Creation vs Evolution

[poser7]

"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

- Professor Haldane

I have reason and for that to have come from nature is illogical, for reasoning contridicts nature. Reasoning come from something entirely different.

[Matt W]

You obviously haven't seen this thread:

Creationism vs. Evolution

Kindly go there and debate this, please.

[rez]

Quote by: poser7 - Professor Haldane I have reason and for that to have come from nature is illogical, for reasoning contridicts nature. Reasoning come from something entirely different.

"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

It is a fact that your brain is composed of atoms. It is not a subjective belief. It is a belief that your brain is composed of spirits and goblins....something you seem to value highly.

[Technosoul]

I was surprised to see this as a new post, as I had thought it was an old one with lots of repleys. But alas, it is a new poster.

Another Creationist on board? Welcome.

Have a look around at the fomer debates and the ones now in progress and jump right in. The one you did post is not new for the old timers here, but still remains a hot button topic.

Needless to say that a simple one line statement does not prove anything. Science and naturalists believe there is more to the brain in just atoms. And you do not need faith to believe you got a brain. (although in the cases of some of us that might be true.. duh!)

[poser7]

Professor Haldane: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
If I am to hold the view that my thoughts are only atoms and chemicals, then I am an offspring of Nature. If that is true then I should be more like Nature. But the moments I say I am faced with a problem. First, let's say that there are no humans on Earth. There we will find that all biomes are, by our standards, as they should be. There is no pollution, food is abundant, all creatures remain in their habitats, and things die without resistence. If there is a change to the enviroment it is as a result of natural events: volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, asteroids, flooding, etc.

Now put humans on Earth and if I maintain my view that I am nothing more than atoms and there is no God, I should fit in quite nicely. All should go on the same way as if there were no humans. We all have our habitats, no pollution, things die with no resistence to death. Again, a change in the enviroment is of natural causes.

But none of this is true. Humans do not fit in to Nature like a missing piece to a puzzle should fit in to complete the picture. The puzzlepiece called Humans comes into Nature abnormally. Notice what we do to Earth. We modify of colonize Nature to suit our wants and needs. Look around you: your house, your car, the cut fingernails are all forms of out power over Nature. Whereas Nature only wishes to kill our thinking. When we say, "Let's do things Naturally," we mean to conform to the usual or ordinary course of things. But our minds, that thing composed of atoms, which is supposed to come about just like the rest of Nature, constantly change Nature from what it should be. For instance, if I have a flu, Nature, the 'whole show' would rather my immune system to fight it off. Reason or my mind, would rather take a vaccine or medicine. Is not the medicine Nature modified? Or say I have cancer. Nature wants it to spread. Reason wants radiation. Is that not Nature modified? At every turn, my mind is AGAINST Nature while Nature is largely powerless to resist my actions and only seeks to kill my Reason.

So we see there is a difference between myself and Nature. There is a difference between Reason and Nature. If what I called Reason truly comes from Nature, I cannot call my thinking Reason, can I? If my Reason comes from Reason, then I can continue to call my thinking Reason. The second view is my only option. I can't say the whole human race came to exist just like Nature when I have control over Nature and Nature, no, the entire Universe is against Reason itself. If Nature is against Reason, I must conclude that I am outside of Nature.

[texasdave]

The concious mind is a powerful argument for God.

[Jack]

And that relates to creation or evolution how? Stay on topic and debate. Enough with the off-topic one-liners.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[texasdave]

It has to do with creation. This thread is about creation AND evolution right? Instead of just jumping ( I know you are lying in wait for me) maybe you should see where it is going. I was going to follow it up with a question. Maybe you'd like to try and answer it. I promise its on topic. Can you explain the evolution of the concious mind?

[Jack]

Without knowing which type of consciousness you're talking about (self-consciousness, consciousness of one's surroundings, etc.), I would say that generally the evolution of a larger brain allowed for the increase in synapses, thus an increase in mental activity. Since any kind of consciousness is the result of mental activity, it stands to reason that the more possible activity, the greater opportunity for awareness to arise.
Mind you, I'm not nor have I ever claimed to be an evolutionary scientist. I'm just a lay-person who tried to pay attention in college.

