by outsmartthesystem 165 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
"What evidence do you have to prove to others that this epiphenomenon of your own "mind" is not just simple chemistry and physics?"
if you want to persue this question, do it in full and ask yourself "what evidence you have to prove to others" that your idea about a mind behind the biodiversity seen in nature "is not just simply chemistry and physics"?
bohm,
Your idea that it's all caused by point mutations and natural selection over time has already been mathematically refuted.
The point is that you have to find another mechanism.
GB: Your idea that it's all caused by point mutations and natural selection over time has already been mathematically refuted.
New chapter,
Since you insist on some kind of mind, this would indicate intelligence, and it would indicate design. Now it may be that the terms "design", "god", "creation" and so forth are not being used to hide the basic argument---that a greater being is behind creation. Because you know the minute you bring up one of those terms, you will be dismissed.
Exactly, presumably this is the reason that GB has refused to answer or even acknowledge my earlier question.
Well it's one style of arguing. First, be in control of the subject. Second, change the subject or deprioritize certain points as they become burdensome. Third, ignore valid points the other person brings up in favor of your fabricated argument. Fourth, and this is important, use SEMANTICS as distraction. Intentionally miss the point and hyperfocus on some detail that does not speak to the bigger argument.
You said god, I didn't say god.
But you did say mind, and I have deduced that this would be some kind of godlike being.
But I'm not talking about god, why do you keep bringing that up?
Because I do have some experience in these matters and recognize that people use substitute terms for god so that they will not be dismissed.
What were we talking about? Slight of hand.
NC
Well it's one style of arguing.
One favoured by the likes of Deepak Chopra. You missed out the fifth rule: use lots of scientific words even if you don't understand them.
Hell, I've had a hard time following some of it. I feel bad for the original poster, he just wanted some info on evolution 101. You know---some speciation---natural selection---that kind of thing. I think the following discussion would have freaked me out a bit if I was a newbie.
NC
It didn't freak me out.....but I quit trying to follow.
Science works tirelessly to falsify everything it knows--every theory is rigorously tested and as new understanding is gained, the process starts all over again. No theory is safe--
Are you implying that this is actually happening in regards to things like:
1. abiogenesis,
2. The overall (molecules to man), evolutionary version of history.
3. or even merely the evolutionary mechanism of mutation/selection?
Are you saying that that "science" [i.e. the "evolutionary science community"] is really "tirelessly" trying to falsify them??
What is the evidence for this? For example do they publish any attempted falisifications?, or fund any attempted falsification experiments, or studies against any of these things?
No theory is safe-- if it were it would be religion. NC
So if hypothetically the overall naturalistic/evolutionary version of history has been made "safe" by its proponets , then its religion?
What is the evidence for this? For example do they publish any attempted falisifications?, or fund any attempted falsification experiments, or studies against any of these things?
Do you mean in the same way that "they" - whoever that means - ought to fund the work of the flat earth society?
Anybody is free to put forward their hypothesis that contradicts evolution by natural selection, many have tried. Normally that would mean presenting their case at appropriate conventions or seminars. They would need to submit their paper to a peer reviewed journal. If it is intersting others will take up the challenge and attempt to repicate the results presented in the paper. If it stands up it will eventually become acccepted as correct. If it is a faith-based piece of psuedo-science it will get mauled by people who actually know what they are talking about.
Lynn Margulis did exactly this with her endosymbiotic theory. It was widely criticised at first but she did the hard work and eventually proved her case. Now it is in the textbooks.
On the other hand creationists and proponents of ID never publish anything useful. They are academic parasites who try to get noticed by criticising science through the popular science industry. Every single thing Behe et al have ever said has been dismantled by real biologists. Then people like you cry foul becasue you are not allowed take a short-cut and get recognition for your hare-brianed ideas without doing the hard work.
