ID-guy, your religion?

[apathy maybe]

You've said before that you are a deist, and that you aren't a Christian. So yeah, I'm interested in you explaining more fully your religious beliefs.

Do you, for example, believe in the concept of "souls", that is, a part of a person that is separate and distinct from their material form?
If people have souls, do animals?
What happens to these souls when a person dies? (Heaven and hell?)

Where you ever a theist?
What prompted you to become a deist? (Or where you raised that way?)

Yeah, so I'm interested, both in these answers, and anything else you would like to talk about regarding your religion.

[ID-guy]

You've said before that you are a deist, and that you aren't a Christian. So yeah, I'm interested in you explaining more fully your religious beliefs. Yup, that's how i label myself. Even tho I don't like to label myself as anything.


Do you, for example, believe in the concept of "souls", that is, a part of a person that is separate and distinct from their material form?Yes, I do. I wouldn't call it soul, because it sounds so Christian. But if you want to call it a soul, than fine by me.


If people have souls, do animals?Yes, they do.


What happens to these souls when a person dies? (Heaven and hell?)Nobody know since we can't know anything once we are dead.


Where you ever a theist?Yup, I come from a Christian family.


What prompted you to become a deist? (Or where you raised that way?)I was raised as a Christian. But with age, you get to understand that there are lots of other religions too, and no, they can't all be right. So that means, that even yours can be wrong. In short, I realised that religions are just few hisorical stories mixed with some myths and interpretations and that's about it. That is when I quit religion.


Yeah, so I'm interested, both in these answers, and anything else you would like to talk about regarding your religion.I have no religion, that's the point. I don't accept anything that I have no basis to accept.

[apathy maybe]

Cool, thanks for explaining that for me.

So, to take your non-acceptance further, what evidence do you have that any creator exists? Why even be a deist?

What evidence is for there for "souls" to exist? Most dualism is based around semantic arguments rather then actual evidence. One of the more famous (perhaps) being Descartes, arguments after he said "I think, therefore I am". Yet, all his arguments are simple/complex word-play that have been discredited by many people since.

[Dust Bunnies]

I am Roman Catholic, the Christian Group that has the Pope and a cool hat and Roman Numerals in names. I've been raised as one but I am more on the leftist side of the religion. I disagree on things like when Pope Benedict XVI (I miss John Paul II) said that only Catholics can go to Heaven. Catholicism believes in a Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory (place to cure you of your sins if necessary when you die). I stay loyal because I believe in Jesus and I felt him and I felt the need for a hierarchy in a religion. Also I just gave Pope Benedict XVI a thumbs up today (well where my TV is...) because he added 3 new sins:
Causing Poverty
Widening the rich-poor divide
and I forgot the 3rd (I wish I remembered)

[ID-guy]

Cool, thanks for explaining that for me.No problem.


So, to take your non-acceptance further, what evidence do you have that any creator exists? Why even be a deist?Simple. Because of the design in nature.


What evidence is for there for "souls" to exist?Well, you see, matter can't think. Matter can not move itself. It can not wish to do anything. Like computers. They only follow commands given to them by people. They work in a deterministic fashion. Because they are entirely composed of matter. So they just sit there until something makes them work.

Unlike people who can think, and who can do what they wish. No, if we were completely determined by our material bodies we wouldn't be able to move ourselves. We wouldn't be able to do anything, because matter can not do anything by itself. But we can. So that shows you that we have something non-material which makes us function.


Most dualism is based around semantic arguments rather then actual evidence. One of the more famous (perhaps) being Descartes, arguments after he said "I think, therefore I am". Yet, all his arguments are simple/complex word-play that have been discredited by many people since.How was that argument discredited?

[apathy maybe]

Well, the "I think" bit wasn't. It was just everything else that came after it. I suggest doing a philosophy course at a uni, or at the least reading something like http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/ .

Basically, Descartes came to the point where he doubted everything (scepticism has, of course, been around for thousands of years, and shows a certain pointlessness to certain types of philosophy). However, using word-play he "proved" the existence of a good god (I can imagine a perfect being, a characteristic of a perfect being is existence, therefore that perfect being exists). This is obviously flawed (why is existence a perfection? what if you are only imagining that you are imaging the most perfect being, but your thinking is flawed? etc.), as are the other arguments that he came up with (many of which had been thought of by others, and discredited by others, centuries before).


Well, you see, matter can't think. Matter can not move itself. It can not wish to do anything. Like computers. They only follow commands given to them by people. They work in a deterministic fashion. Because they are entirely composed of matter. So they just sit there until something makes them work.

Unlike people who can think, and who can do what they wish. No, if we were completely determined by our material bodies we wouldn't be able to move ourselves. We wouldn't be able to do anything, because matter can not do anything by itself. But we can. So that shows you that we have something non-material which makes us function.
What is wind, fire and the sun if not matter "moving itself"?
Have you done any chemistry or physics? Chemical reactions take place all the time, that is matter moving itself. Gravity creates movement, electricity can as well (yes electricity is created in nature, what do you think lighting is?). I'm not going to argue with you over dualism and whether we actually think or not (I find it pointless to argue with dualists on such matters, as they (including you) don't actually have any evidence; it is like arguing whether Jesus was the son of god), so yeah.

I take it, that you also disbelieve that true randomness can exist?

[ID-guy]

Well, the "I think" bit wasn't. It was just everything else that came after it. I suggest doing a philosophy course at a uni, or at the least reading something like http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/ .

Basically, Descartes came to the point where he doubted everything (scepticism has, of course, been around for thousands of years, and shows a certain pointlessness to certain types of philosophy). However, using word-play he "proved" the existence of a good god (I can imagine a perfect being, a characteristic of a perfect being is existence, therefore that perfect being exists). This is obviously flawed (why is existence a perfection? what if you are only imagining that you are imaging the most perfect being, but your thinking is flawed? etc.), as are the other arguments that he came up with (many of which had been thought of by others, and discredited by others, centuries before).Well I don't care about anything that came after that. I care about "I think" part. You said it was discredited, now you said it wasn't. So which is it?


What is wind, fire and the sun if not matter "moving itself"?Wind is a mixture of cold and hot air that repel each other. Sun is burning up. It's releasing energy, it is not moving itself.


Have you done any chemistry or physics?Yes I did, your point is?


Chemical reactions take place all the time, that is matter moving itself.No it's not. Matter is not moving itself by chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are products of matter interacting with other matter. Which means that one matter acts on another piece of matter by energy, and thus movement is created. But it is not done because matter did it by itself. It is all determined by the laws of nature.


Gravity creates movement, electricity can as well (yes electricity is created in nature, what do you think lighting is?).Everything you listed here is energy that makes matter able to interact and perform action. I clearly said that matter can't move by itself. Not that it cant move at all. Be more careful.


I'm not going to argue with you over dualism and whether we actually think or not (I find it pointless to argue with dualists on such matters, as they (including you) don't actually have any evidence; it is like arguing whether Jesus was the son of god), so yeah.What kind of evidence would you prefer?


I take it, that you also disbelieve that true randomness can exist?Ofcourse it can, it is created by intelligence.

[Lord Testicles]

Like computers. They only follow commands given to them by people. They work in a deterministic fashion. Because they are entirely composed of matter. So they just sit there until something makes them work.

So if we managed to create A.I, would we have created a soul? or is it impossable to create true A.I since it would need a soul to think.

[apathy maybe]

Everything you listed here is energy that makes matter able to interact and perform action. I clearly said that matter can't move by itself. Not that it cant move at all. Be more careful.Energy is matter.



I take it, that you also disbelieve that true randomness can exist?Ofcourse it can, it is created by intelligence.
Tell me now, can you think up a random number? Can you think up a string of random numbers? If that string were to be analysed, why do you think that it would actually be random? (No, humans can't 'create' randomness.)

EDIT MISSED A BIT:

Well I don't care about anything that came after that. I care about "I think" part. You said it was discredited, now you said it wasn't. So which is it?
It was always the attempt to move beyond the "I think therefore I am" part. I never said that part was discredited, only what followed.

[careyprice31]

Id guy believes the same thing my dad does.

my dad believes in evolution but he believes it was created by an intelligent agent.

[Bud Struggle]

So if we managed to create A.I, would we have created a soul? or is it impossable to create true A.I since it would need a soul to think.

And if we managed to grow wings would we be angels?

[Bud Struggle]

Id guy believes the same thing my dad does.

my dad believes in evolution but he believes it was created by an intelligent agent.

Hmm. Seems to be what I believe, too.

ID Guy--is that indeed the case? I must admit I'm not a close follower of every page of the ID discussion.

Thanks.

[Lord Testicles]

And if we managed to grow wings would we be angels?

Firstly it was a hypothetical question, secondly we'd be birdmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdman_and_the_Galaxy_Trio) not angels, and thirdly A.I is a possibility, spontaneously growing wings is not.

[Bud Struggle]

Firstly it was a hypothetical question, secondly we'd be birdmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdman_and_the_Galaxy_Trio) not angels, and thirdly A.I is a possibility, spontaneously growing wings is not.

You are definitely right about the birdman thing--I mispoke. As far as AI goes--if you'll excuse me, but I'll need to see it to believe it.

[apathy maybe]

You are definitely right about the birdman thing--I mispoke. As far as AI goes--if you'll excuse me, but I'll need to see it to believe it.

What? Unlike seeing Jesus or god ;). You have even less evidence that Jesus existed then you do that AI is impossible, and yet you still believe :P.


Artificial intelligence is perfectly possible, as long as you define what you mean. Personally, I support using the Turing Test, that is, if a person is having a conversation with a machine and another person, and can't tell which is which, then the machine is (or all intents and purposes) intelligent.

Of course, you can quibble about what intelligence is, but if you can't tell the difference, what does it matter if it is really intelligence or merely a very good simulation there of?

[Bud Struggle]

What? Unlike seeing Jesus or god ;). You have even less evidence that Jesus existed then you do that AI is impossible, and yet you still believe :P.

