Are both Darwin and creationist wrong?

[Rival Destiny]

Thanks for the link.  I was looking for something interesting to watch today.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Boudicca Littlebird wrote:

Think one documentary was called, "are you good or evil", can't say any more as it would be working for you.

---

Right. I watched all 6 parts of the documentary (not 4 as you stated in your last post). And, like just about all tales, there is always an element of truth. For example, brown dwarfs exist. That's the element of truth in your large object tale.

In this case, there is an observed difference in the brains of psychopaths and non-psychopaths, but it isn't a gland, as you think it is. It's the non-functioning of areas (more than one) of the brain. Also, to be a psychopath you need to have a modified version of what is called the "warrior" gene. Also, the nature of psychopaths is such that they occupy an unexpected percentage of top boardroom jobs. That's according the BBC's Horizon programme that you linked to as evidence.

So the bits of truth in your tale are, there is a difference in the brains of some people. and people on one side of the differences do tend to occupy a higher percentage of top boardroom jobs.

Now, I'm using my memory here, which may not be absolutely accurate, but according to my memory, you claimed that there is more than one species of human on the earth, and they are differentiated by a gland in the brain, which is either turned on or off, and you cited the BBC programme as evidence of it. The BBC programmes says no such things. Either that, or you said that the gland in the brain is turned on or off according to how our "masters" [from another planet somewhere] want of each individual. You said or implied something along those lines.

I can't state that there isn't a gland in the brain that could be on or off, or what the effects of it in either condition would be. What I can say is that the evidence you provided for it categorically does not support what you claimed. I.e. it isn't evidence for such a gland, or of more than one species of human - or anything even remotely similar to what you claimed. It is only evidence of a difference in the brains of psychopaths and non-psychopaths.

I'm guessing here but I imagine you've been reading stuff from people like those 'ancient astronauts' fruitcakes, who take a bit of this, plus a bit of that, and mix it all together with a bit of the other, being careful to omit more bits of this, that, and the other that would speak against what they want to believe, and come up with a cast iron claim of something totally ludicrous - and claim that the this, that, and the other is absolute evidence of it.

There is a saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" . I'll modify it a little and suggest it to you. If it sound too ridiculous to be true, it probably is.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Boudicca Littlebird wrote:

OK I am logging off now, have to say being here today has been a horrible experience, so I will post the BBC documentary watch all 4 vids.

---

So, to sum up, I have asked you repeatedly for evidence or proof of what you claim, either your own evidence/proof or anyone else's, and the one piece of evidence you eventually offered does not support your claims. It is not evidence of what you claim.

[Pussycat Catnap]

The only problem I have with evolutionists is that they think its all random.

Sit in a room and roll the dice enough times, and perfection happens.

If you put 10,000 monkeys into a room with typewriters, you will not end up with Shakespeare. You'll just get a whole lot of crap on the walls.

I think this Orchestra has a conductor.

Which is -NOT- to say I agree with the intelligent design folks - becuase they take that and package it with some oddball wacko ideas. But I -do- see the hand of Jah in the way the world shapes out (and elsewhere - like many people of faith, I have had my spiritual moments to guide me beyond myself).

 

 

[Rival Destiny]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Boudicca Littlebird wrote:

Think one documentary was called, "are you good or evil", can't say any more as it would be working for you.

---

Right. I watched all 6 parts of the documentary

(not 4 as you stated in your last post). And, like just about all tales, there is always an element of truth. For example, brown dwarfs exist. That's the element of truth in your large object tale.

In this case, there is an observed difference in the brains of psychopaths and non-psychopaths, but it isn't a gland, as you think it is. It's the non-functioning of areas (more than one) of the brain. Also, to be a psychopath you need to have a modified version of what is called the "warrior" gene. Also, the nature of psychopaths is such that they occupy an unexpected percentage of top boardroom jobs. That's according the BBC's Horizon programme that you linked to as evidence.

So the bits of truth in your tale are, there is a difference in the brains of some people. and people on one side of the differences do tend to occupy a higher percentage of top boardroom jobs.

Now, I'm using my memory here, which may not be absolutely accurate, but according to my memory, you claimed that there is more than one species of human on the earth, and they are differentiated by a gland in the brain, which is either turned on or off, and you cited the BBC programme as evidence of it. The BBC programmes says no such things. Either that, or you said that the gland in the brain is turned on or off according to how our "masters" [from another planet somewhere] want of each individual. You said or implied something along those lines.

