Who has determined that "life" is a complex system? Yes it's complex compared with steam locomotion but what do they expect and how arbitrarily have they determined that it's "too complex"?
Too complex for what? How simple would life have to appear to be for it to be possible, in their eyes, to have occurred by "chance"? It's as if any life that could become aware of its existence must therefore have been created by a deity, it's crazy.
The text of my post shows many claims made by creationists that are logically fallacious. Clicking each statement takes you to a page that demonstrates the reasoning behind why that claim is irrational.
Those are all good responses to arguments made by creationists.
I call us monkey meat bags because the best science we can come up with cannot definitively answer the question of our origin, or what humans were experiencing for vast portions of our ancient history. I do not discount evolution because it is well established, but we just do not know for certain what are all of the factors that led to life as we know it, and those faithful who claim to know have enormous egos and cannot be trusted entirely. Scientists are not always objective with the data, and also cannot be trusted if they have something to gain from publicising one conclusion over another. (public and private grant money) Look at the highly profitable science behind global warming. One conclusion gets public money because it generates expensive and powerful legislation, the other is discounted entirely to the point of outright hostility and hatred. It's not even a choice, going against the grain there is career suicide, just the same as scientists who examine the question of some kind of intervention in our evolutionary past.
I am ok with being a monkey meat bag, it just makes our achievements all the more impressive when we make them in spite of ourselves. We may have to accept the fact that we will never be anything more than that, even as we expand our civilization out into the solar system and produce nearly miraculous technology. It is a matter of humility.
Claim:
The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists' pay; they cannot be considered objective.
Response:
- Scientists get rewarded for overthrowing currently accepted ideas (if they can do so with evidence) and for proposing new theories that lead to new research. Any bias from material gain would be against the accepted theory of evolution.
- Many research scientists could make more money in industry. They do science because they enjoy it.
- The complaint applies equally to anti-evolutionists.
Claim:
Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.
Response:
- The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution -- quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
- Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.
Claim:
If our minds arose from lesser animals via natural processes, then our minds may be fallible. Then the conclusions that we come up with are subject to doubt, including the conclusion of evolution itself.
Darwin (1881) wrote in a letter, "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or are at all trustworthy."
Response:
- It is well established that the mind is fallible. Ordinary memory and reasoning are mistaken surprisingly often (Gilovich 1991; Schacter 2001). Pathologies add further complications (Sacks 1970). This fallibility exists whatever the source of our minds may be.
- Doubt exists in all areas of life. Nothing can be proven absolutely. However, many things are certain enough that we call them facts and do not worry about the possibility that they are wrong until we see actual evidence that they are wrong. Without such an attitude, we would never be able to get on with our lives.
- The fallibility of our minds argues more against creationism. Nobody can be certain of it either, and minds as imperfect as ours argue against their being divinely created.
- Darwin only applied this argument to questions beyond the scope of science. He thought science was well within the scope of a modified monkey brain.
Yes that is also an opinion. I offered evidence to the contrary in the research of man-made global warming and the well-publicised scientific corruption that goes along with it. I'll admit the stakes are much lower in this debate, and so scientists don't have a lot to gain here from an argument that is all but settled. They still should remain open to the idea that they know actually very little about the formation of our various biological systems. They do better at that than creationists. I think that parts of both theories are likely to create a more accurate whole idea. The either-or mentality doesn't help us find the truth.
Quickly about Mars; I love Mars and its potential as a new frontier for humanity, but I think people who quest to find life there will be forever disappointed. The geological history of Mars is more interesting to me than the remote possibility of life there.
Nobody can answer the question of our origin at the moment - but the best way to find out the answer, is to do more science - not make up answers like "a god did it" or "this holy book explains everything"!
So presumably you distrust every creationist and religious person who makes these claims as well? Especially as the religious have probably made more money out of their false claims than all the scientists put together.
"Buddhism turns modern Judeo-Christian ideas on their heads. In Buddhism, experience and reasoning come first, and then scripture. As we wandered down the path of broken rock fragments, Dhondup told me that when he encounters something that disagrees with his beliefs, he tests the new idea with logical evidence and approaches, and then if it holds up, he accepts it. This is what the Dalai Lama means when he says that if modern science presents good evidence that a Buddhist idea is wrong, he will accept the modern science (he gives the example of the Earth moving around the sun, which runs counter to Buddhist scripture)." http://buddhism.about.com/od/b ... stteachings/a/science.htm
Yet we can still be creationists ! See my (much) earlier post.
Can science explain the possibility of reincarnation?. There is significant evidence to support the concept, far more than disproves it.
