as you demonstrate below: (italicised for emphasis)

That's not to say that intelligence is the result of a natural cause, its not, and that's really the puzzle you have to solve.


IMO intelligence is a biologic function no different from any other, some animals have more of it than others, roughly dependant upon the brain to body mass ratio. Saying that intelligence is definitively not a product of natural causes would require some evidence to support that position if the claim is to be a scientific one, but not if it is a religious claim.

#75 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2005 - 09:48 PM

IMO intelligence is a biologic function no different from any other, some animals have more of it than others, roughly dependant upon the brain to body mass ratio. Saying that intelligence is definitively not a product of natural causes would require some evidence to support that position if the claim is to be a scientific one, but not if it is a religious claim.


(1) Can evidence ever be produced for non-natural causes?

Actually, it is science - as generally accepted today - that asserts that by definition it can accept none other than natural causes.

That rules out even listening to any explanation with "other than natural causes". Its a total waste of time providing them.

The game is fixed in advance --- if anybody tries to advance a viewpoint that an objectively true statement about reality can contain other than 100% natural causes -- he is ruled out of order.

You may also be one who agrees that reality consists only of natural causes - and other explanations are not acceptable, but you are agreeing with a philosophical statement, not a scientifically proven fact.

(2) Is it necessarily "religious" to believe that something is objectively true and at the same time not material?

I'd say there a lot of things that a) exist, :) are objectively true and c) are not part of the natural material world.

We have just been brainwashed , er conditioned, to believe that scientific inquiry is a self-standing structure with no non-natural underpinnings.

There are plenty of real immaterial things. For example: the rules of logic... the existence of a mind ... and core existential idea set ( i.e. the common perspective that a universe outside one self exists)

These collections of reality can neither be proven or confirmed by natural means because they are outside the material world.

These realities are in fact assumed by science and used by science ... they are not proven by science.... they stand outside science... and are NOT false.

Or... go ahead and asset they are all false ... and after that you have no warrant to make a single scientific statements of any relevance or merit.


(3) What would lead one to say that intelligence is not a physical phenomenon?

If ideas are just "secretions of the brain", there is no reason to find it plausible that a mindless purposeless random process could produce RELIABLE ideas simply as secreted by randomly-produced skull meat.

If true ... science, with all its protocols and rules, its findings and all that .... is just random bunkum secreted by the same skull meat.

The most cherished "facts" carry no credibility - delusion and vanity makes us believe that we have a grasp of anything.

If ideas really are a secretion of the brain ... The core delusion then becomes not the religious ones (e.g. that the soul exists), but the scientific delusion that reliable knowledge exists in science.

(4) What facts make it clear that the mind is not just a physical phenomenon?

First let me say how appealing it would be if our minds were machines ... our acts would be deterministic and we are absolved of any need to follow rules, blame for error, hurt, or immorality. In fact, we could be truly free at last because we are slaves to a rotting meat machine.

That is, it seems appealing FOR ONE SELF until we apply the same "benefit" to the rest of humanity that deals with us as they wish. This is truly diabolical.

In spite of the many obvious paradoxes this line of reasoning gets us into... ... That's only one side to consider.

Let's go back to the question again.


The mind could conceivably be entirely a physical phenomenon ... but it would be very unlike other physical phenomena.

Take one experiment... blink your eyes. You can repeat it because you mind controls the activity.

Now shut off your mind.

You can't do that... but are capable ... you dream at night and shut off awareness.

Now repeat the idea you just had exactly as it was.

You can't do that... because you mind "moves on" and can only amass additonal bits of ideas - it cannot go back to just where it was.

The mind seems to be capable of controlling other physical actions... so if it too is physical we need to explain why it is exempt from this control.

So why is it exempt from control? NOT because it is involuntary like a heartbeat that cannot be directed ... we know we can direct our minds by providing stimulus such as a book or a computer web page...

But what ever causes us to give our mind that direction? Zero! Since we are compelled deterministically by the mind to direct the mind on to a subject for stimulation,

That's contradictory. .