[texasdave]

It has been demonstrated in research that conciousness is beyond brain activity. People have been hooked to EEGs and registered NO brain waves and when they were later revived they accurately recalled everything that happened in the room when they had no brain activity. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Or brain.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: texasdave It has been demonstrated in research that conciousness is beyond brain activity. People have been hooked to EEGs and registered NO brain waves and when they were later revived they accurately recalled everything that happened in the room when they had no brain activity. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Or brain.

Of course you have "verifiable evidence" of this? We know about NDE's and in all the cases I've read, the people weren't "brain dead" even if they were clinically dead, (heart stopped). Other cases I've read seemed more anecdotal and can't be considered evidence for mental activity during brain death. Some other cases I've read, particularly about people being on an operating table and "seeing themselves" being operated on, being able to describe instruments and whatnot, fail to mention that when you are about to be operated on, in most cases, the doctors tell you whats going to happen. Remember, anecdotal experiences can't be used for evidence for the simple fact that there is no way you can tell if people are lying, making up the story based on hearing other peoples experiences, etc...

To get back on topic..... the brain is indeed made up of atoms just like everything else that exists. The Human body is composed of 65% oxygen atoms, 18% Carbon, 10% Hydrogen, 3% Nitrogen, 1.5% Calcium, 1% Phosphorus and trace amounts of many other atoms in the periodic table.

Source
The source also shows where in the body the majority of atoms are found, i.e. all liquids, tissues, bones, brain, everywhere, etc.... So when your body dies and decomposes, all these atoms disperse into the atmosphere or the ground, eventually being absorbed into something else. "You" (your body) will be scattered.

[Zhavric]

I'll just go through and bold each assertion he made that he failed to support.

Quote by: Professor Haldane If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. If I am to hold the view that my thoughts are only atoms and chemicals, then I am an offspring of Nature. If that is true then I should be more like Nature. But the moments I say I am faced with a problem. First, let's say that there are no humans on Earth. There we will find that all biomes are, by our standards, as they should be. There is no pollution, food is abundant, all creatures remain in their habitats, and things die without resistence. If there is a change to the enviroment it is as a result of natural events: volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, asteroids, flooding, etc. [NOTE: There are a lot of problems with this hypothetical. WHY is food in abundance? WHY are changes only the cause of natural disasters? What about a forest that disapears due to a new species of insect that eats all the trees like the Emerald Ash Bore(sp?)] Now put humans on Earth and if I maintain my view that I am nothing more than atoms and there is no God, I should fit in quite nicely. All should go on the same way as if there were no humans. We all have our habitats, no pollution, things die with no resistence to death. Again, a change in the enviroment is of natural causes. But none of this is true. Humans do not fit in to Nature like a missing piece to a puzzle should fit in to complete the picture. The puzzlepiece called Humans comes into Nature abnormally. Notice what we do to Earth. We modify of colonize Nature to suit our wants and needs. [NOTE: this behavior is shared by ants, termites, birds, spiders, beavers, and a host of other organisms.] Look around you: your house, your car, the cut fingernails are all forms of out power over Nature. Whereas Nature only wishes to kill our thinking. When we say, "Let's do things Naturally," we mean to conform to the usual or ordinary course of things. But our minds, that thing composed of atoms, which is supposed to come about just like the rest of Nature, constantly change Nature from what it should be. For instance, if I have a flu, Nature, the 'whole show' would rather my immune system to fight it off. Reason or my mind, would rather take a vaccine or medicine. Is not the medicine Nature modified? Or say I have cancer. Nature wants it to spread. Reason wants radiation. Is that not Nature modified? At every turn, my mind is AGAINST Nature while Nature is largely powerless to resist my actions and only seeks to kill my Reason. So we see there is a difference between myself and Nature. There is a difference between Reason and Nature. If what I called Reason truly comes from Nature, I cannot call my thinking Reason, can I? If my Reason comes from Reason, then I can continue to call my thinking Reason. The second view is my only option. I can't say the whole human race came to exist just like Nature when I have control over Nature and Nature, no, the entire Universe is against Reason itself. If Nature is against Reason, I must conclude that I am outside of Nature.

This is just the sort of thing I expect from creationists: look for outdated sources and try to quote mine from them. Haldane was writing back in the 1920's. You know... before television... when electricity was considered really advanced technology... right around the birth of the radio.