Why can't both theories, evolution and creationism, co-exist ?
To give this conversation a gaming framework, there are patch's and updates. Why shouldn't liff offer the same at a far higher level ?
What is 'reality', and how can it be defined if that definition relies on individual observation ?. Quantum physics has proven that once an experiment is observed the result is altered.
"One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality." http://www.sciencedaily.com/re ... /1998/02/980227055013.htm
What is 'human' (sentient living being) consciousness ? Answers on the back of an envelope please.
To me, scientists are not looking for life in Mars, they're looking for life indicatives, like this, for example. It is thought that Mars supported life a long time ago but now it is gone, but as everything that once was, there should be something left of it, even a little sign.
You know, there's one bit of fact the creationists could have a field day with evolution, but they don't. That's the time frame we went from sea sludge to space age in. It's a little quick when you think about it. A little too quick once you really think about it. I think they over look it because it has to do with sexual reproduction. Yeah, they always shy away from anything with "SEX" in the title. Unless it's about homosexuality. Then they come up with all sorts of deviant stuff related to sex.
Sexual reproduction didn't occur until, what 500 million years or so ago? That really just doesn't seem like enough time for divergent evolution to run it's course to get where we are today. So I think if a creationist wants to pick evolution apart, they should start with that.
But with intelligent design... who designed the designer? I dunno. Intelligent design just doesn't sound all that intelligent to me. It's more like those primitive tribes that think some God is flying across the sky during the day to provide sunlight. Since they don't know or understand the concepts of planets and orbiting the Sun, they make up a God for it.
I dunno. This conversation really isn't all that fun without alcohol.
Lack of sexual reproduction does not preclude generation of genetic variety and ultimately evolution. You have mutations, copy errors during mitosis, etc. These are not particularly slow processes.
Claim:
Evolution requires mutations, but mutations are rare.
Response:
- Very large mutations are rare, but mutations are ubiquitous. There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 0.003 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 0.003 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations (Nachman and Crowell 2000).
I don't know what substitutes for maths - but even without being armed with relevant facts I can work out that:
Taking Humans - a VERY slow to reproduce species:
500 million years = 500,000,000 years
500,000,000 / 16 (although reproduction started earlier before television replaced religion as the moral compass) = 31,250,000 generations
Taking the lowest supplies mutation rate given in this topic so far:
1.6 mutations per generation = 500,000,000 mutations
or to put it another way, 1 mutation a year. Now factor in the simpler organisms that we evolved from, and suddenly that's a lot of mutation. Then look up some actual facts to base these numbers on - heck I'm just doing maths - and you can go from a cat to a rhino to a unicorn and back again.
500 million years is a frigging long time. In fact - it's enough for the map of the Earth to become what it is today, from the Pangean super continent it was then - AND BACK AGAIN if it chose too:
and that process was just caused by tectonic movement - no mutation involved! When you consider that just a single mutation can - if it's on the right gene - do this:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm
Dr. Stevenson methodically documents the child's statements of a previous life. Then he identifies the deceased person the child remembers being, and verifies the facts of the deceased person's life that match the child's memory. He even matches birthmarks and birth defects to wounds and scars on the deceased, verified by medical records. His strict methods systematically rule out all possible "normal" explanations for the child’s memories.
Dr. Stevenson has devoted the last forty years to the scientific documentation of past life memories of children from all over the world. He has over 3000 cases in his files. Many people, including skeptics and scholars, agree that these cases offer the best evidence yet for reincarnation.
Quantum Pysics;
A quote that is sometimes attributed to Richard Feynman is "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".
"The difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your saying to yourself, "But how can it be like that?" which is a reflection of uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something familiar. I will not describe it in terms of an analogy with something familiar; I will simply describe it. There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it."
Richard P. Feynman, The Messenger Lectures, 1964, MIT
Put it simply there is no reincarnation as you seem to understand it.
Your memories are bound to your brain as they physically change your brain.
This its not like a software on hardware model, where you can transfer the software to another hardware.
Your hardware(brain) is constantly changing through your experiences.
You can't have your memories or your personality without your brain.
So if there is reincarnation as you seem to understand it you would need to transfer it least your physical brain to another body.
Imho reincarnation is just another method to ease the pain of vanishing into the void after death.
So you claim. But you have no proof.
And what is the 'soul' or consience ? http://www.sciencedaily.com/re ... /2013/10/131017173646.htm
"As profoundly defining of our mind as consciousness is, without having a scientific definition of this phenomenon, it is extremely difficult to study," Monti noted. This study, he said, marks an initial step toward conducting neuroscience research on consciousness.
