Sanctum Zone

Keyword
A+ A A-
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
Forgot your password? Forgot your username? Create an account
Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, sentience, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.

Read More: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

TOPIC: Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies

Re:Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 03 Mar 2014 18:33 #61

  • hugorune
  • hugorune's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Gold Boarder
  • Rank5
  • I'm not wearing hockey pants
  • Posts: 4656
  • Thank you received: 4131
  • Karma: 15
Verlander wrote:
Wise Haven wrote:
I think you are right.
Wasn't Darwin a darling of the early eugenecists? Which creates an odd dichotomy because weren't they also part of the early Fabian socialist crowd which seems to be at odds with "survival of the fittest" ideology because surely Socilism has always purported to be against that doctrine.
Doublespeak? I dunno but someone is speaking out of two mouths.

I think you have put your finger on it! :thumbup:

Many who parade their "atheism" and "humanism" come over all coy when it is put to them that if we are truly nothing special/God created etc, why do we get so sentimental about homo sapiens's own evolution... and, importantly, why do we try to interfere with it so much?

Furthermore why are we so sanctimonious about death? A friend of mine is an organist at a crematorium and he tells me the humanist funerals are the worst in terms of their maudlin, sentimental sanctimoniousness! :D

...is also the name of the new James Blunt album.
Si me puede disparar los conejos, a continuación, puedo disparar fascistas
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Space Bandit, Gilly, Wise Haven

Re:Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 03 Mar 2014 18:51 #62

  • Gilly
  • Gilly's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Rank6
  • Psychic Assassin
  • Posts: 11225
  • Thank you received: 6506
  • Karma: 99
:pmsl:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: hugorune

Re:Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 03 Mar 2014 19:43 #63

  • Wise Haven
  • Wise Haven's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Senior Boarder
  • Rank3
  • Posts: 962
  • Thank you received: 779
  • Karma: 0
Gilly wrote:
:pmsl:

woulda done that one to Verlander too - but I appear to be smiley challenged.

Have you got a personal smiley stash Gilly?
My Rights End Where Yours Begin so give me space FFS
You must register to post here.

Re:Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 03 Mar 2014 19:54 #64

  • Gilly
  • Gilly's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Rank6
  • Psychic Assassin
  • Posts: 11225
  • Thank you received: 6506
  • Karma: 99
Wise Haven wrote:
Gilly wrote:
:pmsl:

woulda done that one to Verlander too - but I appear to be smiley challenged.

Have you got a personal smiley stash Gilly?

No, that one's up there in the forum stash.

But have you familiarised yourself with Photobucket?

:roll: I was going to post a link, but there's a fault on it currently...

Sorry, an unexpected error occurred.

Please try again or go back to the previous page.

Typical!
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]
You must register to post here.

Re:Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 03 Mar 2014 19:55 #65

  • Abs
  • Abs's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Gold Boarder
  • Rank5
  • How are you thinking today?
  • Posts: 6891
  • Thank you received: 3940
  • Karma: 112
Gilly wrote:
Wise Haven wrote:
Gilly wrote:
:pmsl:

woulda done that one to Verlander too - but I appear to be smiley challenged.

Have you got a personal smiley stash Gilly?

No, that one's up there in the forum stash.

But have you familiarised yourself with Photobucket?

:roll: I was going to post a link, but there's a fault on it currently...

Sorry, an unexpected error occurred.

Please try again or go back to the previous page.

Typical!

She's also a witch. Just sayin'. :coffee:
What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: Our life is the creation of our mind.