As soon as you asset that the mind is just a mere physical machine, you generate paradoxes and no insight. Either the assertion is faulty ... or paradoxes are all the reality you will ever be able to know.

#76 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 04 November 2005 - 02:54 AM

[quote name='chance' date='Oct 30 2005, 03:24 PM']
[/quote]

OK, is this situation consistent with what is found in the fossil record? If I may speculate, I would expect to see something like this:

Geology:

a. a clear geological boundary between non life and the first death of organisms, that may be sometime after creation or man’s expulsion from Eden.
b. at least one site where we find “out of place fossils”, and I’m talking of a “human skull in the Jurassic” type of find.
c. evidence of ‘super speed evolution’ to account for the species surviving the Noachian flood.
d. clear extinction boundary at the Noachian flood (and mix of all life in the flod layers).


[/quote]

a. This boundary between non-lfe and living organisms would exist regardless of evolution or creation being true. Evolution = Deeper is older. Creation = deeper is farther down. You may not realize; as a Young Earth Creationist, I believe the total age of Earth (and the universe it is in) to be 5-7 thousand years. Personally I divide it into three, 2000 year epocs. Creation to Noah, Noah to Christ Christ to now. The actual division is not quite this exact and there seems to be closer to 5000 years of time recorded in the Bible. My division just makes it easier to manage. I think we can agree that no notable evolution (assumption that it has occured) would have occured since that age of Moses (about 1533 BC).

b. Here is "at least one" link

c. I don't see a need for super speed. According to current, common, expected population growth statistics, it is acceptable to produce the current population of Earth in the time since Noah and his 3 son's.

d. While I would expect a large amount of death, even in sea creatures, there is no reason to expect extinction with Noah's flood. As for the fossil record prooving Noah's flood; the flood is a likely reason for the lion's share of fossils because it produced, on a world wide scale, perfect conditins for fossilization; rapid encasement of live creatures.

[QUOTE]is that reasonable?
You avoided the hypothetical question, I asked if it were consistent.
[/quote]

Your speculation is not reasonable. Not for lack of reason though. The cause is lack of information, biblical.
Consistent, yes. As I am sure yours is. The question is of interpreting the data.

[/QUOTE]Well adapted!!! You have to be kidding!! I can hardly think of a more ridiculous animal to take to the trees, i.e. legs for hopping, short arms, no thumbs. It barley manages at all, the only reasons is there is for lack of competition. It’s the first step in a long climb (I’m all out of metaphors).

View Post

[/quote]

Obviously, to compare it to creatures which have (microevolution) been adapting to the trees for 4000 years, the "tree kangaroo" is at a disadvantage. But given time, the characteristics required for life in the trees will dominate the others. The less desired characteristics will be bred out. End result: A creature designed by God becomes less than it was due to a result (death by carnivore) of Man's introduction of sin into Creation.

#77 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 November 2005 - 02:24 PM

PT1
chance> IMO intelligence is a biologic function no different from any other, some animals have more of it than others, roughly dependant upon the brain to body mass ratio. Saying that intelligence is definitively not a product of natural causes would require some evidence to support that position if the claim is to be a scientific one, but not if it is a religious claim.


  (1) Can evidence ever be produced for non-natural causes?

Actually, it is science - as generally accepted today - that asserts that by definition it can accept none other than natural causes.

That rules out even listening to any explanation with "other than natural causes". Its a total waste of time providing them.

The game is fixed in advance --- if anybody tries to advance a viewpoint that an objectively true statement about reality can contain other than 100% natural causes -- he is ruled out of order.

You may also be one who agrees that reality consists only of natural causes - and other explanations are not acceptable, but you are agreeing with a philosophical statement, not a scientifically proven fact.


You are wrong the game is not fixed, that is all science can do - see my challenge in ‘Science Vs the Supernatural’ in the ‘miscellaneous’.

