@FDFederation: GoI'll try to keep a matching amount of factual evidence and analysis as you do.
"I don't think you understand science. Science takes a probabilistic approach, because there could be infinite valid possibilities, but the most probable explanations have more supporting evidence and the least probable explanations have little to zero supporting evidence (evidence must be able to be reproduced/verified by other people; personal experiences/visions/dreams are not evidence because they can not be verified/reproduced). The probability distribution curve for possible explanations shifts as scientists gather more evidence. (This was already discussed in previous posts.)"
You're correct. Science in-and-of itself is a healthy, natural, unbiased, and explorative process. People, is where we believe the problem resides. They're hardly ever as pure as the science they do. It's not an issue with science (which would suggest we have a problem with evidence and facts) but more with the people who conduct it, generally corrupting evidence, etc. It's common Christian belief that the Devil seduces this world and seeks to appear as a God, this is one way we [most of us? not sure] believe he does so. Would you say we are not allowed to critisize any studies of science? No, even other scientists do that. This isn't about the actual scientific processes. But thanks for the recap.
"Human evolution is also supported by the appearance vestigial organs, parts: male nipples, the tail bone, wisdom teeth, ear lobes, ear ridges, etc (again, this has already been discussed in previous posts). Vestigial organs have a diminished or zero functionality, but are relics of the traits of our evolutionary ancestors. Our ape-like ancestors (i.e. Australopithecus) had large enough jaws to accommodate wisdom teeth, but most modern humans have smaller jaws that cannot accommodate those wisdom teeth. (The shrinkage of jaw size and increase of cranial volume are related, larger jaws required larger muscles, and since the muscles are attached to the skull ridge at the top of the skull, larger jaw muscles required larger skull ridge, and for the skull to support larger skull ridge and larger jaw muscles, the cranial capacity needed to be smaller )."
A male's nipples are vestigial? At birth, both male and female infants are mostly identical. Sex-related traits become enhanced later. This is a common characteristic throughout time and with a wide variety of species, that both male and female animals have nipples. The tail bone is not vestigial. 9 muscles are anchored to it, and it serves a function of helping one defecate. A creationist explanation for wisdom teeth is that people used to be bigger. Wisdom teeth are just an example to us of degeneration mentioned in the Bible. There are Bible-compatible theories that support it as well. Such as, pre-flood humans had larger jaws. I'm sure there are some explanations for ear lobes and ridges, but to me it just seems negligable. I mean, while we're at it why don't we throw eyebrows out as vestigial as well? Such small purposes could be identified for those as well. I hardly see skull shapes as supporting evolution. I could easily imagine someone fiddling around with the skulls, trying to order them in relation to human skulls. "Well, this one supposably came first but it looks more human-like so I'll just put it here." Or mix and matching the jaws with skulls. We really don't know. Ever notice skull displays of ape skulls through humans never have time periods near them?
"We have genetics to support evolution. Genetic mutations and inheritance and distribution of genetic mutation (this was also discussed in previous posts). In short order, scientists have found genetic material in other Homo and other hominid remains and have been able to analyze the DNA. Geneticists can compare the DNA sequences of different species, related species (species that share a "very recent" ancestor) will have similar DNA patterns. From the available genetic material that archaeologists and anthropologists have found modern modern humans are related to several extinct species in the Homo genus (at one time several species (species is NOT ethnic groups/tribes/nationality) of humans co-existed). Anthropologists are always trying to find remains that contain genetic material, but Africa, the cradle of humanity, does not have an environment that is conducive to preserving organic material the way that glacial and bog sites do. Note that fossils are rock and do not contain DNA; whereas actual bones may or may not contain DNA depending on the environment."
I sure hope similar-looking animals have more similar genetic make-up than two non-similar animals. Again, this is easily a case where mix-and-matching to find what should hypothetically fit. DNA, in a sense, describes our body. Two species with similar bodies logically have similar cellular structure. I do understand biologists have advanced ways of analyzing mutations through DNA, like the use of the 16S rRNA molecule, though I'm not really qualified to go into that, and I'm sure neither are you.