BOTH are instances of faith. You believe in one faith me in another--the only difference is that I don't pretend my faith is "science." Further: I don't believe that Capitalism is "science." I do it, every day. It WORKS for me, every day. But it's not "science." It's just the pragmatic reality of the world I live in. I have no hope for it, I have no clue of it's "evolution." Capitalism IS WHAT IS. I have no faith in its "science." Can you say that about Communism?

Or do you "believe?"



Artificial intelligence is perfectly possible, as long as you define what you mean. Personally, I support using the Turing Test, that is, if a person is having a conversation with a machine and another person, and can't tell which is which, then the machine is (or all intents and purposes) intelligent.

I personally support horses that can do multiplication, cats that sing Christmas carols--and did you ever see the movie "Lassie?" That's one hell of a dog!


Of course, you can quibble about what intelligence is, but if you can't tell the difference, what does it matter if it is really intelligence or merely a very good simulation there of?

I don't really care what intelligence is--I care what conciousness is. That's a huge difference.

[ID-guy]

So if we managed to create A.I, would we have created a soul? or is it impossable to create true A.I since it would need a soul to think.We would need to create a soul for that. AI is nice, but it is only a machine that follows commands and works by given algorithms. Just like todays computers or calculators. The same thing, only vastly more complex.

[ID-guy]

Energy is matter.No it is not. Energy can be converted into matter, and vice versa. But it is not the same thing. And energy also doesn't move itself. It is alsno governed by laws that make the, let's say electron particles attract to a positive charge so they move and make electricity. They are just following laws, they are not doing it by themself.


Tell me now, can you think up a random number? Can you think up a string of random numbers? If that string were to be analysed, why do you think that it would actually be random? (No, humans can't 'create' randomness.)Yes I can, and yes it would be random. Give me ONE good reason why humans can't create randomness.


EDIT MISSED A BIT:

It was always the attempt to move beyond the "I think therefore I am" part. I never said that part was discredited, only what followed.Fine. Well than what exactly was discredited?

[ID-guy]

Hmm. Seems to be what I believe, too.

ID Guy--is that indeed the case? I must admit I'm not a close follower of every page of the ID discussion.

Thanks.Nope. I'm not a theistic evolutionist. I do not believe we have a common ancestor with the first living organism. I accept that we were created separatly. Is there such thing as "evolution"? Yes, there is. But not in a way that 1 cell could evolve into a human in 3.6 billion years. This is what theistic evolutionists believe, and I don't. I only accept, by the evidence we havem, is that living organisms change thruought their life times. There are varieties of species. Like different dog breeds. But that is all that evolution can do. Nothing else.

Look at all the dogs we have today. The actually all came from a single ancestor, and they evolved pretty much. They are all different. But guess what? They are still DOGS! Yes, that's right. They didn't get wings, or got an ability to breathe under water, or got few new organs. No, they changed in size and in color and a bit in shape, but that's it! That's all evolution can do. It can only change living beings a little bit.

That is what science has shown to be true, and that is what I accpet. The idea that we came from 1 cell 3.6 billion years ago is in no way supported by evolution, and I'm not going to accept it. Whoever want's to, they can, but they should call it what it is than, and that is religion, and not science. Because you can believe that you evolved from 1 cell, but there is no proof of that!

[Lector Malibu]

That is what science has shown to be true, and that is what I accpet. The idea that we came from 1 cell 3.6 billion years ago is in no way supported by evolution, and I'm not going to accept it. Whoever want's to, they can, but they should call it what it is than, and that is religion, and not science. Because you can believe that you evolved from 1 cell, but there is no proof of that!


How do you explain the fact that chimpanzees have 99% of the same DNA humans have?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083102278.html

[ID-guy]

How do you explain the fact that chimpanzees have 99% of the same DNA humans have?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083102278.htmlThe number is actually around 96% but it doesn't matter. The point is, that the DNA similarity is due to the similar design. If you look at chimps and people, they look similar, so ofcourse they are going to have similar DNA. It's quite logical.

[AGITprop]

The number is actually around 96% but it doesn't matter. The point is, that the DNA similarity is due to the similar design. If you look at chimps and people, they look similar, so ofcourse they are going to have similar DNA. It's quite logical.

No, we have similar design because we have similar DNA. Not the other way around.

[ID-guy]

No, we have similar design because we have similar DNA. Not the other way around.And why do we have similar DNA than?

[Lector Malibu]

The number is actually around 96% but it doesn't matter. The point is, that the DNA similarity is due to the similar design. If you look at chimps and people, they look similar, so ofcourse they are going to have similar DNA. It's quite logical.


How do you explain than in addition to similar DNA, similar human traits? For instance the use of tools, administering medications, society's with defined roles, trade amongst other chimps and other human traits. They would have to have had very close contact with humans to learn these or........

[ID-guy]

How do you explain than in addition to similar DNA, similar human traits? For instance the use of tools, administering medications, society's with defined roles, trade amongst other chimps and other human traits. They would have to have had very close contact with humans to learn these or........No, that's all in the DNA.

[Bud Struggle]

Nope. I'm not a theistic evolutionist. I do not believe we have a common ancestor with the first living organism. I accept that we were created separatly. Is there such thing as "evolution"? Yes, there is. But not in a way that 1 cell could evolve into a human in 3.6 billion years. This is what theistic evolutionists believe, and I don't. I only accept, by the evidence we havem, is that living organisms change thruought their life times. There are varieties of species. Like different dog breeds. But that is all that evolution can do. Nothing else.

Look at all the dogs we have today. The actually all came from a single ancestor, and they evolved pretty much. They are all different. But guess what? They are still DOGS! Yes, that's right. They didn't get wings, or got an ability to breathe under water, or got few new organs. No, they changed in size and in color and a bit in shape, but that's it! That's all evolution can do. It can only change living beings a little bit.

That is what science has shown to be true, and that is what I accpet. The idea that we came from 1 cell 3.6 billion years ago is in no way supported by evolution, and I'm not going to accept it. Whoever want's to, they can, but they should call it what it is than, and that is religion, and not science. Because you can believe that you evolved from 1 cell, but there is no proof of that!

Thanks.

I'm not sure if I'm totally sanguine with that argument--but I'm willing to listen (which means I'll have to read page after page of that thread.
:()

I see things as more theist than deistic, but that's a quibble to the godless athism that's rearing it's ugly head around here.:lol: On the other hand your logic for dualism is right on target.

[Publius]

Simple. Because of the design in nature.

What designed your deistic God?



Well, you see, matter can't think.

Yes it can.

I am matter.
I think
Delta
Matter can think.


Matter can not move itself.

Yes it can.

As you say later, it only because of energy.

But according to e=mc2, matter is energy.

They're the same thing. So if energy can move (I assure you it can), then matter can move.


It can not wish to do anything.

Yes it can.


Like computers. They only follow commands given to them by people. They work in a deterministic fashion. Because they are entirely composed of matter. So they just sit there until something makes them work.

Computers are a different arrangement of matter.

Only some arrangements



Unlike people who can think, and who can do what they wish.

Prove that people can do what they wish.


No, if we were completely determined by our material bodies we wouldn't be able to move ourselves.

Sure they could. Just like animal bodies and stellar bodies.


We wouldn't be able to do anything, because matter can not do anything by itself.

Prove this.


But we can. So that shows you that we have something non-material which makes us function.

No it doesn't, because it's impossible for something immaterial to interact with something material. Here's proof:

IF the immaterial thing interacted materially, it would be material. Contradiction.

If the immaterial thing interacted immaterially, it would be immaterial. Contradiction.



How was that argument discredited?

What works of philosophy have you read?

I assure you, your views have been discredited in academic philosophy. Even the dualists out there (Chalmers, Kane) don't believe what you believe.

None since Descartes has believed that.

[ID-guy]

Thanks.

I'm not sure if I'm totally sanguine with that argument--but I'm willing to listen (which means I'll have to read page after page of that thread.
:()

I see things as more theist than deistic, but that's a quibble to the godless athism that's rearing it's ugly head around here.:lol: On the other hand your logic for dualism is right on target.No problem. Everyone has their own preferences, it's only natural! ;)

[ID-guy]

What designed your deistic God?http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1124044&postcount=254


Yes it can.

I am matter.
I think
Delta
Matter can think.Are images in your head matter also?


Yes it can.

As you say later, it only because of energy.

But according to e=mc2, matter is energy.

They're the same thing. So if energy can move (I assure you it can), then matter can move.1.) No matte is not energy, it can be converted into energy. But that is not the point!

2.) I NEVER EVER said that matter can not move. I said that matter can not move by itself! An outside force has to act upon it to move.


Yes it can.Show me where.


Computers are a different arrangement of matter.

Only some arrangementsWhat!?


Prove that people can do what they wish.When I think that I want to stand up, I can stand up. When I wish to run I can run. There has been nothing that I imagined and that I couldn't do because I didn't have free will. So when you can tell me that there is something that is holding me back from wishing what i want to do, than you can conclude that we do not have free will, untill than I'm right. Since we know that we have never found something that we couldn't think of.


Sure they could. Just like animal bodies and stellar bodies.Animals have free will also. Stellar bodies move by force that is acting upon them. They are to moving by themselves.


Prove this.Have you ever seen a rock move itself? No. Well since you show me matter that moves itself the idea stays that matter can not move itself.


Why is that a contradiction? Just because you don't know how non-matter interacts with matter that doesn't mean there are contradictions.

[quote]What works of philosophy have you read?

I assure you, your views have been discredited in academic philosophy. Even the dualists out there (Chalmers, Kane) don't believe what you believe.

None since Descartes has believed that.Than show me where has all that been discredited.

[Lector Malibu]

No, that's all in the DNA.

The DNA that humans share with chimps?

If it is the case that human and chimps do not share similar DNA please explain why a intelligent designer would design a chimp with certain human traits and similar DNA, than a human with with similar DNA and have the two linked together by DNA..

[Bud Struggle]

I assure you, your views have been discredited in academic philosophy. Even the dualists out there (Chalmers, Kane) don't believe what you believe.