-Buddha
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gilly, Wise Haven

Re:Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 03 Mar 2014 20:46 #66

  • Gilly
  • Gilly's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Rank6
  • Psychic Assassin
  • Posts: 11225
  • Thank you received: 6506
  • Karma: 99
It's working again now, Wise...

photobucket.com/

Smile
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Wise Haven

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 03 Mar 2014 21:00 #67

  • Wise Haven
  • Wise Haven's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Senior Boarder
  • Rank3
  • Posts: 962
  • Thank you received: 779
  • Karma: 0
@Gilly
Noooooooo! - I try to avoid all things photobucket....always causes a problem on my puter.
Buuuuuut - I was just looking for a suitable smiley to reply to a post and clicked and missed and another line appeared in the smiley box....I'm getting so old tech wise - when I look its obvious - there is a scroll bar ffs (in the forum smiley selection) now I see those esoteric smileys aren't really so unatainable. Hidden in plaine sight dammit.
@Abs - Yeah I know - I always buy her pegs and lucky heather (otherwise she makes my milk go sour) . Don't tell her but some of us call her Witchypoo - and have you noticed her pointy shoes? yeah, the clues are there. :O
My Rights End Where Yours Begin so give me space FFS
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gilly

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 03 Mar 2014 21:32 #68

  • Abs
  • Abs's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Gold Boarder
  • Rank5
  • How are you thinking today?
  • Posts: 6891
  • Thank you received: 3940
  • Karma: 112
She spits blue anorl. I once caught her gobbing in the coffee but you know, I don't judge. :coffee:
What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: Our life is the creation of our mind.

-Buddha
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gilly

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 04 Mar 2014 00:50 #69

  • Wise Haven
  • Wise Haven's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Senior Boarder
  • Rank3
  • Posts: 962
  • Thank you received: 779
  • Karma: 0
Ab Origine wrote:
She spits blue anorl. I once caught her gobbing in the coffee but you know, I don't judge. :coffee:
Never took you for a judger Abs - you seem a level headed cowpoke to me

...but spitting blue anorl seems a bit too witchy for me - even though I'm not sure what anorli is - it sounds like a hangin' - or dippin' infraction that decent folks shud be rootin' for. Amen brother, Amen.
My Rights End Where Yours Begin so give me space FFS
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Abs, Gilly

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 05 Mar 2014 15:45 #70

  • grackus
  • grackus's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 128
  • Thank you received: 49
  • Karma: 0
andyh wrote:
Well, I actually see DNA itself as being a natural occurrence, however I see human complexity as being a non-natural occurrence if that makes any sense :)

IMHO we stand so apart from the other animals and there is little in the way of transition species that darwins theory doesn't fit us. In fact it fits all life we can see EXCEPT us specifically.
Perhaps natural evolution could occur eventually and lead to humans but not IMHO given the short timescale for homo sapiens sapiens.
Theres some huge gaps that need to be filled and decent scientists do admit this.

Theres also the question of why complex evolved life is not visible elsewhere in the galaxy and IMHO its because most if not all life ends up killing itself around the first point of the kardashev scale.

So you see DNA in all animals and plants as having put itself together just because that's just what DNA does on its own, but DNA in humans is so amazingly complicated that aliens simply had to come down in order to change an ape into a human.

Your point about there being little transitional species between apes and humans is important. Just as there are actually no transitional fossils between apes and humans there are no transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, fish and amphibians and amphibians to reptiles. Fish do not evolve slowly over generations the ability to breathe air. The new ability would require massive amounts of new genetic code. As we have seen already there is a fact checking protein in the DNA, and that, combined with the fact that genetic mutations only degrade correct coding, it is obvious that no species evolved into the other.
You must register to post here.

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 05 Mar 2014 16:00 #71

  • andyh
  • andyh's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Rank6
  • Posts: 10337
  • Thank you received: 3545
  • Karma: 62
grackus wrote:
andyh wrote:
Well, I actually see DNA itself as being a natural occurrence, however I see human complexity as being a non-natural occurrence if that makes any sense :)

IMHO we stand so apart from the other animals and there is little in the way of transition species that darwins theory doesn't fit us. In fact it fits all life we can see EXCEPT us specifically.
Perhaps natural evolution could occur eventually and lead to humans but not IMHO given the short timescale for homo sapiens sapiens.
Theres some huge gaps that need to be filled and decent scientists do admit this.

Theres also the question of why complex evolved life is not visible elsewhere in the galaxy and IMHO its because most if not all life ends up killing itself around the first point of the kardashev scale.

So you see DNA in all animals and plants as having put itself together just because that's just what DNA does on its own, but DNA in humans is so amazingly complicated that aliens simply had to come down in order to change an ape into a human.