As indeed, I have no proof for what I say on this subject. There is no correct answer, we all believe what we choose and we are all correct. Even when we're 'wrong'
It is easy to imagine all kinds of crazy stuff. Afterlife, pink flying invisible elephants, aliens, crazy conspiracies, fake moonlanding, magical healing and power or prayer but there is no single piece of evidence that shows any of those is true.
Non-existence of proof of existence is also proof for non-existence. Aliens are good example. There is no proof. In medicine we can also tell if patient has cancer or not. When a patient doesn't have cancer we conclude that non-existence of evidence of the cancer proves the non-existence of the cancer.
Ever heard of amnesia through brain injury or even change in personality ?
A simple example … ppl with alzheimer change over time … not only their ability to remember but also their personality and you can see how alzheimer physically damages their brain. (Well Alzheimer himself found those damages in the brain)
That's all nice, but those numbers include the overwhelming majority of defective mutations. When you discard those and only count the positive changes or maybe the permanent changes that result in successful separate species development, that number starts to go way down.
Like our own species... If I'm not mistaken the last major evolutionary change was in the 1600s, before that, the Out of Africa Gene. There probably have been some sort of "mutations" between those times, but I don't know if anyone has found anything. And even with those changes, it didn't completely alter the species or lead to a big noticeable change - yet. And even though these changes may eventually lead to the development of another species, look at how small these changes are and how long they took to happen.
500 million years don't seem so long anymore.
I used to argue with this guy that was a creationist of sorts. He couldn't wrap his head around the concept of evolution at all. He was one of those that's stuck with some idea that evolution means some sort of instantaneous species change in a single generation. Like a fish hatching a clutch of birds or something stupid like that. I tried to explain to him that it doesn't work that way. That the fish to bird thing was a whole series of changes having to take place over time. A LONG time. And that whatever hatched the clutch of birds wouldn't look anything like the original fish in question. He's an idiot. he couldn't wrap his head around that. I guess it was just easier for him to chaulk every up to some supreme being. But during the course of those useless arguments, I got a better appreciation of the subject and realized the dynamics of the time frame.
Think about how long it would take to go from Blue Jay to Cardinal or I dunno finch to sparrow? For those factors to happen that would allow those changes in the relatively short amount of time for those changes to take place would be comparable to winning the lottery three times in one lifetime. And that's just One set of species developing.
I wonder what the original creatures looked like that were changing from invertibrate to vertibrate? I wonder if there were any that were like that and land based?
My guess as to how our development occurred in half a billion years (there. It sounds longer now). Is simply dumb luck. As if the changes happened at the right place at the right time.
I dunno. maybe later today i'll get some beer in me and be able to discuss this properly.
Politics and religion and now divergent evolution are the topics of drunkards and fools.
And since I'll be foolish enough to be drunk when talking about this, I'll have all my bases covered and will then be an expert on the subject.
Uhhh... reincarnation.
I believe in reincarnation to a point. Actually more like believe in the wildly remote possibility that someone can be the exact copy of someone else.
Nothing spiritual. Just the chance that two or more people can have the exact same DNA code.
Anyways Racer X? There was this Dahli Lama in the 1950's(?) Anyways, he died.
he told his apostles Matthew Mark Luke and Ringo that he would be reborn as a boy in some village a few hundred miles to the south of them. You're a Buddhist. You probably know this story. He laid out things that were his favorite objects for the reincarnated Dahli Lama to notice them. Well when he died they headed south and found a newborn baby. They studied the kid. after he got old enough, they started to test him on things. They wanted to see if he was the Lama they were looking for. They laid out all this stuff. things that the dahli lama had as favorite items and other stuff they threw in. They noticed the kid was attracted to all the things that belonged to the former Dahli Lama over the other things. They did all sorts of tests. I don't remember any of them, but he passed them with flying colors.
Do you know about this story?
My question is was it really reincarnation? Or was it an elaborate hoax by a dying man to insure a certain blood line to run things? Or part of a conspiracy by concerned monks that didn't want the people to fall apart and go nuts without a spiritual leader?
It's the story from movie … and american movie if course . Lot's of stereo types, cliches and an unquestionable truth.
But that's not point. Buddists believe in reincarnation and there is nothing wrong with this.
Wrong is the question why science does not/cannot explain reincarnation. If you look at the facts, reincarnation, as it is meant above, is not possible.
So it is up to you to believe in it (like in a higher being) but don't try to explain it with science (other than astrology ).
… if someone dies with severe dementia … will his reincarnation remember all the things he had forgotten before his death ?
).