None since Descartes has believed that.

I suggest you read Jerrold J. Katz "Cogitations"--he presents a pretty interesting argument in a linguistic entalement to the Cogito.

Anyway, the dualism still stands--matter can't think--something else thinks. The problem is that dualism isn't logically "covienent" to an athiestic point of view.

Which gets to the point of ID's Deism. It isn't just us.

[Demogorgon]

Look at all the dogs we have today. The actually all came from a single ancestor, and they evolved pretty much. They are all different. But guess what? They are still DOGS!
The trouble here is we can say that dogs are still the same species because they share genetic material and any offspring different breeds of dog will have will still be able to breed here.

However that is not the case with dogs and wolves. And dogs are an evolutionary offshoot from wolves that evolved over time under human observation.

[ID-guy]

The DNA that humans share with chimps?We have similar DNA and all our similarities are due to those parts of DNA that are also similar.


If it is the case that human and chimps do not share similar DNA please explain why a intelligent designer would design a chimp with certain human traits and similar DNA, than a human with with similar DNA and have the two linked together by DNA..Well obviously we have similar DNA. And those parts that are similar alos cause other things in that are expressed on the body or in our abilities to be similar.

[ID-guy]

The trouble here is we can say that dogs are still the same species because they share genetic material and any offspring different breeds of dog will have will still be able to breed here.

However that is not the case with dogs and wolves. And dogs are an evolutionary offshoot from wolves that evolved over time under human observation.Exactly. But than again. Look at them. Look at dogs, and look at the wolves. What's the difference? There is none! No new organs, no new body plans, no new nothing. Only the shape and color changed, and only a bit. That is all evolution can do.

Actually, dogs aren't even a different species from a wolf. They are a sub-species of wolf. And they can interbreed. But their ofsprings are not fertile.

[Lector Malibu]

We have similar DNA and all our similarities are due to those parts of DNA that are also similar.

Why though? If an ID made chimps similar to humans and then humans similar to chimps would that not seem redundant? Why not just make a human?



Well obviously we have similar DNA. And those parts that are similar alos cause other things in that are expressed on the body or in our abilities to be similar.If there was no evolution from primates please explain how did humans get their DNA.

As you said we have similar DNA, how did we get it.

[ID-guy]

Why though? If an ID made chimps similar to humans and then humans similar to chimps would that not seem redundant?What are you trying to say here? I don't think this makes any sense.


Why not just make a human?This is a subjective question and therefore has nothing to do with science. "Why" is not a scientific question. Things are what they are and we investigate by what we see, to as why things are so what they are is in the domain of philospohy.


If there was no evolution from primates please explain how did humans get their DNA.

As you said we have similar DNA, how did we get it.The designer made it.

[freakazoid]

If it is the case that human and chimps do not share similar DNA please explain why a intelligent designer would design a chimp with certain human traits and similar DNA, than a human with with similar DNA and have the two linked together by DNA..

Simply having similar DNA doesn't mean that we evolved from them. I explained this once and used music as an example. Music, as in DNA, only has so many different notes. And you are going to eventually get some music that is pretty similar, but does that automatically mean that the one music "evolved" from the other? No, it just means that the one is similar. Exactly how similar by DNA does something have to be for it to be considered that it evolved from it? I'm sure that there are other creatures that we share a high percentage of similarity in DNA with. Maybe we had evolved from them instead. But of course we couldn't of evolved from two different things at once, unless perhaps black people evolved from something else. Maybe what the neo-nazis say is true, that black people and other people of other races, really are inferior. Can't argue with evolution.

[Bud Struggle]

The designer made it.

And why not? If it makes just as much sense as anything else.

[Publius]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1124044&postcount=254

I didn't ask who the God was, I asked why he or she didn't need a cause.

Where did your God gets its teleology?

That was my question.



Are images in your head matter also?There are no "images in my head."

The picture theory of meaning was authoritatively refuted by Wittgenstein.

But whatever does occur in my head is material, that's true.



2.) I NEVER EVER said that matter can not move. I said that matter can not move by itself!But it can.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_sPhQjGZ8NY

According to Newton's laws. Read the paper by the Pitt professor.

A few notes on this video: You might think this actually refutes my position, but it doesn't. Indeterminism is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for free will. Furthermore it's obvious that nothing like the example given occurs in our brain. So this video, while it proves you wrong, doesn't prove my position wrong, as I'm not in fact a causal determinist, I only believe human actions are determined by physical processes, and this finding does nothing to refute that, as the video in response to it shows. We can discuss this in more depth if you'd like to be soundly humiliated.

Also, according to QM matter can move itself, or at least move acausally, which I don't distinguish as different.

So you're wrong.

EDIT: You really should watch the whole chain of videos between the original guy and Everett. It would really clear up your thinking on this issue.



An outside force has to act upon it to move.Totally and completely false.



Show me where.In the brain. That's where wishes arise.



What!?Only some arrangements are conscious. Sorry for not finishing my statement.

Saying that a rock isn't conscience isn't proof that matter can't be conscious anymore than the fact that ice is cold is proof that matter can't be hot.

What's important is the arrangement of matter. Computers obviously are not arranged so as to be conscious. But we are.



When I think that I want to stand up, I can stand up.Yes, your wanting to stand up caused you stand up.

What caused you to want to stand up?

What caused that?

Catching on?


When I wish to run I can run. There has been nothing that I imagined and that I couldn't do because I didn't have free will.Because that's not how determinism works. Your conscious will is an illusion. A good one, it fools you. But it's still an illusion.

Correlation, as you should know, doesn't imply causation. Just because your mental states CORRELATE with actions doesn't mean they CAUSE them.



So when you can tell me that there is something that is holding me back from wishing what i want to do, than you can conclude that we do not have free will, untill than I'm right.There is something holding you back from wishing what you want to do.

First of all, introspection is not a valid method. I don't care what you think or feel, I care what you can prove.

I'm not disputing that FEEL you have free will, I'm disputing whether or not you actually have it.


Since we know that we have never found something that we couldn't think of.You mean we haven't thought of things that we can't think of...

Stop the presses guys, WE CAN'T THINK OF THINGS WE CAN'T THINK OF!

:lol:



Animals have free will also. Stellar bodies move by force that is acting upon them. They are to moving by themselves.Animals just move by forces acting on them. Drop one sometime, watch as it falls.



Have you ever seen a rock move itself? No. Well since you show me matter that moves itself the idea stays that matter can not move itself.Well, I just linked you to a video conclusively demonstrating that matter could move by itself, with no outside force acting upon it.

So I guess you'll have to concede this one.


]Why is that a contradiction? Just because you don't know how non-matter interacts with matter that doesn't mean there are contradictions.In fact it does.



Than show me where has all that been discredited.It wasn't just one place. And I could show you, but you wouldn't read it.

Here, I'm studying Descartes' theory of knowledge and refuation of it Charles Sanders Peirce. You can find this refutation in his collected papers, Volume V.

Here's a link to the essay: http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html

Important selected portion:

When Descartes set about the reconstruction of philosophy, his first step was to (theoretically) permit scepticism and to discard the practice of the schoolmen of looking to authority as the ultimate source of truth. That done, he sought a more natural fountain of true principles, and thought he found it in the human mind; thus passing, in the directest way, from the method of authority to that of apriority, as described in my first paper. Self-consciousness was to furnish us with our fundamental truths, and to decide what was agreeable to reason. But since, evidently, not all ideas are true, he was led to note, as the first condition of infallibility, that they must be clear. The distinction between an idea seeming clear and really being so, never occurred to him. Trusting to introspection, as he did, even for a knowledge of external things, why should he question its testimony in respect to the contents of our own minds? But then, I suppose, seeing men, who seemed to be quite clear and positive, holding opposite opinions upon fundamental principles, he was further led to say that clearness of ideas is not sufficient, but that they need also to be distinct, i.e., to have nothing unclear about them. What he probably meant by this (for he did not explain himself with precision) was, that they must sustain the test of dialectical examination; that they must not only seem clear at the outset, but that discussion must never be able to bring to light points of obscurity connected with them.


Ironically, Peirce here is criticizing Descartes for doing what you did: just accepting your introspection as true without realizing that it seeming to be true doesn't make it so.

I regard this is an authoritative refutation of Descartes, for indeed his entire method is destroyed when you realize (as he failed to note) that something can seem to be true and still be false.

Descartes Error might be a book to look at. Admittedly I haven't read it, but the title I think suggests the content well enough.

Dennett's Consciousness Explained basically destroys the Cartesian notion of consciousness, "the Cartesian theatre."

A careful reading of Descartes Meditations really is sufficent to find flaws in them, that is if you have any perceptible mental talent.

Basically none since the Modern philosophers (Leibniz, Spinoza, others) has really followed much of Descartes' methodology or accepted many of his claims.

His proof of the existence of God is laughable. He actually deviates from his method of skepticism starting on the 3rd mediation and starts inventing concepts and accepting without proof.

Read some philosophy sometime.

[Lector Malibu]

What are you trying to say here? I don't think this makes any sense.

I'm saying why go through the trouble of of creating two species that are similar. Why not just create one?



This is a subjective question and therefore has nothing to do with science. "Why" is not a scientific question. Things are what they are and we investigate by what we see, to as why things are so what they are is in the domain of philospohy.

I'm asking YOU a reasonable question. I would like an answer. And if everybody just took everything for face value and never questioned anything there would be not much going on in the old science department or advancement as a species alltogether.



The designer made it.Who made the designer?....

[Lector Malibu]

Simply having similar DNA doesn't mean that we evolved from them. I explained this once and used music as an example. Music, as in DNA, only has so many different notes. And you are going to eventually get some music that is pretty similar, but does that automatically mean that the one music "evolved" from the other? No, it just means that the one is similar. Exactly how similar by DNA does something have to be for it to be considered that it evolved from it? I'm sure that there are other creatures that we share a high percentage of similarity in DNA with. Maybe we had evolved from them instead. But of course we couldn't of evolved from two different things at once, unless perhaps black people evolved from something else. Maybe what the neo-nazis say is true, that black people and other people of other races, really are inferior. Can't argue with evolution.