Your point about there being little transitional species between apes and humans is important. Just as there are actually no transitional fossils between apes and humans there are no transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, fish and amphibians and amphibians to reptiles. Fish do not evolve slowly over generations the ability to breathe air. The new ability would require massive amounts of new genetic code. As we have seen already there is a fact checking protein in the DNA, and that, combined with the fact that genetic mutations only degrade correct coding, it is obvious that no species evolved into the other.

There are fossils of fish with legs and reptiles with what appears to be fur.
Check out Archaeopteryx for example.

Darwin has been proven correct on many points I'm afraid but its fairly recent stuff.
Still no transitional human though..thus far.

DNA is itself nothing more than an arrangement of molecules which themselves obey the laws of physics and are inclined to bond in certain patterns more frequently than others. DNA and RNA for example only differ in the sugars, deoxyribose and ribose.
The earlier point about information was a simple one of definition, information can exist without a mind to interpret it as such. The fact we attribute something 'special' to DNA could simply be an aspect of our own mental projection.

Is it not for example true that many other aspects of nature and the universe have to be 'just so' for us to exist at all. Given that is the case could it also not be inferred that such things could have developed by chance over billions of years, after all, our own perspective is skewed to a single lifetime which has only recently reached an average of around 70 years or so. For much of human existence our lives were lucky to have lasted more than 40 years.
There is so much we do not as yet understand and we tend to naturally associate such things with the supernatural yet the universes very existence and composition supports such things.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 05 Mar 2014 16:37 #72

  • grackus
  • grackus's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 128
  • Thank you received: 49
  • Karma: 0
andyh wrote:
grackus wrote:
andyh wrote:
Well, I actually see DNA itself as being a natural occurrence, however I see human complexity as being a non-natural occurrence if that makes any sense :)

IMHO we stand so apart from the other animals and there is little in the way of transition species that darwins theory doesn't fit us. In fact it fits all life we can see EXCEPT us specifically.
Perhaps natural evolution could occur eventually and lead to humans but not IMHO given the short timescale for homo sapiens sapiens.
Theres some huge gaps that need to be filled and decent scientists do admit this.

Theres also the question of why complex evolved life is not visible elsewhere in the galaxy and IMHO its because most if not all life ends up killing itself around the first point of the kardashev scale.

So you see DNA in all animals and plants as having put itself together just because that's just what DNA does on its own, but DNA in humans is so amazingly complicated that aliens simply had to come down in order to change an ape into a human.

Your point about there being little transitional species between apes and humans is important. Just as there are actually no transitional fossils between apes and humans there are no transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, fish and amphibians and amphibians to reptiles. Fish do not evolve slowly over generations the ability to breathe air. The new ability would require massive amounts of new genetic code. As we have seen already there is a fact checking protein in the DNA, and that, combined with the fact that genetic mutations only degrade correct coding, it is obvious that no species evolved into the other.

There are fossils of fish with legs and reptiles with what appears to be fur.
Check out Archaeopteryx for example.

Darwin has been proven correct on many points I'm afraid but its fairly recent stuff.
Still no transitional human though..thus far.

DNA is itself nothing more than an arrangement of molecules which themselves obey the laws of physics and are inclined to bond in certain patterns more frequently than others. DNA and RNA for example only differ in the sugars, deoxyribose and ribose.
The earlier point about information was a simple one of definition, information can exist without a mind to interpret it as such. The fact we attribute something 'special' to DNA could simply be an aspect of our own mental projection.

Is it not for example true that many other aspects of nature and the universe have to be 'just so' for us to exist at all. Given that is the case could it also not be inferred that such things could have developed by chance over billions of years, after all, our own perspective is skewed to a single lifetime which has only recently reached an average of around 70 years or so. For much of human existence our lives were lucky to have lasted more than 40 years.
There is so much we do not as yet understand and we tend to naturally associate such things with the supernatural yet the universes very existence and composition supports such things.