#78 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 November 2005 - 02:26 PM

PT2
(2) Is it necessarily "religious" to believe that something is objectively true and at the same time not material?

I'd say there a lot of things that a) exist,  are objectively true and c) are not part of the natural material world.

We have just been brainwashed , er conditioned, to believe that scientific inquiry is a self-standing structure with no non-natural underpinnings.


Something true yet not materialistic, hmmm ok, lets see where you are going with this…


There are plenty of real immaterial things. For example: the rules of logic... the existence of a mind ... and core existential idea set ( i.e. the common perspective that a universe outside one self exists)

These collections of reality can neither be proven or confirmed by natural means because they are outside the material world.


If they can’t be proven as you say, then science cant investigate them, correct? Then they must be taken on faith to be true or an Axiom. These are the starting points for science then (have to start from some point, yes?)


These realities are in fact assumed by science and used by science ... they are not proven by science.... they stand outside science... and are NOT false.


How do you know they are not false?

Or... go ahead and asset they are all false ... and after that you have no warrant to make a single scientific statements of any relevance or merit.


OK… they are false, BUT (and this is the important bit), are consistent with science within the same frame of reference. A sort of philosophic relativity. Hmm I think I should trade make that phrase :)


(3) What would lead one to say that intelligence is not a physical phenomenon?

If ideas are just "secretions of the brain", there is no reason to find it plausible that a mindless purposeless random process could produce RELIABLE ideas simply as secreted by randomly-produced skull meat.


Why not?. A ‘reason’ is not required, it just the way of the world, the fact that it’s reliable just means we understand the physics of the universe that we are in, it’s nothing more complicated than that.



If true ... science, with all its protocols and rules, its findings and all that .... is just random bunkum secreted by the same skull meat.


But it’s ‘consistent’ random bunkum, which does describes our universe, right or wrong is never discernable.

The most cherished "facts" carry no credibility - delusion and vanity makes us believe that we have a grasp of anything.


It’s the best there is, what other mechanism is there?

If ideas really are a secretion of the brain ... The core delusion then becomes not the religious ones (e.g. that the soul exists), but the scientific delusion that reliable knowledge exists in science.


Admitted limitation, but again I submit there is no better alternative.

(4) What facts make it clear that the mind is not just a physical phenomenon?

First let me say how appealing it would be if our minds were machines ... our acts would be deterministic and we are absolved of any need to follow rules, blame for error, hurt, or immorality. In fact, we could be truly free at last because we are slaves to a rotting meat machine. That is, it seems appealing FOR ONE SELF until we apply the same "benefit" to the rest of humanity that deals with us as they wish. This is truly diabolical.

In spite of the many obvious paradoxes this line of reasoning gets us into... ... That's only one side to consider.


How do you know this is not the case?


Let's go back to the question again (chance insert What facts make it clear that the mind is not just a physical phenomenon?)


The mind could conceivably be entirely a physical phenomenon ... but it would be very unlike other physical phenomena.

Take one experiment... blink your eyes. You can repeat it because you mind controls the activity.

Now shut off your mind.

You can't do that... but are capable ... you dream at night and shut off awareness.

Now repeat the idea you just had exactly as it was.

You can't do that... because you mind "moves on" and can only amass additonal bits of ideas - it cannot go back to just where it was.

The mind seems to be capable of controlling other physical actions... so if it too is physical we need to explain why it is exempt from this control.

So why is it exempt from control? NOT because it is involuntary like a heartbeat that cannot be directed ... we know we can direct our minds by providing stimulus such as a book or a computer web page...

But what ever causes us to give our mind that direction? Zero! Since we are compelled deterministically by the mind to direct the mind on to a subject for stimulation,

That's contradictory. . As soon as you asset that the mind is just a mere physical machine, you generate paradoxes and no insight. Either the assertion is faulty ... or paradoxes are all the reality you will ever be able to know.


How is that a proof???, you comparing a motor control activity, (blinking) with thought. I can choose to think of a car and I can choose to think of a bird, I don’t understand your argument.