Can you please explain your post better I'm not understanding what you are saying, especially towards the bottom. It gets murky when you make reference to the Nazis..l

[Demogorgon]

Exactly. But than again. Look at them. Look at dogs, and look at the wolves. What's the difference? There is none! No new organs, no new body plans, no new nothing. Only the shape and color changed, and only a bit. That is all evolution can do.

Actually, dogs aren't even a different species from a wolf. They are a sub-species of wolf. And they can interbreed. But their ofsprings are not fertile.
There is a difference though. Dogs and wolves are similar but they can be shown to be a different species fairly easily. If you try to crossbreed too very similar species you can sometimes succeed in getting a hybrid, rabbits and Hares, Horses and donkeys, Horses and Zebras etc can be crossed successfully but the offspring will always be sterile. Cross breeds between different kinds of dogs are however capable of breeding, showing dogs to be the same species. You can't cross dogs and wolves in the same way however.

[freakazoid]

Can you please explain your post better I'm not understanding what you are saying, especially towards the bottom. It gets murky when you make reference to the Nazis..l

Will try, :) I'm not very good at getting my ideas across clearly sometimes. :(

Well with my reference to the Nazis, and basically there white supremacy beliefs, what I was trying to get at is about how evolution could be used to "prove" them correct in there belief that all other "races" are inferior. That being white makes them superior because of evolution.
And what part are you not understanding with my other example? I will try to make it more clear.

[careyprice31]

Will try, :) I'm not very good at getting my ideas across clearly sometimes. :(

Well with my reference to the Nazis, and basically there white supremacy beliefs, what I was trying to get at is about how evolution could be used to "prove" them correct in there belief that all other "races" are inferior. That being white makes them superior because of evolution.
And what part are you not understanding with my other example? I will try to make it more clear.

Maybe because Hitler ideas were an example of screwed up distorted Darwinism applied to different races of people.

[Lector Malibu]

Will try, :) I'm not very good at getting my ideas across clearly sometimes. :(

Well with my reference to the Nazis, and basically there white supremacy beliefs, what I was trying to get at is about how evolution could be used to "prove" them correct in there belief that all other "races" are inferior. That being white makes them superior because of evolution.
And what part are you not understanding with my other example? I will try to make it more clear.

Oooooh okay gotcha:D I read it way wrong :lol:

[freakazoid]

lol, thats ok. :D Sometimes I'm not very clear.

[ID-guy]

I didn't ask who the God was, I asked why he or she didn't need a cause.

Where did your God gets its teleology?

That was my question.Well you are now investigating the designer. That is not what ID is about. ID is about investigating the design, not the designer.


There are no "images in my head."

The picture theory of meaning was authoritatively refuted by Wittgenstein.

But whatever does occur in my head is material, that's true.1.) Do you not see a car when you think of a car?

2.) Post that refutation if you can, don't just say it's refuted.


But it can.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_sPhQjGZ8NY

According to Newton's laws. Read the paper by the Pitt professor.

A few notes on this video: You might think this actually refutes my position, but it doesn't. Indeterminism is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for free will. Furthermore it's obvious that nothing like the example given occurs in our brain. So this video, while it proves you wrong, doesn't prove my position wrong, as I'm not in fact a causal determinist, I only believe human actions are determined by physical processes, and this finding does nothing to refute that, as the video in response to it shows. We can discuss this in more depth if you'd like to be soundly humiliated.Humiliated by what? That video, together with the paper is retarded. I mean, it explains nothing. It just says that the ball could be movig in 100 years, all by itself. And that's it. There is no explanation why that could happen. How is that science?


Also, according to QM matter can move itself, or at least move acausally, which I don't distinguish as different.Really? Explain how.


So you're wrong.No, you are wrong, again. You rpoved nothing, except that you can post videos that talk about magic!


EDIT: You really should watch the whole chain of videos between the original guy and Everett. It would really clear up your thinking on this issue.No, what you should do is explain how those videos contain any science in them.


Totally and completely false.Show me where do things move without an outside force. And no, don't post anymore stupid videos like those. I want proof, not some stupid theory.


In the brain. That's where wishes arise.Show me a scientific paper that shows those wishes in the brain.


Only some arrangements are conscious. Sorry for not finishing my statement.

Saying that a rock isn't conscience isn't proof that matter can't be conscious anymore than the fact that ice is cold is proof that matter can't be hot.

What's important is the arrangement of matter. Computers obviously are not arranged so as to be conscious. But we are.Well than, explain how does matter become conscious by different arrangements.


Yes, your wanting to stand up caused you stand up.

What caused you to want to stand up?

What caused that?

Catching on?I did. There is no infinity here. I wished it, and I did it. It's as simple as that. Only matter is bound by the law of cause and efect. Non material things do not have to be. So that is why our mind does not have to be caused upon by external force.


Because that's not how determinism works. Your conscious will is an illusion. A good one, it fools you. But it's still an illusion.How can I have illusions if don't have consciousness? That is a logical fallacy. If im not coscious, than who is having the illusion?


Correlation, as you should know, doesn't imply causation. Just because your mental states CORRELATE with actions doesn't mean they CAUSE them.What causes action that perform?


There is something holding you back from wishing what you want to do.What?


First of all, introspection is not a valid method. I don't care what you think or feel, I care what you can prove.I showed you that I can do whatever I want. When you find something that I can't do that you will be proven right. Untill that time, I'm right.


I'm not disputing that FEEL you have free will, I'm disputing whether or not you actually have it.Why? On what ideas are you basing this?


You mean we haven't thought of things that we can't think of...

Stop the presses guys, WE CAN'T THINK OF THINGS WE CAN'T THINK OF!

:lol:The point is we can think of everything. Thus showing you we have free will.


Animals just move by forces acting on them. Drop one sometime, watch as it falls.But who is directing that force?


Well, I just linked you to a video conclusively demonstrating that matter could move by itself, with no outside force acting upon it.No, that was a stupid video that showed nothing. I DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT care about few formulas and theories. I want proof that matter can move by itself, not some guy that just says it can.


So I guess you'll have to concede this one.Yeah, you wish.


In fact it does.It does what?


It wasn't just one place. And I could show you, but you wouldn't read it.

Here, I'm studying Descartes' theory of knowledge and refuation of it Charles Sanders Peirce. You can find this refutation in his collected papers, Volume V.

Here's a link to the essay: http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html

Important selected portion:

When Descartes set about the reconstruction of philosophy, his first step was to (theoretically) permit scepticism and to discard the practice of the schoolmen of looking to authority as the ultimate source of truth. That done, he sought a more natural fountain of true principles, and thought he found it in the human mind; thus passing, in the directest way, from the method of authority to that of apriority, as described in my first paper. Self-consciousness was to furnish us with our fundamental truths, and to decide what was agreeable to reason. But since, evidently, not all ideas are true, he was led to note, as the first condition of infallibility, that they must be clear. The distinction between an idea seeming clear and really being so, never occurred to him. Trusting to introspection, as he did, even for a knowledge of external things, why should he question its testimony in respect to the contents of our own minds? But then, I suppose, seeing men, who seemed to be quite clear and positive, holding opposite opinions upon fundamental principles, he was further led to say that clearness of ideas is not sufficient, but that they need also to be distinct, i.e., to have nothing unclear about them. What he probably meant by this (for he did not explain himself with precision) was, that they must sustain the test of dialectical examination; that they must not only seem clear at the outset, but that discussion must never be able to bring to light points of obscurity connected with them.


Ironically, Peirce here is criticizing Descartes for doing what you did: just accepting your introspection as true without realizing that it seeming to be true doesn't make it so.How can ma feelings not be true? Explain it.


I regard this is an authoritative refutation of Descartes, for indeed his entire method is destroyed when you realize (as he failed to note) that something can seem to be true and still be false.What things can seem to be true but be flase? Just beacuse people got the wrong idea abut something, that desn't mean they got no idea whatsoever. And if they have ideas, than they have free will too.


Descartes Error might be a book to look at. Admittedly I haven't read it, but the title I think suggests the content well enough.I doubt it.


Dennett's Consciousness Explained basically destroys the Cartesian notion of consciousness, "the Cartesian theatre."Explain how.


A careful reading of Descartes Meditations really is sufficent to find flaws in them, that is if you have any perceptible mental talent.

Basically none since the Modern philosophers (Leibniz, Spinoza, others) has really followed much of Descartes' methodology or accepted many of his claims.

His proof of the existence of God is laughable. He actually deviates from his method of skepticism starting on the 3rd mediation and starts inventing concepts and accepting without proof.

Read some philosophy sometime.Again, you are just typing things that I don't care about. I don't care if you say he was refuted, it doesn't show anywhere. Everything you said was vague.

[ID-guy]

I'm saying why go through the trouble of of creating two species that are similar. Why not just create one?And why not create 17 similar species? And why create at all? Those are not scientific questions. You are dealing with philospohy here.


I'm asking YOU a reasonable question. I would like an answer. And if everybody just took everything for face value and never questioned anything there would be not much going on in the old science department or advancement as a species alltogether.Yes, it is a reasonable question. But it is not a scientific one. It is a philosophical question. Do you understand the difference.

But if you wish I can give you a philosophical answer. Designer made a lot of living things. The more he created, the design got better, and that is why we have so many similarity among living beings.


Who made the designer?....http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1124044&postcount=254

[ID-guy]

There is a difference though. Dogs and wolves are similar but they can be shown to be a different species fairly easily. If you try to crossbreed too very similar species you can sometimes succeed in getting a hybrid, rabbits and Hares, Horses and donkeys, Horses and Zebras etc can be crossed successfully but the offspring will always be sterile. Cross breeds between different kinds of dogs are however capable of breeding, showing dogs to be the same species. You can't cross dogs and wolves in the same way however.Yes, that is what i wrote also. I said that the ofspring of dogs and wolves will not be fertile. Your point is?

[Lector Malibu]

And why not create 17 similar species? And why create at all? Those are not scientific questions. You are dealing with philospohy here.