"It's very improbable for an ape-like ancestor to give birth to a modern human (that's probably how you think evolution occurs). The traits of modern humans didn't appear all at once. From the available evidence, scientists think bipedal gait evolved first (we still don't know if the pelvis evolved first or the foot), then several million years later the refinement of bipedal gait allowed cognitive abilities to evolve (bipedal ancestors may have had advantage in obtaining 'softer' foods requiring weaker/smaller jaws, which may have inadvertently gave rise to cranial volume). However, the vast majority of scientists agree and KNOW humans evolved from ape-like ancestors."
They'res nothing to suggest any of us here needed that first part explained. We've already discussed how scientists determine things like that. Like I told Eiveyn, don't use what scientists believe as factual support.
"Evolution is supported by multiple disciplines of science (i.e. biomechanics, chemistry, genetics, etc) and unfortunately, I probably left out some things that would have been helpful in understanding evolution better. Evolution is a dynamic process that is still occurring in modern humans because genetic mutations still occur, but due to science (particularly medicine) some individuals born with "deleterious" traits are able to survive and have children; those children may also inherit those traits."
I'm sure we all understand at least the basics of the theory of human evolution. You don't see anyone else posting unnecessary details like this, do you? Not even Eiveyn. So far, the discussion has been rather focused on specific topics. You're just spamming new ones without addressing current ones. Do you really want us to discuss so many points at the same time? From what I've seen so far, you're uncapable of basic discussion about this topic (accuse me of being wrong, I DARE you) so its only natural that your attempts are as pointless and unconstructive as this. I do appreciate the effort though, better than the insulting and spamming.
Ugh... Some people... He's trying to teach us science by throwing out insults... I mean, at least Eiveyn uses science and tries to have an organized discussion. This guy is going to get the thread locked. Anyway, I'm done here.
Can't argue with people like FDFederation. Some people are just gross and could clearly benefit from believing in being held accountable after death. It's funny he (or one of the other atheists) said that religion gave us less moral law than people could come up, yet he doesn't follow the obvious ones himself.
"We're talking about science in the bible. I suppose you think science shouldn't have a say when talking about science in the bible."
No, we're talking about whether sentience is supernatural or not. You used how science understands it as a counter point to it being supernatural. Tell me if this makes sense: The National Association of What Tastes Best says apples taste better than oranges. I say no, oranges taste better and you say no, apples taste better because the NAWTB says that apples taste better.
"Science is the study of the natural. Supernatural is, by definition, not science."
"As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain."
Seriously? As far as science understands, the universe spontaneously exploded from nothing so the whole creation rebuke part of your argument earlier was kind of pointless. Why are you here if you're going to say such stupid things such as "Science says so" as a basis for your arguments?
as EternalWraith said, "You dont see how weak your arguments are becoming."
"Special pleading. You have no valid base to make that assertion. As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain."
You're saying if someone receives frontal lobe damage, they have a lower level of conciousness? That is kind of like the same as saying a child has a lower level of sentience as well. And we can all make the assumption, based on the fact that most of us have some memories on childhood, that that is not true. And are you saying science has an unfallible explanation of a soul, and that there is no debate or question within science about it?
"If that's not invoking a god, then I don't know what is. If you're invoking some other supernatural entity, then it's still the same error you're making."
It is, from a scientific perspective, exploring all available options. If you received unfallible evidence of a supernatural event, would you shun all possible experiments and studies of it just because of the fact that it was supernatural? And what I meant was possible credibility in the supernatural. Like, "well we really don't know much about this and it really seems like a mystery, so maybe a supernatural explanation is present here." Or would you take the arguably ignorant stance of, "well, it just can't be supernatural so let us not even consider that."
And by predetermined, I mean everything can be "predicted" but not by us, obviously. Meaning, if time were to magically be reversed by 100 and then 100 years were to pass again, everything would be exactly the same as it is now.
"In Einstein's day, you'd be right. However since the inception of quantum mechanics (something your PC relies upon to work), and hence the discovery that particle position can never be 100% accurately predicted, pre-determinism is impossible."
I never said predictable, I said predetermined. That is, there is no randomness.
"As for souls, and consciousness, I believe they don't exist.
Why?
Simple. Take a regular person, and observe them before and after a mental illness or brain injury. Their cognitive functions deteriorate proportional to the damage."
The brain is like the rest of the body, it is used. When you break your harm, you receive less functionality from it. When you break your spine, you also receive less functionality from it. When one's frontal lobe is damaged, one receives less functionality from it. However, that does not mean you're less concious than you would be otherwise.