I can't state that there isn't a gland in the brain that could be on or off, or what the effects of it in either condition would be. What I can say is that the evidence you provided for it categorically does not support what you claimed. I.e. it isn't evidence for such a gland, or of more than one species of human - or anything even remotely similar to what you claimed. It is only evidence of a difference in the brains of psychopaths and non-psychopaths.

I'm guessing here but I imagine you've been reading stuff from people like those 'ancient astronauts' fruitcakes, who take a bit of this, plus a bit of that, and mix it all together with a bit of the other, being careful to omit more bits of this, that, and the other that would speak against what they want to believe, and come up with a cast iron claim of something totally ludicrous - and claim that the this, that, and the other is absolute evidence of it.

There is a saying, "

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"

 . I'll modify it a little and suggest it to you.

If it sound too ridiculous to be true, it probably is.

---

You need to watch these videos backwards in order to get the message here.

 

 

[Tem Haalan]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

But as "Creation Theories" go, I have one that appeals to me for various reasons. It will possibly tread on a few toes, but then this is a subject that draws fire no matter which camp you call home.

In the early days of human kind, before modern man was actually an extant species, the Earth was populated by a number of primate species that had many of the basics already in place. They had begun the rudiments of society, of tribal behavior such as coordinated hunting, history keeping, structured language .. and the like.

About that time our planet was visited by a race of space traveling beings ..........

---

Hey Darius, if you haven't already read it you might enjoy this book:

Slave Species of God

 

[Tem Haalan]

---

Boudicca Littlebird wrote:

So what are you thoughts on my theory of evolution?

---

I've always liked this quote from Fred Hoyle :

"The emergence of a living cell from an inanimate chemical soup is about as likely as the assembly of a Boeing 747 jet by a whirlwind passing through a junkyard."

 

 

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Tem Haalan wrote:

---

Boudicca Littlebird wrote:

So what are you thoughts on my theory of evolution?

---

I've always liked this quote from Fred Hoyle :

"The emergence of a living cell from an inanimate chemical soup is about as likely as the assembly of a Boeing 747 jet by a whirlwind passing through a junkyard.

"

 

---

While Hoyle wasn't the first to promote this fallacy, he's the one it's named after.

[Tem Haalan]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

While Hoyle wasn't the first to promote this fallacy, he's the one it's named after.

---

Hey Madelaine,  I'm not saying it's true... just that I like the quote :smileywink:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Tem Haalan wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

While Hoyle wasn't the first to promote this fallacy, he's the one it's named after.

---

Hey Madelaine,  I'm not saying it's true... just that I like the quote :smileywink:

---

Hiya Tem!

I like knowing that, in a way Hoyle didn't understand, nature probably did what he described. She doesn't care what we think.

[161488303349]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Sit in a room and roll the dice enough times, and perfection happens.

If you put 10,000 monkeys into a room with typewriters, you will not end up with Shakespeare. You'll just get a whole lot of crap on the walls.

 

 

---

these interesting problems. is fascinating these kinds of problems for me

+

with dice if they true and you roll them enough times then the result will be roughly according to the probabilities. for one dice like 1/6 for each face about. whats interesting is that can get long runs of one number. patterns even

but cant discern the patterns until after the dice been rolled. not before. can only know that they will appear eventually. just cant know when

is how/where some people get messed up. like gamblers fallacy where believe that the dice will even up in the long run. so that if say a 1 hasnt come up for a long time then is more likely to start appearing next. is not true that

+

the typewriter monkeys are more interesting i think

they not random in the same way as dice. is no mathematical basis for what the monkeys are doing. it depend on the monkeys. the monkeys can make decisions even if limited compared to humans. so that kinda makes things a bit different

is possible for a monkey to learn how to type words

however if take a roomful of monkeys who cant type words and cant learn (like no feedback to them on how they doing) then maybe can be considered random

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

16 wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Sit in a room and roll the dice enough times, and perfection happens.

If you put 10,000 monkeys into a room with typewriters, you will not end up with Shakespeare. You'll just get a whole lot of crap on the walls.