Last I knew you were not a scientist or a philosopher. Why cant you just answer the question? Is it not reasonable? Are you going to get in trouble or something?


Yes, it is a reasonable question. But it is not a scientific one. It is a philosophical question. Do you understand the difference.

Don't patronize me.


But if you wish I can give you a philosophical answer. Designer made a lot of living things. The more he created, the design got better, and that is why we have so many similarity among living beings.

So your acerting that the designer is a "He" , therefore you must have a idea of who the designer is, or you have thought it over. Let's hear more about your vision of the designer.

I'm not interested in whether ID's job is to point to a designer. I asking YOU who you think it is.

If you don't know , say that.

[ID-guy]

Last I knew you were not a scientist or a philosopher. Why cant you just answer the question? Is it not reasonable? Are you going to get in trouble or something?True. Actually this is not an ID only thread so yeah, let's put some philosophy in it. Well, the designer made improvements in design, thatg is why we have a lot of similar species.


Don't patronize me.Hey, I'm just asking... Is it not reasonable? Are you going to get in trouble or something? ;)


So your acerting that the designer is a "He" , therefore you must have a idea of who the designer is, or you have thought it over. Let's hear more about your vision of the designer.No I'm not saying he is a "he". That is just an easier way of saying it. You can address him as "it" if you want.


I'm not interested in whether ID's job is to point to a designer. I asking YOU who you think it is.

If you don't know , say that.I don't know it's obvious. You can't know that just by looking at the design. It's logical.

[Demogorgon]

Yes, that is what i wrote also. I said that the ofspring of dogs and wolves will not be fertile. Your point is?

The point is that that makes dogs a distinctly evolved species rather than a variation of wolves. Evolution that was actually witnessed by humans.

[ID-guy]

The point is that that makes dogs a distinctly evolved species rather than a variation of wolves. Evolution that was actually witnessed by humans.No the point is evolution can't account for large scale differences. Look at wolves, and look at the dogs. What's the difference? Do they have any new organs? No they don't. They are still the same. Evolution can only account for small changes like the small variation in shape or color of living beings and nothing else. Unless you have some proof that it can?

[Demogorgon]

No the point is evolution can't account for large scale differences. Look at wolves, and look at the dogs. What's the difference? Do they have any new organs? No they don't. They are still the same. Evolution can only account for small changes like the small variation in shape or color of living beings and nothing else. Unless you have some proof that it can?Do Dogs have any organs humans don't have?

That one won't wash unfortunately.

Evolution is obviously a long lasting process with bigger changes taking longer time. But we have here an irrefutable example of evolution happening.

By the by, may I ask your political views?

[ID-guy]

Do Dogs have any organs humans don't have?

That one won't wash unfortunately.Look at dogs and look at humans. Body strucutre is completely different. We walk on 2 feet they walk on all 4. We are completely different.


Evolution is obviously a long lasting process with bigger changes taking longer time. But we have here an irrefutable example of evolution happening.Where? Where are those irrefutable examples of evolution? What did dog evolve that wolves do not have.


By the by, may I ask your political views?No you may not.

[Demogorgon]

Look at dogs and look at humans. Body strucutre is completely different. We walk on 2 feet they walk on all 4. We are completely different.But they have the same organs. You said that developing new organs would be a sign of evolution, but most mammals have the same organs.


Where? Where are those irrefutable examples of evolution? What did dog evolve that wolves do not have.A different DNA structure for one. Obviously the great variation in dogs, which in many ways could be seen as the beginnings of evolution, it is hard to identify distinct characteristics they all have, but by and large dogs have evolved capabilities making them more suited to live alongside humans. That is why they are more easily tamed and also more headstrong. And of course they have taken on physical differences as well.

If you want another example of evolution under observation, look at the evolution of the white rat from the brown rat. That has only happened in the last few hundred years and was in fact entirely human induced by changing the living settings of certain brown rats, causing them to evolve to adapt.


No you may not.
Given we are on a political board, it is a reasonable question to ask. Not only does it tie in with the discussion we are having, but when we have members whose political views we have no idea of, we tend to be a little concerned.

[pusher robot]

What did dog evolve that wolves do not have.

Endearment to humans!

[Lector Malibu]

ID Guy

Yes the question of your political stance is completely reasonable. You now have almost 200 post. You have not discussed anything that pertains to anything else on this board except the ID debate. Revleft is a board that is designed for discussion of revolutionary left politics. So it is completely appropriate to discuss your politics with you as long as you are acerting yourself as a member. Really what your doing at this point makes me wonder why you are here.

[ID-guy]

But they have the same organs. You said that developing new organs would be a sign of evolution, but most mammals have the same organs.Exactly. Which just shows no evolution took place.


A different DNA structure for one. Obviously the great variation in dogs, which in many ways could be seen as the beginnings of evolution, it is hard to identify distinct characteristics they all have, but by and large dogs have evolved capabilities making them more suited to live alongside humans. That is why they are more easily tamed and also more headstrong. And of course they have taken on physical differences as well.But look at them! They are the same. Yes, they have modified body shape a bit, and different colors, and they can be tamed. But what fundamental changes were done? NONE! NONE WHATSOEVER!

To rpove evolution you have to show how you can come from 1 cell to a human. Can you do that? No you can't. Nobody can. We never, ever spoted any changes that can be extrapolated to say that humans evolved from 1 cell over 3.6 billion years.


If you want another example of evolution under observation, look at the evolution of the white rat from the brown rat. That has only happened in the last few hundred years and was in fact entirely human induced by changing the living settings of certain brown rats, causing them to evolve to adapt.THEY ARE STILL A RAT! The color doesn't matter. You have got to show that new body parts can be evolved!


Given we are on a political board, it is a reasonable question to ask. Not only does it tie in with the discussion we are having, but when we have members whose political views we have no idea of, we tend to be a little concerned.I'm not interested in politics.

[ID-guy]

ID Guy

Yes the question of your political stance is completely reasonable. You now have almost 200 post. You have not discussed anything that pertains to anything else on this board except the ID debate. Revleft is a board that is designed for discussion of revolutionary left politics. So it is completely appropriate to discuss your politics with you as long as you are acerting yourself as a member. Really what your doing at this point makes me wonder why you are here.I saw the post about ID and came to discuss it. That's all.

[Lector Malibu]

If your not interested in politics than you should not be here.

[Demogorgon]

Exactly. Which just shows no evolution took place.
Only if we follow your twisted logic. The truth is that it is very strong evidence that all mammals, evolved from a common ancestor, probably a rodent of some description

But look at them! They are the same. Yes, they have modified body shape a bit, and different colors, and they can be tamed. But what fundamental changes were done? NONE! NONE WHATSOEVER!A pretty major alteration is that their DNA structure has changed. Simply looking the same does not make them the same species. Rabbits and Hares look alike, does that make them the same species?


To rpove evolution you have to show how you can come from 1 cell to a human. Can you do that? No you can't. Nobody can. We never, ever spoted any changes that can be extrapolated to say that humans evolved from 1 cell over 3.6 billion years.But as I say we already have some evolution happening before our eyes. There is proof enough already. The fact that we have not yet completed our breakdown of the whole process of evolution does not prove anything unfortunately.


THEY ARE STILL A RAT! The color doesn't matter. You have got to show that new body parts can be evolved!You are just showing ignorance here. Both White and Brown rats actually come in a large number of colours (though white rats have greater variety). Of all the White rats I have owned, only one had white fur. The actual changes observed is a change in physical appearance as well as major changes in behaviour. They have become more intelligent, more gregarious, tamer by nature etc. They are already considered a different species. Minor evolution in just a few hundred years


I'm not interested in politics.
Your presence here is going to arouse suspicion then. This is a political board, for Revolutionary Leftists to discuss interests pertaining to us and for opponents of revolutionary leftism to debate us in OI. If you are not here for politics, we have to ask you what brought you here, what is making you post here obsessively, why you are so rude to us and why you will not reveal anything about your politics.

[ID-guy]

If your not interested in politics than you should not be here.And how about younot tell me where I should be, mkay?

[ID-guy]

Only if we follow your twisted logic. The truth is that it is very strong evidence that all mammals, evolved from a common ancestor, probably a rodent of some descriptionDo you have any proof of that?


A pretty major alteration is that their DNA structure has changed. Simply looking the same does not make them the same species. Rabbits and Hares look alike, does that make them the same species?Not the point! If they have no fundamental differences than you can't say you have proof of evolution!


But as I say we already have some evolution happening before our eyes. There is proof enough already. The fact that we have not yet completed our breakdown of the whole process of evolution does not prove anything unfortunately.No it is not proof enough. If you want to believe it is, than that's fine by me. But don't call that science, call it what it is, and that's religion. Evolution is a religion.


You are just showing ignorance here. Both White and Brown rats actually come in a large number of colours (though white rats have greater variety). Of all the White rats I have owned, only one had white fur. The actual changes observed is a change in physical appearance as well as major changes in behaviour. They have become more intelligent, more gregarious, tamer by nature etc. They are already considered a different species. Minor evolution in just a few hundred yearsWhat's wrong with you!? Those are all minor changes!!!! I'm not talking about different species!! I'm talking about levels above the species level!!! Which part do you have trouble understanding here!?


Your presence here is going to arouse suspicion then. This is a political board, for Revolutionary Leftists to discuss interests pertaining to us and for opponents of revolutionary leftism to debate us in OI. If you are not here for politics, we have to ask you what brought you here, what is making you post here obsessively, why you are so rude to us and why you will not reveal anything about your politics.1.) The post about ID brought me here.

2.) I'm answering to your posts, can't you see that!?

3.) You were all rude to me first. Why shouldn't I be rude back?

4.) I did. i told you that I'm not interested in politics. But if you wish to know, I do not like communism since it is based on materialism. So there.

[Demogorgon]

1.) The post about ID brought me here.

2.) I'm answering to your posts, can't you see that!?

3.) You were all rude to me first. Why shouldn't I be rude back?