"Now, at death, your brain is completely damaged so it stands to reason that your consciousness is also completely damaged."
As I said previously, brain functionality is not related to level of conciousness (other than brain-dead peeps, that is different). And that is not even reasonable nor provable. So much for being the reasonable one here (you).
"Regarding your last statement, you're invoking God of the gaps which has a long history of being a very poor position to take. Invoking the supernatural does nothing to advance human knowledge."
What? I said interest in it. If I look into scientifically proving God, does that mean I'm suddenly supporting his existence? Talk about jumping to conclusions... And way to avoid the question.
"advance human knowledge."
You act like that is all that matters in this world. I'm not against advancing technology because I believe in free will, unlike you apparently, but there are plenty of studies that suggest technology is not all that beneficial. Or what, you believe it is beneficial to be able to drop nukes rather than fight wars with swords? I don't know why some people are against medical advances, though I am against some aspects (plastic surgery, etc.).
I have a question, who do you atheists think of souls?
Hypothetically, everything is predetermined by the positions of matter and energy, that is, nothing is "random," with the exception of some "scientific" theories. Which implies that everything we do is already determined, and so there is no such thing as free will and that there's no difference from us and objects (non-organisms). You could say there are different levels of conciousness, of which simpler organisms have less, but that doesn't explain what a conciousness is in the first place.
And in the least, would you admit there is enough uncertainty about it to at least warrant a little interest in supernatural explanations?
0
@FDFederation: GoI'll try to keep a matching amount of factual evidence and analysis as you do.
"I don't think you understand science. Science takes a probabilistic approach, because there could be infinite valid possibilities, but the most probable explanations have more supporting evidence and the least probable explanations have little to zero supporting evidence (evidence must be able to be reproduced/verified by other people; personal experiences/visions/dreams are not evidence because they can not be verified/reproduced). The probability distribution curve for possible explanations shifts as scientists gather more evidence. (This was already discussed in previous posts.)"
You're correct. Science in-and-of itself is a healthy, natural, unbiased, and explorative process. People, is where we believe the problem resides. They're hardly ever as pure as the science they do. It's not an issue with science (which would suggest we have a problem with evidence and facts) but more with the people who conduct it, generally corrupting evidence, etc. It's common Christian belief that the Devil seduces this world and seeks to appear as a God, this is one way we [most of us? not sure] believe he does so. Would you say we are not allowed to critisize any studies of science? No, even other scientists do that. This isn't about the actual scientific processes. But thanks for the recap.
"Human evolution is also supported by the appearance vestigial organs, parts: male nipples, the tail bone, wisdom teeth, ear lobes, ear ridges, etc (again, this has already been discussed in previous posts). Vestigial organs have a diminished or zero functionality, but are relics of the traits of our evolutionary ancestors. Our ape-like ancestors (i.e. Australopithecus) had large enough jaws to accommodate wisdom teeth, but most modern humans have smaller jaws that cannot accommodate those wisdom teeth. (The shrinkage of jaw size and increase of cranial volume are related, larger jaws required larger muscles, and since the muscles are attached to the skull ridge at the top of the skull, larger jaw muscles required larger skull ridge, and for the skull to support larger skull ridge and larger jaw muscles, the cranial capacity needed to be smaller )."
A male's nipples are vestigial? At birth, both male and female infants are mostly identical. Sex-related traits become enhanced later. This is a common characteristic throughout time and with a wide variety of species, that both male and female animals have nipples. The tail bone is not vestigial. 9 muscles are anchored to it, and it serves a function of helping one defecate. A creationist explanation for wisdom teeth is that people used to be bigger. Wisdom teeth are just an example to us of degeneration mentioned in the Bible. There are Bible-compatible theories that support it as well. Such as, pre-flood humans had larger jaws. I'm sure there are some explanations for ear lobes and ridges, but to me it just seems negligable. I mean, while we're at it why don't we throw eyebrows out as vestigial as well? Such small purposes could be identified for those as well. I hardly see skull shapes as supporting evolution. I could easily imagine someone fiddling around with the skulls, trying to order them in relation to human skulls. "Well, this one supposably came first but it looks more human-like so I'll just put it here." Or mix and matching the jaws with skulls. We really don't know. Ever notice skull displays of ape skulls through humans never have time periods near them?