Archaeopteryx is a bird. Even real evolutionists don't use that as an example of a transitional any more. I think you have some catching up to do. I love how you are so vague about your evidence. "Darwin has been proven correct on many points I'm afraid but its fairly recent stuff." Oh, cheers for that. That's really convincing.

DNA simply does not put itself together. The information, coding or programme had to come from somewhere. Nothing so complex, beautiful and economical could put itself together without being thought through first.

"DNA is itself nothing more than an arrangement of molecules which themselves obey the laws of physics and are inclined to bond in certain patterns more frequently than others. DNA and RNA for example only differ in the sugars, deoxyribose and ribose.
The earlier point about information was a simple one of definition, information can exist without a mind to interpret it as such. The fact we attribute something 'special' to DNA could simply be an aspect of our own mental projection."

I have to object to the above quote. It clearly is more than what your say. Of course DNA moecules obey the laws of physics. Why state the obvious? DNA is, more accurately than your definition and according to Wikipedia, is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses.

You say that you think that it just put itself together? How if there were no plans to go by? Any scientists worked out how it put itself together?
You must register to post here.

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 05 Mar 2014 17:11 #73

  • andyh
  • andyh's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Rank6
  • Posts: 10337
  • Thank you received: 3545
  • Karma: 62
grackus wrote:

Archaeopteryx is a bird. Even real evolutionists don't use that as an example of a transitional any more. I think you have some catching up to do. I love how you are so vague about your evidence. "Darwin has been proven correct on many points I'm afraid but its fairly recent stuff." Oh, cheers for that. That's really convincing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Thats the end of that then :)

DNA simply does not put itself together. The information, coding or programme had to come from somewhere. Nothing so complex, beautiful and economical could put itself together without being thought through first.
Thats your opinion, you have no proof of that whatsoever ofc.
You're welcome to that belief ofc.
"DNA is itself nothing more than an arrangement of molecules which themselves obey the laws of physics and are inclined to bond in certain patterns more frequently than others. DNA and RNA for example only differ in the sugars, deoxyribose and ribose.
The earlier point about information was a simple one of definition, information can exist without a mind to interpret it as such. The fact we attribute something 'special' to DNA could simply be an aspect of our own mental projection."

I have to object to the above quote. It clearly is more than what your say. Of course DNA moecules obey the laws of physics. Why state the obvious? DNA is, more accurately than your definition and according to Wikipedia, is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses.
Everything can be considered as encoded within the laws of physics grackus, for example there is information needed to encode molecules together via covalent or electrovalent bonds is there not?
We could consider the very existence of matter itself as being 'encoded'. You should be able to accept that.
The fact that DNA is more complicated is merely because there are more molecules together in a specific arrangement is all.
There are some very complex inorganic chemical arrangements too you know...
You say that you think that it just put itself together? How if there were no plans to go by? Any scientists worked out how it put itself together?

It is impossible state that any particular chemical arrangement arrived by pure chance or deliberately. You must by inferring that DNA is 'complex' infer that other complex inorganic chemical arrangements are also by design for example.
You cannot cherry pick. I could say for example that the mere gravitational action of galaxies is far too complex to have happened by pure chance alone. We have supercomputers that cannot predict the weather beyond a few days but we find the human genome and DNA far simpler than just the weather on this planet alone.

Its a difficult thing to get your head around because what is defined as complex as I stated earlier is debatable.

I could certainly agree that humans were perhaps created by aliens, however that is far as I can go on the subject because that is all there is proof for and that proof itself is merely missing and thereby inferred.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 05 Mar 2014 17:56 #74

  • grackus
  • grackus's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 128
  • Thank you received: 49
  • Karma: 0
Archaeopteryx is a bird. It has a breastbone for flying. It's a bird. Other birds had teeth as well. It's a bird.

You have no proof that DNA puts itself together. If you think that staggeringly complex encoded information comes about by chance or and undirected process then I have novels that put themselves together over billions of years for you to read. I'm sure you would enjoy them.