4.) I did. i told you that I'm not interested in politics. But if you wish to know, I do not like communism since it is based on materialism. So there.
There is no point in debating you any further as you are practically guaranteed to be banned soon. Besides the fact that you obviously are not interested in debate and simply want to make wild assertions to make you look clever means I am not interested very much anymore.

I would like to know how you are so sure that scientific consensus on such things as the expanding universe is wrong, but that curiousity aside I don't want to talk with you any further. I was perfectly polite to you and you flamed me back straight away. I have gone to a hell of a lot of effort to try and promote tolerance for people with religious beliefs and the like on this board and you behaving like that to me is a disappointment that will set things back for everyone else.

You are obviously here to stir up trouble, you simply "found" a topic on intelligent design on a fairly obscure message board? Aye right.

[ID-guy]

There is no point in debating you any further as you are practically guaranteed to be banned soon. Besides the fact that you obviously are not interested in debate and simply want to make wild assertions to make you look clever means I am not interested very much anymore.Wouldn't it be easier just to say that you lost?


I would like to know how you are so sure that scientific consensus on such things as the expanding universe is wrong, but that curiousity aside I don't want to talk with you any further.Well than I'm not telling you.


I was perfectly polite to you and you flamed me back straight away.Where did I flame you?


I have gone to a hell of a lot of effort to try and promote tolerance for people with religious beliefs and the like on this board and you behaving like that to me is a disappointment that will set things back for everyone else.ROTFL! I have no religious views! Which part do you not understand here?


You are obviously here to stir up trouble, you simply "found" a topic on intelligent design on a fairly obscure message board? Aye right.Yes I did find it since I'm interested in ID. Again, which part is it hard to understand? Just admit that you lost!

[Demogorgon]

One wonders how high an opinion of yourself you have that you think that against you I could possibly have lost anything except for my patience.

It is a simple fact that behaviour like yours will get you banned, so why get into an in depth discussion with someone who is unlikely to continue arguing for very long?

[Publius]

Well you are now investigating the designer. That is not what ID is about. ID is about investigating the design, not the designer.

I'm not talking about ID, I'm talking about your idea of God.

Is it really this vague?



1.) Do you not see a car when you think of a car?

No. I get the impression of a car, but I don't actually see a picture of one.

For example, try this.

Picture a car in your head.

Now answer these questions based on the image you FIRST SAW, not on things you added on later, as you read the questions.

What color was it?

What model was it?

Was the radio antenna on the drivers side or the passenger side?

Was it a 2-door of a 4-door? Sedan or Coupe? Hatchback?

All of those are questions that, if you had a PICTURE of a car would trivial to answer.

But your 'mental image' isn't anything like a picture. It's much too vague. The details only get filled in when you make them up later.



2.) Post that refutation if you can, don't just say it's refuted.

The refutation is this:

Pictures don't contain semantic content, therefore pictures cannot be meaningful.

Take a picture of a cat, for instance. No picture, or amount of pictures, could ever produce the types of thought that we can produce about cats.

For example, you might think we could have a picture for the concept "cat": just a picture of a cat might suffice.

But what about a picture for the concept "some cats drink milk"? That's true, only some cats drink milk. But how could you have a picture of that? A picture of 3 cats drinking milk and 2 cats not? That wouldn't be a picture of "some cats drink milk" it would be a picture of "3 cats are drinking milk, 2 are not."

It would be impossible to derive that general statement from any number of specifics.

You could have an infinite number of pictures of various configurations of cats drinking and not drinking milk, and you'd still never have the concept "some cats drink milk", you'd just have a bunch of pictures.

Say you have a picture of a child playing baseball. What's the meaning behind that? It could be anything. It could "I enjoy baseball", it could be "that's my son", it could be "he died in a car accident just a few days after this was shot."

All of those are possibly true AND possibly false to derive from the picture. But this is proof that the picture itself cannot be meaningful, instead we attach meaning TO the picture.

But is then proof that the meaning is outside of the picture.

For example, you can fully understand the concept triangle, but you can't picture every triangle. Some are too big to be pictured.

But you still know those are triangles, by definition.



Humiliated by what? That video, together with the paper is retarded.

Really? "Retarded"?

That's the best you can do?


I mean, it explains nothing. It just says that the ball could be movig in 100 years, all by itself. And that's it. There is no explanation why that could happen. How is that science?

There is explanation, at the end. He goes the through the math.

If you DISPUTE the math, post of a refutation of it.

If you don't understand the math, then don't talk.



Really? Explain how.

Well, there a few phenomena that prove this.

Quantum entanglement, shown in slit experiments and in spin experiments shows that quantum particles can influence each other at distance without exerting a force. Measuring the spin of one particle can change the spin of another, instantly, faster than the speed of light, even.

Slit experiments show that particles don't necessarily go through one or the other slit, but go through all possibilities until their wave function collapses.

Quantum vacuum fluctuations seem to be acausal.

Quantum phenemena can only be predicted statistically. Photons hitting, say, a clear surface have 1 in 25 chance of bouncing off. Nothing seems to cause this, there are no explanations. I could link to a video of Feynman explaining this, if you'd like.

This is all very basic because I have a limited understanding of QM, but it's all valid AFAIK.



No, you are wrong, again. You rpoved nothing, except that you can post videos that talk about magic!

It's not magic. It's math.

Physics is explicable in terms of math. The math demonstrates that under those conditions there are numerous valid solutions, and there's nothing to choose between them.

This isn't "magic", this is reputable physics. The guy who came up with this is no loon, he's a university professor. It's well known that Newtonian physics doesn't work at extremes of speed, for example. It doesn't explain this sort of thing either.



No, what you should do is explain how those videos contain any science in them.

I have to explain to you how a video about Newtonian physics has science in it?

Why don't YOU take the initiative and do some thinking for yourself?



Show me where do things move without an outside force.

Quantum entanglement.

The spin of a particle can change simply because it's entangled with another particle.

But this can't be because of a force because the switch happens faster than the speed of light. It's utterly instantaneous.

Since a force is matter/energy, it can't be either of those, because those are constrained by physics.



And no, don't post anymore stupid videos like those. I want proof, not some stupid theory.

It's not a "theory" -- Newtonian physics is accepted as physical law for macro objects not at extremes of speed or size

I guess you think gravity is "some stupid theory"? Because this is derived from the same set of equations as gravity.



Show me a scientific paper that shows those wishes in the brain.

Show me a scientific paper that shows that they aren't.

I don't understand how can you expect me to produce endless amounts of data to refute you (which you just ignore) when you don't do the same?

I don't know of any research that has studied "wishes" themselves, but since wishes are thoughts, what you really need to look at is neuroscience relating to thought in general.



Well than, explain how does matter become conscious by different arrangements.

As you know, information is carried in patterns. A rock doesn't have any patterns in which represent data. A brain does. Neurons fire in specific patterns who elicit behaviors and in turn elicit other brain cells to fire.

This is consciousness. Without similar feedback mechanisms and input/output systems, nothing can be conscious.



I did. There is no infinity here. I wished it, and I did it. It's as simple as that.

How do you know? How can you tell?



Only matter is bound by the law of cause and efect.

Prove it.

I'm tired of you just asserting things, I want you to prove this.

David Hume refuted this notion 400 years ago. There is no such thing as a law of cause and effect.

Show me evidence otherwise. Science, not your opinion.



Non material things do not have to be.

Non material things don't exist.

To exist is to be material.



How can I have illusions if don't have consciousness?

Consciousness IS the illusion.


That is a logical fallacy.

Really? Which one is it?


If im not coscious, than who is having the illusion?

You are having the illusion. You are having the illusion that you are conscious.



What causes action that perform?

The same thing that causes your illusion: your brain.



I showed you that I can do whatever I want. When you find something that I can't do that you will be proven right. Untill that time, I'm right.

Tell me what my middle name is.

There's something you can't do.

Furthermore, you're missing the point. I don't care what you think or feel, I care what you can demonstrate and prove.

Prove to me you're causing your behavior, don't just assert it.



Why? On what ideas are you basing this?

Have you ever been wrong before?

Ever been mistaken, or thought you saw something that you didn't?

That's proof that your introspection can be wrong.



The point is we can think of everything. Thus showing you we have free will.

Think of my middle name.

There's proof that you can't think of everything. You can barely think of anything. What did I have for breakfast yesterday?



But who is directing that force?

None. None "directs" gravity.



No, that was a stupid video that showed nothing. I DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT care about few formulas and theories. I want proof that matter can move by itself, not some guy that just says it can.

It wasn't "some guy", he was summarizing a research paper by a serious physicist and he demonstrated it via mathematics.

In order to prove him wrong, you'd find fault with his math.

That's how the world works -- in a manner describable by mathematics. F = MA and all that.

Anyway, look at the QM research.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynamics_in_the_double-slit_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_and_experimental_justification_for_the _Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation



How can ma feelings not be true? Explain it.

Let's separate two things:

That you're having a feeling cannot be disputed. You are feeling something.

But your intution can be wrong.

Here:

The Phi Pheneomena: http://www.yorku.ca/eye/balls.htm

Two dots, one lights up, then the other. But it looks to you as if it's just one dot moving back and forth.

Your intuition is mistaken. It's really do just two alternating dots.

So what's true and false here?

It's TRUE that you SEE the dot moving back and forth. It's true that you have this intution.

But it's false.

Simple demonstrating of the falsity of experience.



What things can seem to be true but be flase?

Anything.

Phi shows that visual perception can be wrong. Audiotory perception can be tricked.

Entire books are dedicated to explaining this. Read one sometime.



Just beacuse people got the wrong idea abut something, that desn't mean they got no idea whatsoever.

Exactly.

They have ideas. Just wrong ones.

You have the idea that you have free will.

And it's wrong.


And if they have ideas, than they have free will too.

Doesn't follow.



Explain how.

Huh? Explain an entire book to you?

Why don't YOU just read the book yourself?



Again, you are just typing things that I don't care about. I don't care if you say he was refuted, it doesn't show anywhere. Everything you said was vague.

