hey!.
i have a question regarding creation thats burning me.
i dont have any clever arguments depending on what is answered, i am just curious.. first off i want to say that i think people are free to believe whatever they want.
besty, villabolo: thanks for the replies!. Okay talk about a cultural gap!. I thought creationist was the POLITE way to refer to the belief man and animals were created! this is pretty embarasing, i have been saying creationist all the time i have been here without implying any insult :-(.
So if anyone is reading this - substitute 'intelligent design believer' for creationist and have a
hey!.
i have a question regarding creation thats burning me.
i dont have any clever arguments depending on what is answered, i am just curious.. first off i want to say that i think people are free to believe whatever they want.
hmm. that didnt generate a lot of traffic :-).
i dont believe in creation anymore.
according to the evolution theory we adapt based on our needs.
but the human brain is far superior than our needs.
HappyGuy: Sounds like i got to do some reading, so i cannot answer untill at least tomorrow... You wont happend to have references to the maps to? I mean somewhere where i can see what they look like, how they are interpreted and how they are dated?
has anyone here ever researched or thought about dna memory?
there's a lot of weird, esoteric stuff out there concerning this, like you can somehow access your ancestors' memories.
that's not really what i'm talking about - to me, that sounds a little too fanciful.dna is a relatively recent discovery and obviously, there's still a lot to learn.
wobble - Evolution work at a much slower pace. Very simplified:
The DNA is a kind of blueprint that lies inside each egg-cell and sperm-cell. When those are mixed in the baby factory, out comes a baby which is a mix of these two blueprints. The mixed blueprint is also stored in the baby and the process continue. So the blueprints are not affected by how the mom and dad live - they are static, and will only change because of:
a) The mixing-part.
b) errors, coffee-stains and so on will sometimes cause the blueprint to change in a small way. Most changes are bad, a few are God.
c) A few other things that are not so important for humans and this discussion.
has anyone here ever researched or thought about dna memory?
there's a lot of weird, esoteric stuff out there concerning this, like you can somehow access your ancestors' memories.
that's not really what i'm talking about - to me, that sounds a little too fanciful.dna is a relatively recent discovery and obviously, there's still a lot to learn.
hmm.
Lets look at the mother. The egg cells are created along with the baby and are not being produced all the time like the sperms cells. So their nucleus and DNA is in that sence static.
So in order for the mother to pass on a memory (tragic or otherwise) through the DNA what would need to happend was:
* The mother experience the event and record in her brain.
* The memory is somehow selected. then it is somehow transcribed by an uknown mechanism into an unknown thing where it is stored in some unknown format. Keep in mind the memories seem to be stored as a pattern of synapses among millions of neurons.
* Those things from before travel to all the moms egg-cells and go into the cells. Here they begin to manipulate the DNA and splice the information into them. That information need to be stored in such a way that if affect the way the brain grow so that the moms memories are inserted.
Furthermore, notice that, just like the fingerprints and all other structures in humans, the exact layout of the brain is not known. How does the DNA know exactly how to affect the neural layout of the brain so that the memory is interserted?
Its a cute idea, but a-priori i think it has a lot of things talking against it, particulary the transcription/encoding phase. I think the greatest problem is the distributed layout of the brain; if the brain work any way like a normal hopfield network, no two memories are stored a like in different brains, but will depend on the topology of the other brain which is determined by what other memories the baby will learn sometimes in the future. Thats a pretty big problem.
That, and the fact there are no reliable observations of this happening, is why i think it is unlikely.
hey!.
i have a question regarding creation thats burning me.
i dont have any clever arguments depending on what is answered, i am just curious.. first off i want to say that i think people are free to believe whatever they want.
Hey!
I have a question regarding creation thats burning me. I dont have any clever arguments depending on what is answered, i am just curious.
First off i want to say that i think people are free to believe whatever they want. So if somone says: "well, i dont give a rats ass about what people dig up from the ground, i have by other types of evidence come to believe 100% that the bible is true, and the bible says man was created, so thats how it is" - that would actually not be a position i would not argue with, because everyone is free to believe that. When i get into arguments, its allways when science is portrayed wrongly.
That being said, i have often been puzzled at how evolution is argued against by some members in this forum. Arguments that i feel are very wrong are being thrown around like facts. Often when i go into details with what i feel is faulty science, I have often had insulting comments thrown my way and then the poster leves the thread (there are notable exceptions. BTS is one of them). I dont understand that position. Arent we all interested in finding the truths, and at least make sure we dont advance a line of argument that is wrong? Thats why i have desided to step back a bit and ask these questions to all creationists:
Assuming the bible never talked about evolution or creation. It was completely neutral on the issue. Yet you knew all the arguments you do now both for and against evolution and creation. Would you then believe that the species on earth came about by an evolutionary process, or by creation?