Now you try to make me think that the weather is complex information. I thought I dealt with this. The "information" in the weather is definitely a natural, undirected process. It can be demonstrated in the laboratory how water molecules and air molecules interact and behave in certain conditions or temperatures. What is the end result of the "information" in "the weather"? Without a mind, nothing. So this "information" was not encoded by a mind to begin with, is not read by anything, and the end result is nothing. How can this compare to DNA? The existence of this molecule is the blueprint for all life, and you are pointing to a cloud? You really must think the difference between complex and simple is debatable.

Again you bring up proof. Nothing has been proven either way.
You must register to post here.

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 05 Mar 2014 18:47 #75

  • andyh
  • andyh's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Rank6
  • Posts: 10337
  • Thank you received: 3545
  • Karma: 62
grackus wrote:
Archaeopteryx is a bird. It has a breastbone for flying. It's a bird. Other birds had teeth as well. It's a bird.

You have no proof that DNA puts itself together. If you think that staggeringly complex encoded information comes about by chance or and undirected process then I have novels that put themselves together over billions of years for you to read. I'm sure you would enjoy them.

Now you try to make me think that the weather is complex information. I thought I dealt with this. The "information" in the weather is definitely a natural, undirected process. It can be demonstrated in the laboratory how water molecules and air molecules interact and behave in certain conditions or temperatures. What is the end result of the "information" in "the weather"? Without a mind, nothing. So this "information" was not encoded by a mind to begin with, is not read by anything, and the end result is nothing. How can this compare to DNA? The existence of this molecule is the blueprint for all life, and you are pointing to a cloud? You really must think the difference between complex and simple is debatable.

Again you bring up proof. Nothing has been proven either way.

You said earlier you had the alien meddled with human dna belief, which I do too actually but going off the above you have the judeo-christian belief.

I've no probs with that at all, I'd just simply remind you what I typed above. You're skipping a fair bit of it by the looks.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 12 Mar 2014 16:11 #76

  • grackus
  • grackus's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 128
  • Thank you received: 49
  • Karma: 0
grackus wrote:
andyh wrote:
grackus wrote:
andyh wrote:
There's no evidence either way Grackus.

For example, prove that DNA was made by God etc ;)

None of this discussion so far has even touched on proof. It has all been about evidence. Why bring up proof now?

The argument for intelligence or a mind being involved in encoding the masses of sepcified information on the DNA molecule is that information (not data, like you suggest when you mention photons hitting a screen or being able to see a star through a telescope) is always the result of mental activity. All human experience and scientific observation point to this fact.

Also if you read back you will notice that I have not mentioned God at all. My interest in this subject is not proving God exists, rather casting doubt on the theory of evolution, which I believe has nothing going for it whatsoever. So while I can not prove that God made DNA I believe that the incredible complexity of DNA makes it most likely that it is the result of a mind at work. Information simply does not spring from nothing, or grow from nothing. If it did then show me evidence of how this might have happened. As it stands, with the backing of basically anyone who knows the meaning of the word information, DNA is quite clearly information, just as computer code, writing or mathematics can be considered information.

If you come across a set of blueprints detailing how to build a car you are most likely to presume it is the work of some intelligent being communicating a message so that the invention that was spawned in their imagination can be built in reality.

Just as if you find the plans that detail how to build a living being written in its own unique code you would be most likely to presume, again, that this is the work of a mind.

Just saying there is no evidence either way is woefully inadequate. The information on the DNA molecule had to come from somewhere, and seeing as information only springs from intelligence then it is hardly a stretch to surmise that intelligence or a mind is responsible for the information on the DNA molecule. Despite denying it these facts are obviously evidence for DNA being created or written by something.

On the other hand nowhere in the universe has anyone ever seen complex information coming into being as a result of material processes. That is why you tried to purport that a load of photons hitting a screen is actually information rather than data.

If you can point to one piece of evidence that shows that information can come about via purely natural processes with a result similar to writing, for example, or the digital code contained on the DNA molecule, then you might start to convince someone, but as it is, you (and everyone else in the world) has got zip.


Then that goes back to my earlier post doesn't it.
Eg aliens messed with monkey DNA.

Creationism is about the universe though and includes the hypothetical aliens, not merely mankind.