"We have genetics to support evolution. Genetic mutations and inheritance and distribution of genetic mutation (this was also discussed in previous posts). In short order, scientists have found genetic material in other Homo and other hominid remains and have been able to analyze the DNA. Geneticists can compare the DNA sequences of different species, related species (species that share a "very recent" ancestor) will have similar DNA patterns. From the available genetic material that archaeologists and anthropologists have found modern modern humans are related to several extinct species in the Homo genus (at one time several species (species is NOT ethnic groups/tribes/nationality) of humans co-existed). Anthropologists are always trying to find remains that contain genetic material, but Africa, the cradle of humanity, does not have an environment that is conducive to preserving organic material the way that glacial and bog sites do. Note that fossils are rock and do not contain DNA; whereas actual bones may or may not contain DNA depending on the environment."
I sure hope similar-looking animals have more similar genetic make-up than two non-similar animals. Again, this is easily a case where mix-and-matching to find what should hypothetically fit. DNA, in a sense, describes our body. Two species with similar bodies logically have similar cellular structure. I do understand biologists have advanced ways of analyzing mutations through DNA, like the use of the 16S rRNA molecule, though I'm not really qualified to go into that, and I'm sure neither are you.
"It's very improbable for an ape-like ancestor to give birth to a modern human (that's probably how you think evolution occurs). The traits of modern humans didn't appear all at once. From the available evidence, scientists think bipedal gait evolved first (we still don't know if the pelvis evolved first or the foot), then several million years later the refinement of bipedal gait allowed cognitive abilities to evolve (bipedal ancestors may have had advantage in obtaining 'softer' foods requiring weaker/smaller jaws, which may have inadvertently gave rise to cranial volume). However, the vast majority of scientists agree and KNOW humans evolved from ape-like ancestors."
They'res nothing to suggest any of us here needed that first part explained. We've already discussed how scientists determine things like that. Like I told Eiveyn, don't use what scientists believe as factual support.
"Evolution is supported by multiple disciplines of science (i.e. biomechanics, chemistry, genetics, etc) and unfortunately, I probably left out some things that would have been helpful in understanding evolution better. Evolution is a dynamic process that is still occurring in modern humans because genetic mutations still occur, but due to science (particularly medicine) some individuals born with "deleterious" traits are able to survive and have children; those children may also inherit those traits."
I'm sure we all understand at least the basics of the theory of human evolution. You don't see anyone else posting unnecessary details like this, do you? Not even Eiveyn. So far, the discussion has been rather focused on specific topics. You're just spamming new ones without addressing current ones. Do you really want us to discuss so many points at the same time? From what I've seen so far, you're uncapable of basic discussion about this topic (accuse me of being wrong, I DARE you) so its only natural that your attempts are as pointless and unconstructive as this. I do appreciate the effort though, better than the insulting and spamming.
0
@Eiviyn: Go
"Pretty simple. Mention the guy in more than one book."
Are you implying he didn't exist?
0
@Eiviyn: Go
"...because no contemporary historian (and yes, we do have works written by people in the area) mentions a such a noteworthy event."
Not participating or anything, but that would be a good spot for sources. Also not appropriate to use "we."
0
@FDFederation: Go
Ugh... Some people... He's trying to teach us science by throwing out insults... I mean, at least Eiveyn uses science and tries to have an organized discussion. This guy is going to get the thread locked. Anyway, I'm done here.
0
@FDFederation: Go
Can't argue with people like FDFederation. Some people are just gross and could clearly benefit from believing in being held accountable after death. It's funny he (or one of the other atheists) said that religion gave us less moral law than people could come up, yet he doesn't follow the obvious ones himself.
0
This is hardly accurate...
0
@Gradius12: Go
Hardly appropriate to be so disrespectful and vain...
0
@Gradius12: Go
I like when people come along and make replies to points that have already been addresed.
0
@Eiviyn: Go
"We're talking about science in the bible. I suppose you think science shouldn't have a say when talking about science in the bible."
No, we're talking about whether sentience is supernatural or not. You used how science understands it as a counter point to it being supernatural. Tell me if this makes sense: The National Association of What Tastes Best says apples taste better than oranges. I say no, oranges taste better and you say no, apples taste better because the NAWTB says that apples taste better.