I don't even think you've read Descartes meditations, which is what makes this all the more pitiful.

You want me to refute something YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ.

Why?

What would that accomplish?

I've already refuted it, as a matter of fact. It's been refuted hundreds of years. None believes it anymore except, it seems, you.

You're quite an infurating person to talk to because you're so manifestly ignorant and yet so self-assured. You've never given your thoughts the slightest scrutiny. The thought hadn't even occured to you that you might be wrong. You don't prove anything you say, you just make bare assertions and expect me to accept them as fact. "OF COURESE I HAVE FREE WILL, I THINK I DO!" Fucking idiot. That's not how philosophy works. That's not how science works. And then you the gall to ask me to "explain" everything or "post a link" to it. I do that, and since you're a dumbass, you can't understand it, you ask me to explain it again, or you just ignore it.

I don't know why you come on here. You can't be here to learn anything, because your ignore everything anyone else says. Reflect on what you're doing and why you think what you think. Read a damn book. It's painful how little you know in contrast with how much you profess to know.

[Publius]

One wonders how high an opinion of yourself you have that you think that against you I could possibly have lost anything except for my patience.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

- Bertrand Russell (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/bertrandru121392.html)

[Lector Malibu]

ID Guy

I'm not telling where to go. That is the decision of the moderators. And since you have admitted that you have no interest in discussing politics or anything else for that matter , than no you should not be here. There are plenty of other forums for you to spam ID theory on.

[chimx]

I just want to say ID-Guy represents a fringe movement in Christianity. Catholics and nearly every other major Christian denomination have publicly condemned the idiocy of Intelligent Design.

They often times simply don't understand evolution. Evolution simply is the theory that minor hereditary genetic mutations will slowly dominate if these mutations increase a species reproductive potentiality.

On a micro level, evolution has been recreated. I've read of a study of a certain type of fish off of Canada that is genetically beginning to get smaller and smaller so that it will not get caught in fisherman nets. Now, I wouldn't be too quick to say that this is an example of evolution because it has only happened for a handful of generations, but already we are seeing evolutionary-like effects. Because large fishes are killed, only small ones are able to reproduce, which is then having an effect on the genetic makeup of the species.

Another example is bacteria resistance to antibodies and antibacterial soaps. Some bacteria have adapted natural resistances to these antibodies, and when an antibody is not taken long enough, it is these bacteria with a natural resistance that are able to reproduce and spread. Again, I would be hesitant to call that evolution, but it illustrates the process of evolution on a micro level.

[ID-guy]

One wonders how high an opinion of yourself you have that you think that against you I could possibly have lost anything except for my patience.

It is a simple fact that behaviour like yours will get you banned, so why get into an in depth discussion with someone who is unlikely to continue arguing for very long?Fine, bye!

[ID-guy]

I'm not talking about ID, I'm talking about your idea of God.

Is it really this vague?I don't know him, so I can't tell you anything about him.


No. I get the impression of a car, but I don't actually see a picture of one.

For example, try this.

Picture a car in your head.

Now answer these questions based on the image you FIRST SAW, not on things you added on later, as you read the questions.

What color was it?

What model was it?

Was the radio antenna on the drivers side or the passenger side?

Was it a 2-door of a 4-door? Sedan or Coupe? Hatchback?

All of those are questions that, if you had a PICTURE of a car would trivial to answer.WELL THAT'S THE POIN!!! I can add them on later! Because I can think. Therefore I have free will to imagine what I want. And no, those images are not material. If they are, than prove it.


But your 'mental image' isn't anything like a picture. It's much too vague. The details only get filled in when you make them up later.It doesn't matter, they still exist. It doesn't matter how clear I can see the picture, IT EXISTS. Now, prove that it's matter.


The refutation is this:

Pictures don't contain semantic content, therefore pictures cannot be meaningful.ROTFL! Yes they do. A picutre of a car, contain semantics of a car. A picture of a car has a meaning, and the meaning is a car.


Take a picture of a cat, for instance. No picture, or amount of pictures, could ever produce the types of thought that we can produce about cats.Not the point. This has got nothing to do with ideas.


For example, you might think we could have a picture for the concept "cat": just a picture of a cat might suffice.

But what about a picture for the concept "some cats drink milk"? That's true, only some cats drink milk. But how could you have a picture of that? A picture of 3 cats drinking milk and 2 cats not? That wouldn't be a picture of "some cats drink milk" it would be a picture of "3 cats are drinking milk, 2 are not."What does that have to do with anything? Absolutly nothing! The fact that we can see images in our head, is enough to prove that we can think. No, prove that those images are matter.


It would be impossible to derive that general statement from any number of specifics.What?


You could have an infinite number of pictures of various configurations of cats drinking and not drinking milk, and you'd still never have the concept "some cats drink milk", you'd just have a bunch of pictures.

Say you have a picture of a child playing baseball. What's the meaning behind that? It could be anything. It could "I enjoy baseball", it could be "that's my son", it could be "he died in a car accident just a few days after this was shot."

All of those are possibly true AND possibly false to derive from the picture. But this is proof that the picture itself cannot be meaningful, instead we attach meaning TO the picture.

But is then proof that the meaning is outside of the picture.

For example, you can fully understand the concept triangle, but you can't picture every triangle. Some are too big to be pictured.

But you still know those are triangles, by definition.Again. We are not talking about concepts. But images in our heads. They exist. Everyone can see them. Now explain how can we see them, and prove that they are just matter.


Really? "Retarded"?

That's the best you can do?Well it's talking crap. What else can I call it?


There is explanation, at the end. He goes the through the math.

If you DISPUTE the math, post of a refutation of it.

If you don't understand the math, then don't talk.No. I do not refute the formulas. I want proof that something like that can happen in real life.


Well, there a few phenomena that prove this.

Quantum entanglement, shown in slit experiments and in spin experiments shows that quantum particles can influence each other at distance without exerting a force. Measuring the spin of one particle can change the spin of another, instantly, faster than the speed of light, even.

Slit experiments show that particles don't necessarily go through one or the other slit, but go through all possibilities until their wave function collapses.

Quantum vacuum fluctuations seem to be acausal.

Quantum phenemena can only be predicted statistically. Photons hitting, say, a clear surface have 1 in 25 chance of bouncing off. Nothing seems to cause this, there are no explanations. I could link to a video of Feynman explaining this, if you'd like.

This is all very basic because I have a limited understanding of QM, but it's all valid AFAIK.Nope. This has nothing to do with the video. I've seen lots of videos on QM and I know the difference. The point in those experiments was that light can be a wave or a partice at the same time. It has nothing to do with matter moving by itself. Since photons are not matter, but electro-magnetic radiation - therefore they are energy.


It's not magic. It's math.

Physics is explicable in terms of math. The math demonstrates that under those conditions there are numerous valid solutions, and there's nothing to choose between them.

This isn't "magic", this is reputable physics. The guy who came up with this is no loon, he's a university professor. It's well known that Newtonian physics doesn't work at extremes of speed, for example. It doesn't explain this sort of thing either.I know that Newtonian physics doesn't work on small or large scale. But the point I'm trying to make is that this is no proof that matter can move itself.


I have to explain to you how a video about Newtonian physics has science in it?

Why don't YOU take the initiative and do some thinking for yourself?The point is that I don't care about a theory. You can't prove something with a theory. You need to do some empirical science to prove your ideas.


Quantum entanglement.

The spin of a particle can change simply because it's entangled with another particle.

But this can't be because of a force because the switch happens faster than the speed of light. It's utterly instantaneous.

Since a force is matter/energy, it can't be either of those, because those are constrained by physics.Wrong. It happens when those 2 particles interact. It didn't happen by itself.


It's not a "theory" -- Newtonian physics is accepted as physical law for macro objects not at extremes of speed or size

I guess you think gravity is "some stupid theory"? Because this is derived from the same set of equations as gravity.Look, we can test Newton's laws. I have no problems with them. But where did you test a ball falling from a dome by itself!?


Show me a scientific paper that shows that they aren't.I don't have to, because this is a negative statement. I'm not trying to prove something. You are.


I don't understand how can you expect me to produce endless amounts of data to refute you (which you just ignore) when you don't do the same?

I don't know of any research that has studied "wishes" themselves, but since wishes are thoughts, what you really need to look at is neuroscience relating to thought in general.How can you be so sure that wishes are in the brain if you have no proof?


As you know, information is carried in patterns. A rock doesn't have any patterns in which represent data. A brain does. Neurons fire in specific patterns who elicit behaviors and in turn elicit other brain cells to fire.Yes, this is a fact. But this has nothing to do with consciousness. This is just a form of information processing. Just like computers do. And they are not consciouss.


This is consciousness. Without similar feedback mechanisms and input/output systems, nothing can be consciousNo it's not. THis is just information processing. To prove that something is consciouss you need to be able to make new information. Not just porocess it.


How do you know? How can you tell?By knowing it. How do we know everything else? We depend on our mind to tell us. How do you do math? How do you prove anything, and how do you know you proved it? Well, ou relly on your mind to tell you. If you are going to doubt your mind, than NOTHING is certain, not even that you exist.


Prove it.

I'm tired of you just asserting things, I want you to prove this.

David Hume refuted this notion 400 years ago. There is no such thing as a law of cause and effect.

Show me evidence otherwise. Science, not your opinion.1.) An object is going to stand still untill an outside force acts upon it. That is Newtons law. You need to have a cause to have an effect.

2.) Show me his refutation.


Non material things don't exist.

To exist is to be material.Than what are images in your head?


Consciousness IS the illusion.But who is having this illusion?


Really? Which one is it?The one where you say that a consciousness is an illusion. To be able to have an illusion you have to have cosciousness.


You are having the illusion. You are having the illusion that you are conscious.Who is this "me"? Which part of me is having this illusion?


The same thing that causes your illusion: your brain.Explain how can a brain have an illusion?


Tell me what my middle name is.

There's something you can't do.LOL. What's wrong with you? This would be a test to see if I can read minds or not. Not to test if I can think of anything I want or not.