Not at all. I was only discussing where the information in the DNA molecule came from. If you accept the possiblility that "aliens messed with monkey DNA", then you at least accept the validity of the design argument. I'm not saying it has been proven, just that design in nature, especially DNA information, is more likely to be the case than it having evolved from nothing.

andyh.

So I believe that aliens messed around with our DNA, do I?

It's amazing, isn't it? The difference between facts and what you type, andyh.
You must register to post here.

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 12 Mar 2014 17:07 #77

  • andyh
  • andyh's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Rank6
  • Posts: 10337
  • Thank you received: 3545
  • Karma: 62
I think you're under the false impression that I'm arguing in favour of one or the other. I'm not.
There can be no logical conclusion either way, merely logical fallacies. Creationism implies who made the maker, it is not rational.
There are similar issues with natural evolution but you must bear in mind that RNA/DNA is not considered to be the first step in the supposed accidental creation of life.

I have merely pointed out both types of argument from either pov and what conclusions it inevitably leads to. Creationism for example implies the impossibility of free thought and actions, only Gods will because He will have planned out the entire universe from conception to conclusion.

As for the idea that aliens could have created specifically humans it is feasible in as far as it goes, there is some tenuous evidence for it or more appropriately gaps in mainstream scientific thought that could lend credence to it. Again, no solid evidence either way.

If you don't believe that aliens did that then feel free to explain what you do think and why.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 13 Mar 2014 11:48 #78

  • grackus
  • grackus's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 128
  • Thank you received: 49
  • Karma: 0
andyh wrote:
I think you're under the false impression that I'm arguing in favour of one or the other. I'm not.
There can be no logical conclusion either way, merely logical fallacies. Creationism implies who made the maker, it is not rational.
There are similar issues with natural evolution but you must bear in mind that RNA/DNA is not considered to be the first step in the supposed accidental creation of life.

I have merely pointed out both types of argument from either pov and what conclusions it inevitably leads to. Creationism for example implies the impossibility of free thought and actions, only Gods will because He will have planned out the entire universe from conception to conclusion.

As for the idea that aliens could have created specifically humans it is feasible in as far as it goes, there is some tenuous evidence for it or more appropriately gaps in mainstream scientific thought that could lend credence to it. Again, no solid evidence either way.

If you don't believe that aliens did that then feel free to explain what you do think and why.

So one minute you say that you believe that aliens meddled with monkey DNA to create humans and try to pretend I believe that too, then you say you are only trying to point out both types of the argument? Not impressed.

And yet again, instead of trying to discuss the design argument you bring up God. You make bald assertions that make you come across like a child, "Creationism for example implies the impossibility of free thought and actions, only Gods will because He will have planned out the entire universe from conception to conclusion" and "Creationism implies who made the maker, it is not rational". How can these school level attacks on God help when trying to detect design in the realm of living things? Living things, not clouds, stars or photons hitting screens.

Right from the off you have failed to understand what information actually is, pretending that the shape of molecules or atoms, or a cloud is information in the same way as the information stored on the DNA. Hmm is that a star I can see through a telescope? It must be lots of information in the same way that DNA stores masses of information and is necessary in building all life on the planet. Would I be correct in thinking that you believe that looking at a star through a telescope reveals information in the same way that DNA reveals information?
You must register to post here.

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 13 Mar 2014 11:53 #79

  • grackus
  • grackus's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Junior Boarder
  • Rank2
  • Posts: 128
  • Thank you received: 49
  • Karma: 0
andyh wrote:
grackus wrote:
If information "need not be created by intelligence" then please give an example of some information that has not been created by intelligence. If electrons hitting a surface is information, for example, what is the result of that information? Please bear in mind that this example is the result of a mind or intelligence. The electrons do not hit the surface by accident, or due to purely natural causes. Television is an invention, created by humans with minds.

So any example of information arising without the assistance of a mind would be welcome.

Electrons and photons are hitting surfaces all over the place all the time :)

We can see stars for example in telescopes of varying designs, some optical, perhaps some infra-red and some might even be radio but they are all receiving information. We only see the information when we use tech to analyze/interpret it.