 

 

---

these interesting problems. is fascinating these kinds of problems for me

+

with dice if they true and you roll them enough times then the result will be roughly according to the probabilities. for one dice like 1/6 for each face about. whats interesting is that can get long runs of one number. patterns even

but cant discern the patterns until after the dice been rolled. not before. can only know that they will appear eventually. just cant know when

is how/where some people get messed up. like gamblers fallacy where believe that the dice will even up in the long run. so that if say a 1 hasnt come up for a long time then is more likely to start appearing next. is not true that

+

the typewriter monkeys are more interesting i think

they not random in the same way as dice. is no mathematical basis for what the monkeys are doing. it depend on the monkeys. the monkeys can make decisions even if limited compared to humans. so that kinda makes things a bit different

is possible for a monkey to learn how to type words

however if take a roomful of monkeys who cant type words and cant learn (like no feedback to them on how they doing) then maybe can be considered random

---

This is the danger of analogy. If you pick the wrong one, you fool yourself, as Hoyle did. Evolution is nothing like monkeys at typewriters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

[161488303349]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

This is the danger of analogy. If you pick the wrong one, you fool yourself, as Hoyle did. Evolution is nothing like monkeys at typewriters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

---

yes

is the learning part that makes all the difference

[Phil Deakins]

---

Rival Destiny wrote:

You need to watch these videos backwards in order to get the message here. 

---

That's where I went wrong then. Dammit!

[Bree Giffen]

Get in line on theories of creation. Pick an ancient society and they each have their own story. Boudica, if people believe in creationism then your food evolution should be comsidered with as much seriousness. It's about belief right? If you believe it is true then it just might be true.

[solstyse]

I just think there are some things we're not realy meant to know.

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Tem Haalan wrote:

---

Boudicca Littlebird wrote:

So what are you thoughts on my theory of evolution?

---

I've always liked this quote from Fred Hoyle :

"The emergence of a living cell from an inanimate chemical soup is about as likely as the assembly of a Boeing 747 jet by a whirlwind passing through a junkyard.

" 

---

One of my faves too. And thank you for the link.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

Personally I believe we don't know the full story yet. 

I do believe evolution happens due to genetic mutations that result in a benefit that gives more favorable odds that the mutant will survive and reproduce offspring with the mutation.  The trick is what caused the mutation. I suspect that ultimately we will find that it can be caused by a lot of different things. Maybe food, maybe sunspots, heck it could even be aliens. 

As far as creation vs. evolution, I don't think they are mutually exclusive.  The old testament was written in a way to explain things to basically illiterate people in terms they could understand, so I don't take everything in it literally.  Further it is a mistake to think all 'Christians' have to believe it literally to be Christians.  I was raised a Christian and was taught by my religion  that a lot of the bible stories are parables or stories to explain the unknown to ancient peoples.  Jesus himself used parables in this way.  It was a common teaching technique among the ancient people we know as Jews today.

To me it seems far more wondrous for a creator to create things that can adapt, evolve and learn than it is to just make a creature and plop it down as a static being.  I also find it somewhat arrogant to think that such a creator would limit his or her self to just earth.

I also believe that it will be a long long time, if ever, before we know who and what the nature of the creator is/was,  A single cell creature would have a better chance of understanding quantum mechanics.  However that creature may one day evolve and expand its knowledge to the point they can.  Therefore I try to keep an open mind and evaluate all 'evidence' carefully and acknowledge that my beliefs may be entirely wrong.

[Boudicca Littlebird]

Sorry can't take anyone seriously who believe in fairy's and gods, there is no god, the universe is a living organism and we are just parts of it, like the liver in your body, you made the liver but don't have any control over it like you imagine gods have control over you, in fact I would not mind betting that the rest of the universe see us as backward while we still believe in these silly ideas of gods, I suggest you all grow up and stop thinking someone is looking after you, cos that's the only real reason most believe n a god, like children they don't want to take responsibility for their actions, GROW UP.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Boudicca Littlebird wrote:

Sorry can't take anyone seriously who believe in fairy's and gods, there is no god, the universe is a living organism and we are just parts of it, like the liver in your body, you made the liver but don't have any control over it like you imagine gods have control over you, in fact I would not mind betting that the rest of the universe see us as backward while we still believe in these silly ideas of gods, I suggest you all grow up and stop thinking someone is looking after you, cos that's the only real reason most believe n a god, like children they don't want to take responsibility for their actions, GROW UP.

---

Grow up? Are you insulting everyone in the thread by equating them with children?

[Boudicca Littlebird]

Are you stalking me, I suggest you ignore me from now on.

[Phil Deakins]

Stalking, no. Responding to posts that I find interesting, yes.

I'll certainly ignore any of your posts that hold no interest for me. That's how I treat all posts from everyone.

[Phil Deakins]

So I'm not normal, eh? That's an insult isn't it?

 

(This is a reply to a post in Qualyfi's, which Boudicca seems intent on hijacking.)

[Boudicca Littlebird]

Good to see that you are moderating yourself, see the affect of just suggesting I be a mod. If you carried on that tone then I would apologize, as yes you are right, to suggest people are not normal due to simple comments is wrong, but your past ones shows that at times I would not need to apologize just boot.