"Science is the study of the natural. Supernatural is, by definition, not science."
Fiiiine. Too bad it is not really important.
0
@Eiviyn: Go
"As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain."
Seriously? As far as science understands, the universe spontaneously exploded from nothing so the whole creation rebuke part of your argument earlier was kind of pointless. Why are you here if you're going to say such stupid things such as "Science says so" as a basis for your arguments?
as EternalWraith said, "You dont see how weak your arguments are becoming."
0
@Hookah604: Go
Seriously? You need comprehension skills if you're asking me that, because it was clearly answered in my post.
@Eiviyn: Go
"Special pleading. You have no valid base to make that assertion. As far as science understands, consciousness is a product of your brain."
You're saying if someone receives frontal lobe damage, they have a lower level of conciousness? That is kind of like the same as saying a child has a lower level of sentience as well. And we can all make the assumption, based on the fact that most of us have some memories on childhood, that that is not true. And are you saying science has an unfallible explanation of a soul, and that there is no debate or question within science about it?
"If that's not invoking a god, then I don't know what is. If you're invoking some other supernatural entity, then it's still the same error you're making."
It is, from a scientific perspective, exploring all available options. If you received unfallible evidence of a supernatural event, would you shun all possible experiments and studies of it just because of the fact that it was supernatural? And what I meant was possible credibility in the supernatural. Like, "well we really don't know much about this and it really seems like a mystery, so maybe a supernatural explanation is present here." Or would you take the arguably ignorant stance of, "well, it just can't be supernatural so let us not even consider that."
And by predetermined, I mean everything can be "predicted" but not by us, obviously. Meaning, if time were to magically be reversed by 100 and then 100 years were to pass again, everything would be exactly the same as it is now.
0
@Eiviyn: Go
"In Einstein's day, you'd be right. However since the inception of quantum mechanics (something your PC relies upon to work), and hence the discovery that particle position can never be 100% accurately predicted, pre-determinism is impossible."
I never said predictable, I said predetermined. That is, there is no randomness.
"As for souls, and consciousness, I believe they don't exist.
Why?
Simple. Take a regular person, and observe them before and after a mental illness or brain injury. Their cognitive functions deteriorate proportional to the damage."
The brain is like the rest of the body, it is used. When you break your harm, you receive less functionality from it. When you break your spine, you also receive less functionality from it. When one's frontal lobe is damaged, one receives less functionality from it. However, that does not mean you're less concious than you would be otherwise.
"Now, at death, your brain is completely damaged so it stands to reason that your consciousness is also completely damaged."
As I said previously, brain functionality is not related to level of conciousness (other than brain-dead peeps, that is different). And that is not even reasonable nor provable. So much for being the reasonable one here (you).
"Regarding your last statement, you're invoking God of the gaps which has a long history of being a very poor position to take. Invoking the supernatural does nothing to advance human knowledge."
What? I said interest in it. If I look into scientifically proving God, does that mean I'm suddenly supporting his existence? Talk about jumping to conclusions... And way to avoid the question.
"advance human knowledge."
You act like that is all that matters in this world. I'm not against advancing technology because I believe in free will, unlike you apparently, but there are plenty of studies that suggest technology is not all that beneficial. Or what, you believe it is beneficial to be able to drop nukes rather than fight wars with swords? I don't know why some people are against medical advances, though I am against some aspects (plastic surgery, etc.).
0
I have a question, who do you atheists think of souls?
Hypothetically, everything is predetermined by the positions of matter and energy, that is, nothing is "random," with the exception of some "scientific" theories. Which implies that everything we do is already determined, and so there is no such thing as free will and that there's no difference from us and objects (non-organisms). You could say there are different levels of conciousness, of which simpler organisms have less, but that doesn't explain what a conciousness is in the first place.
And in the least, would you admit there is enough uncertainty about it to at least warrant a little interest in supernatural explanations?
0
@Gradius12: Go
"Just no. HIV is spread most often through heterosexual means." He's refering to how it started, in which case, he is correct.
0
@Eiviyn: Go
I'm sorry, I must be mistaken. It looked as though you said "I disagree" to GnaReffotsirk's "in 100 years we could still be arguing this thing."