Were the telescopes not there the information would still be arriving albeit simply unnoticed.

It could also be argued going back to my earlier statement that if God created the universe then everything being of His creation and by design is a transmission by intelligence and not merely light coming off a star because God intended it to do so in the first place.

We can also start to see the absurdity of the whole God thing by asking who made God. :D

Here it is. A fundamental misunderstanding of what information is, accompanied by your peristalsis of mentioning God at every opportunity.
You must register to post here.

Creationism, Evolution and False Dichotomies 13 Mar 2014 11:58 #80

  • andyh
  • andyh's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Rank6
  • Posts: 10337
  • Thank you received: 3545
  • Karma: 62
Get off your high horse and calm the fuck down lol.

I have clearly defined information as it is described in the dictionary and by scientists :p
Its yourself who sees it a different way, ie its not info if there is not a mind to interpret it as such.

As for the creationism side of things, its either a God, aliens (which only covers just humans unless aliens made the universe lol), or its all just a natural occurrence. I asked which you specifically favour and it 'seems' as if aliens but you haven't specifically gone into it so we're left to assume that until you explain.

As for who made God, well its a perfectly reasonable statement, the religious group who believe this state that complexity arises from mind...well what could be more complex than a mind that made it in the first place? :D

Do you see the flogic in both the God thinking and the natural evolution thinking? The universe in BOTH cases came out of nothing, in one case out of Gods arse and in the other it just 'appeared' and there was nothing before that. Both the scientists and the religious crowd both think that nothing existed before the universe was created, just 'the void' whatever thats supposed to be :p

I'm afraid that its THAT kind of thinking thats 'child like' grackus ;)

As I said above:
I have merely pointed out both types of argument from either pov and what conclusions it inevitably leads to

Read the post properly. I went in to quite some length earlier outlining the classical creationist pov and why THEY come to the conclusions that THEY do, not what conclusions I come to. I hope thats very clear.

Once again for clarity here...you cannot argue RATIONALLY for either pov because there is not the evidence to do so.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.
Moderators: psketti, oioioi, batou
Time to create page: 0.232 seconds

Latest Members Blogs

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

What is going on when it comes to 9-11 I…

The EPA (environmental protection agency) and OSHA took air samples in the days following September 11th, they reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos contrary to other findings....

Read more

9-11 Eleven Years Later

9-11 Eleven Years Later

With the anniversary of September 11th literally just around the corner, unanswered questions still remain for families who lost loved ones during the tragic event, as well as from families...

Read more

Strange Noises, Possible Link to Mass An…

Strange Noises, Possible Link to Mass Animal Deaths

In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the United States Navy's use of sonar in submarine detection training exercises off...

Read more

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 250 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 192 - Raised
( £ 140 GBP )
donation thermometer
56%
Most Recent Donation:
$122 USD on 4th Jan 2021
Bitcoin Address: bc1q0kazqya0nurfxtunxv807vm0m8852nnrrk8mj8
 
Ethereum Address: 0xe69915c80dd75df19f438d556267e04f932f057d
 
More Info: Donation options for TZ

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.

TradeZone Latest

default
99 CDs all in good condition
Music
09.11.2012 21:12

default
Cream, 2-seater leather sofa
Miscellaneous
18.08.2012 12:14

default
Enfield Striking movement
Miscellaneous
04.08.2012 0:16

Visitors

Today530
Yesterday4382
Week9426
Month34361
Total1132785
Your IP Address: 216.73.217.23 Your Browser and OS: Unknown - Unknown Wednesday, 26 August 2026 06:15

Who Is Online

Guests : 817 guests online Members : No members online
© 2012 – 2021 Sanctum Zone | All rights reserved. This website is a place for people to express and discuss their views on the news and world events. DISCLAIMER: Please Note: Views expressed and submitted by contributors are their own personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions and beliefs of the Sanctum Zone website and its founder(s) , administrators , moderators , and any other website maintenance technicians, personnel and volunteers. Articles and messages posted on this website and forum are solely the opinion of their authors.

Login or Register

LOG IN

Register

User Registration
or Cancel