Yes, I can think of your middle name, and yes I can think of what you had for breakfast. And yes, it's going to be wrnong. But the poin is I can think of that. I can think of anything. Be it wrong or false. And that just is the proof of our free will, that we can think of anything, even if it is false.


Furthermore, you're missing the point. I don't care what you think or feel, I care what you can demonstrate and prove.

Prove to me you're causing your behavior, don't just assert it.My mind tells me what I'm doing. What do you consider a proof?


Have you ever been wrong before?

Ever been mistaken, or thought you saw something that you didn't?

That's proof that your introspection can be wrong.Yes, but that doesn't prove that we don't have free will. If you are going to be that extreme, than nothing can be proven. Because we relly on our mind to tell us that 2+2=4. If we can't trust our mind, than we can't be sure that 2+2=4. Which is just stupid.


Think of my middle name.

There's proof that you can't think of everything. You can barely think of anything. What did I have for breakfast yesterday?Not the point! This is a mind reading thest! Not a test to see if I have free will or not.


None. None "directs" gravity.Gravity is not directed. Animals are directed by their minds.


It wasn't "some guy", he was summarizing a research paper by a serious physicist and he demonstrated it via mathematics.

In order to prove him wrong, you'd find fault with his math.

That's how the world works -- in a manner describable by mathematics. F = MA and all that.

Anyway, look at the QM research.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_dynamics_in_the_double-slit_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_and_experimental_justification_for_the _Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

I already know about that. Seen it lot's of times. It has NOTHING to do with matter move by itself. A ball of matter is not light. Matter is matter. Light is energy.


Let's separate two things:

That you're having a feeling cannot be disputed. You are feeling something.

But your intution can be wrong.

Here:

The Phi Pheneomena: http://www.yorku.ca/eye/balls.htm

Two dots, one lights up, then the other. But it looks to you as if it's just one dot moving back and forth.

Your intuition is mistaken. It's really do just two alternating dots.

So what's true and false here?

It's TRUE that you SEE the dot moving back and forth. It's true that you have this intution.

But it's false.

Simple demonstrating of the falsity of experience.Yes but I'm not rellying on my intuition when I feel.


Anything.

Phi shows that visual perception can be wrong. Audiotory perception can be tricked.

Entire books are dedicated to explaining this. Read one sometime.I agree, but still my feelings are what create intuition. No the other way around,


Exactly.

They have ideas. Just wrong ones.

You have the idea that you have free will.

And it's wrong.How do you know that I don't have free will. What exactly do you base your opinion on?


Doesn't follow.But they can any kind of ideas, and that is free will.


Huh? Explain an entire book to you?

Why don't YOU just read the book yourself?No, just the refutation part. Explain it.


I don't even think you've read Descartes meditations, which is what makes this all the more pitiful.

You want me to refute something YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ.

Why?

What would that accomplish?

I've already refuted it, as a matter of fact. It's been refuted hundreds of years. None believes it anymore except, it seems, you.

You're quite an infurating person to talk to because you're so manifestly ignorant and yet so self-assured. You've never given your thoughts the slightest scrutiny. The thought hadn't even occured to you that you might be wrong. You don't prove anything you say, you just make bare assertions and expect me to accept them as fact. "OF COURESE I HAVE FREE WILL, I THINK I DO!" Fucking idiot. That's not how philosophy works. That's not how science works. And then you the gall to ask me to "explain" everything or "post a link" to it. I do that, and since you're a dumbass, you can't understand it, you ask me to explain it again, or you just ignore it.

I don't know why you come on here. You can't be here to learn anything, because your ignore everything anyone else says. Reflect on what you're doing and why you think what you think. Read a damn book. It's painful how little you know in contrast with how much you profess to know.Listen, I don't care about some guy who lived a century ago. No, I do not follow his ideas. I have my own ideas. So either are you going to show why I don't have free will or don't. But don't just say that everything I said was refuted. I don't care if HE was refuted. I'm not him.

[ID-guy]

ID Guy

I'm not telling where to go. That is the decision of the moderators. And since you have admitted that you have no interest in discussing politics or anything else for that matter , than no you should not be here. There are plenty of other forums for you to spam ID theory on.Well, leave this to the mods than...

[ID-guy]

I just want to say ID-Guy represents a fringe movement in Christianity. Catholics and nearly every other major Christian denomination have publicly condemned the idiocy of Intelligent Design.I'm not a Christian. ID is not based on Christianity.


They often times simply don't understand evolution. Evolution simply is the theory that minor hereditary genetic mutations will slowly dominate if these mutations increase a species reproductive potentiality.I understand it very well thank you.


On a micro level, evolution has been recreated. I've read of a study of a certain type of fish off of Canada that is genetically beginning to get smaller and smaller so that it will not get caught in fisherman nets. Now, I wouldn't be too quick to say that this is an example of evolution because it has only happened for a handful of generations, but already we are seeing evolutionary-like effects. Because large fishes are killed, only small ones are able to reproduce, which is then having an effect on the genetic makeup of the species.Great. This is how natural selection works. But this is not proof that we came from 1 cell 3.6 billion years ago. Yes, the fish are getting smaller, but they didn't evolve no new body parts.


Another example is bacteria resistance to antibodies and antibacterial soaps. Some bacteria have adapted natural resistances to these antibodies, and when an antibody is not taken long enough, it is these bacteria with a natural resistance that are able to reproduce and spread. Again, I would be hesitant to call that evolution, but it illustrates the process of evolution on a micro level.Again, no new body parts. And when bactereia evolve antibiotic resistance they lose some complexity. The fact is they get mutations so that antibiotics can't attach to them. Those mutations make them less functional, and that is why antibiotics don't work on them. And that's how they survive. But again, this is no proof that they can GAIN something new. They can't change any of their functions or get new body parts. You need that in order to prove that we could evolve from 1 cell 3.6 billion years ago.

[MarxSchmarx]

They can't change any of their functions or get new body parts. You need that in order to prove that we could evolve from 1 cell 3.6 billion years ago.Yawn. Been there done that. In re: functions, google "phage e coli coevolution" and report back to us.

In re "body parts" (please define).

But I'll anticipate your response with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology

That's how we have two headed tad pols and mice with arms instead of legs.
c.f.
Science 12 March 1999: Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1615 - 1616

[ID-guy]

Yawn. Been there done that. In re: functions, google "phage e coli coevolution" and report back to us. I'm supposed to look for your arguments? No deal.


In re "body parts" (please define).Organs.


But I'll anticipate your response with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology

That's how we have two headed tad pols and mice with arms instead of legs.
c.f.
Science 12 March 1999: Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1615 - 1616You just posted a link. Explain what you are talking about.

[eyedrop]

You just posted a link. Explain what you are talking about.

You haven't posted tons of such links in the other tread?

[ID-guy]

You haven't posted tons of such links in the other tread?Yes I did. With explanations.

[MarxSchmarx]

In re "body parts" (please define). Organs.

Please define an organ.


You just posted a link. Explain what you are talking about.Err...how about you READ the links and YOU explain what they are talking about.

But here is a summary. Two heads counts as a novel organ. So does hindlimbs that function like forelimbs. None of which needed a creater/designer/GOD/whatever the hell ID talks about to generate. All of which was in the genome of all the animals mentioned, ready to go. Humdrum manipulation of developmental sequences sufficed. No need for a "designer". That's the gist of it.

[ID-guy]

Please define an organ.Here you go.


In biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology), an organ (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language): organum, "instrument, tool", from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) όργανον - organon, "organ, instrument, tool") is a group of tissues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_tissue) that perform a specific function or group of functions. Usually there is a main tissue and sporadic tissues. The main tissue is the one that is unique for the specific organ. For example, main tissue in the heart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart) is the myocardium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myocardium), while sporadic are the nervous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_tissue), blood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood), connective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connective_tissue) etc.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_%28anatomy%29


Err...how about you READ the links and YOU explain what they are talking about.No, when you post a link, you should explain what it's talking about. When I post a link, I should explain whats it talking about. Or cite a bit of text from the link. That's how you do it.


But here is a summary. Two heads counts as a novel organ. So does hindlimbs that function like forelimbs. None of which needed a creater/designer/GOD/whatever the hell ID talks about to generate. All of which was in the genome of all the animals mentioned, ready to go. Humdrum manipulation of developmental sequences sufficed. No need for a "designer". That's the gist of it.Exactly. That is the point. They were already there, so they DO NOT count as a novel organ. Since, like you said it, they were already in the genome. You only needed to express them. So the question is, how did teh got there in the first place. That would be the answer on how you get new organs. So, how did they get there?

[MarxSchmarx]

So the question is, how did teh got there in the first place. That would be the answer on how you get new organs. So, how did they get there?

Nucleotide substitutions. Insertion. Deletions. Duplications.

[ID-guy]

Nucleotide substitutions. Insertion. Deletions. Duplications.These are the mechanism for mutations. So you are saying they got there by mutations. Do you have anything to back that up?

[MarxSchmarx]

These are the mechanism for mutations. So you are saying they got there by mutations. Do you have anything to back that up?Why does one mutation cause one phenotype to appear one way, and another mutation case another phenotype to appear another way? The only logical explanation is that mutations lead to phenotypic variation, and are the sole source of heritable phenotypic variation (well except non-additive genetic variation, which is only kinda sorta heritable anyway).

[ID-guy]

Why does one mutation cause one phenotype to appear one way, and another mutation case another phenotype to appear another way? The only logical explanation is that mutations lead to phenotypic variation, and are the sole source of heritable phenotypic variation (well except non-additive genetic variation, which is only kinda sorta heritable anyway).That is true, but we never saw new organs being formed by mutations. So you cant say that mutations lead to new organs.

[Dimentio]

That is true, but we never saw new organs being formed by mutations. So you cant say that mutations lead to new organs.

Most mutations are malevolent, but some of them - some very few - might increase opportunities for breeding.

[ID-guy]

Most mutations are malevolent, but some of them - some very few - might increase opportunities for breeding.No kidding. So, your point is?