#79 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 November 2005 - 02:59 PM

OK, is this situation consistent with what is found in the fossil record? If I may speculate, I would expect to see something like this:

Geology:

a. a clear geological boundary between non life and the first death of organisms, that may be sometime after creation or man’s expulsion from Eden.
b. at least one site where we find “out of place fossils”, and I’m talking of a “human skull in the Jurassic” type of find.
c. evidence of ‘super speed evolution’ to account for the species surviving the Noachian flood.
d. clear extinction boundary at the Noachian flood (and mix of all life in the flod layers).


a. This boundary between non-lfe and living organisms would exist regardless of evolution or creation being true. Evolution = Deeper is older. Creation = deeper is farther down. You may not realize; as a Young Earth Creationist, I believe the total age of Earth (and the universe it is in) to be 5-7 thousand years. Personally I divide it into three, 2000 year epocs. Creation to Noah, Noah to Christ Christ to now. The actual division is not quite this exact and there seems to be closer to 5000 years of time recorded in the Bible. My division just makes it easier to manage. I think we can agree that no notable evolution (assumption that it has occured) would have occured since that age of Moses (about 1533 BC).


Your understanding seems consistent with YEC claims.

b. Here is "at least one" link

c. I don't see a need for super speed. According to current, common, expected population growth statistics, it is acceptable to produce the current population of Earth in the time since Noah and his 3 son's.

d. While I would expect a large amount of death, even in sea creatures, there is no reason to expect extinction with Noah's flood. As for the fossil record prooving Noah's flood; the flood is a likely reason for the lion's share of fossils because it produced, on a world wide scale, perfect conditins for fossilization; rapid encasement of live creatures.


Ill reply to the Walt Brown link later. Super speed evolution is a requirement to get the number of species on earth today, as a counter to some YEC claims that Noah's Arc only contained 2 of every ‘kind’, thus limiting the numbers on the Arc.

Can you give me a link to the population calculation, please.

NO way can a single global flood produce the current sorting of life, e.g. how did all the dinosaurs get into the Mesozoic layer only? That sort of thing. A flood just wont discriminate to the details required.



You avoided the hypothetical question, I asked if it were consistent.

Your speculation is not reasonable. Not for lack of reason though. The cause is lack of information, biblical.
Consistent, yes. As I am sure yours is. The question is of interpreting the data.


I am interpreting the data using science, what is your method?


Well adapted!!! You have to be kidding!! I can hardly think of a more ridiculous animal to take to the trees, i.e. legs for hopping, short arms, no thumbs. It barley manages at all, the only reasons is there is for lack of competition. It’s the first step in a long climb (I’m all out of metaphors).

Obviously, to compare it to creatures which have (microevolution) been adapting to the trees for 4000 years, the "tree kangaroo" is at a disadvantage. But given time, the characteristics required for life in the trees will dominate the others. The less desired characteristics will be bred out. End result: A creature designed by God becomes less than it was due to a result (death by carnivore) of Man's introduction of sin into Creation.


As the Tree kangaroo can now brows and graze, how is this less? Surly it is more, yes?

#80 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 November 2005 - 07:13 PM

re- lwj2op2, Nov 4 2005, 07:54 PM
WALT BROWN PT 1

a For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.
b Hoofprints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.
c A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years.


Yet no fossil of a horse or it’s relatives has been found, (they won’t) so basically a D shaped print is found, and Walt Brown claims they belong to a horse, “outstanding” not very creditable is it? Yet minimal research would find a creature of the time that can leve such prints with the need to claim an out of sequence find, seel this LINK
and extracts

Ornithopod tracks are normally wider than theropod tracks, with well rounded posteriors and rela- tively short, blunt digit marks reflecting hoof-like claws



More of these refutations of this supposed ‘evidence’ can be found at talk origins, I think I have made the point, unless there was a specific topic you wished to pursue amongst the list.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users