Second question:
Assuming the bible never mentioned Noahs ark and the global deluge. It was completely neutral on the issue. Yet you knew all the arguments you do now both for and against a global deluge. Would you then believe that there had been a global deluge a couple of thousand years ago?
i dont believe in creation anymore.
according to the evolution theory we adapt based on our needs.
but the human brain is far superior than our needs.
happyguy: You wouldnt happend to have some references on this stuff would you? Especially the sirius B. i once read an article on a primitive people who knew about a star which was not visible with the human eye - turned out the same people was visited by an astronomer a couple of years earlier who had done observations on exactly that star.... All i am saying is that sometimes there is an easier explanation.
The brain is not a closed system in the thermodynamical sence, but what i think the poster referred to is that there is a finite number of neurons. Now not much is know about how the brain actually think, but it seems intrencically linked to the layout of the neurons and synapses in the brain: Destroy a bunch of neurons and you are gonna get in troubles.
I think saying that the brain only runs at a fraction of the speed it can is like saying that humans only use a fraction of their strength. Its correct in a limited sence, you can practice to get more strength, or you can do drugs and get a strength boost. The later will damage you in the long term though, just as drugs that enchance the function of the brain usually have undesireable side-effects.
i dont believe in creation anymore.
according to the evolution theory we adapt based on our needs.
but the human brain is far superior than our needs.
cyberjesus: Dont sweat it and keep asking the questions, there are properly plenty who are having the same questions.
No matter what you believe regarding the jehovahs witness, you cant get around that most in brooklyn knows their bible very well, so that means that their biblical and historical arguments have *some* quality, even though they are wrong.
When it comes to evolution and the ark the situation is quite different. most dont have a clue at all. their book - 'life how did it get here' - is not even trying to make sence, it is just a lot of assertation, false arguments and quotes taken more or less out of context done by a guy who are completely oblivious to what he is writing about.
So all i want to tell you is that no matter what you believe on the subject, make sure to question all you have been told and read from multiple sources.
Good luck! I would perhaps recommend you began with the story of the ark instead of evolution, since the evidence is easier to comprehend (IMHO). talkorigins has some excelent articles on the subject.
i dont believe in creation anymore.
according to the evolution theory we adapt based on our needs.
but the human brain is far superior than our needs.
cyberjesus: The thing is that the brain IS actually working on full capacity, at least as far as we know. The 10% is an invention you often hear, but you never hear how it has been measured or calculated.
something that always bothered me about jw doctrine, perhaps the thing that bothered me the most about it actually, was the notion that people who die before armaggedon are, for the most part, entitled to a resurrection, regardless of their religious inclinations or crimes, while the vast majority of those same people, if they happened just by chance to be living at the time of the end, would be destroyed eternally.. i mean some jws were actually debating over whether infamous deceased mass-murderers and genocidal maniacs(hitler, stalin,pol pot,etc) would have any chance of resurrection, whilst at the same time almost casually accepting that basically most non-jws alive at armaggedon were to be for the chop!
so i was given the distinct impression of the armaggedon scenario that while the bodies of average, decent, everyday people littered the streets, seriously nasty and despicable individuals who had formerly committed henious crimes would be being brought back to at least 1000 yrs of extra life, if not eternal life.
it didnt seem just.
I used to entertain myself with a very similar thought-experiment when i was getting to learn the JW theology and we both know the answer: "Jehovah will be fair and just".
I think a more fundamental thing to ask is this: "What would jehovah have to do to make YOU think he was being unjust?" (works just as well with "evil" instead of "unjust"). The problem is that in the well-indoctrinated mind Jehovah can do anything he like - ANYTHING - and it will NEVER be unjust. He can flip out and zap random babies and it will be just.
If you ask deeper into the subject you will hear the worst defence of a crime ever: "He has his reasons we cannot understand".
Holy-fucking-shit. Try cheating on your girlfriend and see if she buys THAT explanation.
its interlectual wasteland, and i think the reason it is so important to install these ideas into the minds of jws is because it allows for a lot of other ideas such that the GB cannot be wrong even when they are (it was the right thing to teach at that time) or that shunning is an act of love.