His sentiments here aren't scientific. We see the same sort of things today in such scientists as the head of the human Genome project; good smart scientists who fail to apply their scientific rigor their religious beliefs.

Haldane's sentiments here are based on a critically flawed assumption: that human thought isn't really human thought by virtue of it being electro-chemical pathways through the brain. We know humans have instincts and those instincts evolved biologically to help us survive. In the context of our knowledge in 2007, his essay is rendered impotent; we know human beings lived as both animal-like hunter-gatherers and as the ultra-modern societies we have today. We know human beings date back more than 40,000 years and that we've been industrialized for less than 250 years.

Nor are our thoughts "atoms". No scientist hold that view.

My suggestion: read more modern science, list your sources and accept evolution is proven fact supported by evidence.

[poser7]

My suggestion: read more modern science, list your sources and accept evolution is proven fact supported by evidence.

Evolution a fact? Haha well then it wouldn't be a theory, what in the world are you smoking?... I'm not sure I can help someone like this. The theory of special relativity isn't even considered a fact... because it's a theory. In order for a theory to become a fact you must add up the number of facts in your theory, and then divide them by the number of assumptions made. When the number you recieve becomes the same as your numder of facts, it becomes proven. However, the THEORY of evolution is mainly supported by the geologic column, which was built in the asumtion of evolution (Before radioactive dating) so as you can see, this is circular reasoning, and therfore your assumptions never end.

Creation on the other hand consists of one main assumption, that an all powerfull god does exist.

[sdbest]

Quote by: texasdave It has been demonstrated in research that conciousness is beyond brain activity. People have been hooked to EEGs and registered NO brain waves and when they were later revived they accurately recalled everything that happened in the room when they had no brain activity. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Or brain.

Do you just make this stuff up?

Regards
S.

[texasdave]

Google it. I am not making it up. Or you can read a book based on actual events. 90 Minutes in Heaven. There are lots of stories out there.

[sdbest]

Quote by: texasdave Google it. I am not making it up. Or you can read a book based on actual events. 90 Minutes in Heaven. There are lots of stories out there.

So I looked up "90 Minutes in Heaven." We can all go to the promotional web site at 90MINUTESINHEAVEN.COM
and buy the book. You'll excuse me if I remain as skeptical about what Don Piper remembers as I am about alien abductions.

Regards
S.

[texasdave]

Try reading the book and THEN judging it.

[poser7]

If you really want stong evidence for God through philosophy, read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

[sdbest]

Quote by: texasdave Try reading the book and THEN judging it.

txsdv, life is way too short for me to start through your reading list of "just so" stories.

When I was taking my undergraduate degree I took four advanced courses on religion and religious philosophy in order to help better understand some of the issues you raise. People like you kept telling me that I should study the works of more informed people than themselves, and then I would understand. So I did.

Well, txsdv, I do understand. All--and I mean ALL--religious thinking and dogma of all religions through all of human history comes down to blind faith in a "story" about one or more supernatural beings that cannot be supported with any independent evidence.

In all the visible Universe, not one scintilla of evidence has ever been observed that supports your--or anyone's--religious notions, regardless of how strongly you or they believe them.

So, why would I continue to invest time in more of the same, in particular reading a commercial, fund raising Baptist preacher's best selling "story" (to Christians) about how he died, went to heaven, and came back to life?

After all the Christian texts I've read in order to graduate, the notion of reading one more is as appealing--and would be about as useful--as traveling to New Jersey to join thousands of Christian pilgrims gathering to see the weeping faces of Jesus and Mary in a pizza.


Regards
S.

[Jack]

The theory of special relativity isn't even considered a fact... because it's a theory. In order for a theory to become a fact you must add up the number of facts in your theory, and then divide them by the number of assumptions made. When the number you recieve becomes the same as your numder of facts, it becomes proven

Thank you. By clearly showing you have not the slightest scientific knowledge of what a theory in science is and how proofs are arrived at, you've disqualified yourself from commenting on evolution.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory." Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven." As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts. A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts. It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds. Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions. Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

Definition of Scientific Theory

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied. When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws. There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

What is the ``scientific method''?