The Darwin Spin Off

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Orwar said:

but I would guy-gander

Izzat like mansplaining?

I meant "prime" as a notational instrument: "x" vs. "x-prime" (I don't have superscript to show prime notation properly). To distinguish two iterations of a variable. 

[Orwar]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Izzat like mansplaining?

   Yep! 

[Doris Johnsky]

 Who's to say, considering the significant difference between Neanderthals and Early Modern Man, that modern man wasn't a different species from the evolutionary process and were left here by a space faring species?   Ala old L. Ron. Not that I believe his silly theory. 

Additionally, God, in Her infinite and all knowing wisdom could have created the universe anyway She pleased.  Big Bang, evolutionary, snapping Her immense fingers, and so on. That's assuming there is an all-knowing God. If there is a God, we are unable to understand what She thinks or how She does what She does.

 

Food for thought.  Or, just brain droppings. 

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

13 minutes ago, Doris Johnsky said:

 Who's to say, considering the significant difference between Neanderthals and Early Modern Man, that modern man wasn't a different species from the evolutionary process and were left here by a space faring species?   Ala old L. Ron. Not that I believe his silly theory.

Well, there aren't significant differences between Neanderthals and us, genetically. We're only 2% different than chimps. I think it highly unlikely that aliens, who evolved completely isolated from us in another solar system, would share 98% of our DNA. Life here, seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos at a much more primitive level, is the central tenet of panspermia.

15 minutes ago, Doris Johnsky said:

Additionally, God, in Her infinite and all knowing wisdom could have created the universe anyway She pleased.  Big Bang, evolutionary, snapping Her immense fingers, and so on. That's assuming there is an all-knowing God. If there is a God, we are unable to understand what She thinks or how She does what She does.

Yep. The intelligent design argument falls flat for me because it argues for a far less competent god than of the Big Bang and Evolution. I've no idea why anyone would come to the table with a "My God is less competent than your God theory", but that's how I see ID.

If God is all knowing, she knows how to start a universe with a Big Bang that leads to the evolution of creatures that believe in her. A less competent God might not possess such knowledge, and have to step in now and then to nudge things along. If I'm gonna have an all knowing God, she's really gotta know how to do amazing stuff.

Yes, I'm anthropomorphizing here, so sue me. Religion does exactly the same thing, but tries to weasel out of by saying "Am not!!!".

[Arielle Popstar]

17 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Well, there aren't significant differences between Neanderthals and us, genetically. We're only 2% different than chimps.

We are also 98% similar to pigs but noone seems to be talking about that. They are the only other mammal mostly hairless like humans so maybe as one evolutionists preaches, we are a hybrid from them and chimps.

Quote

I think it highly unlikely that aliens, who evolved completely isolated from us in another solar system, would share 98% of our DNA. Life here, seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos at a much more primitive level, is the central tenet of panspermia.

There is plenty of historical writings and artwork that there have been alien visitations in past and since the Bible as well as other creation myths mention we were created in the "aliens" image, it would be a much better fit to Occam's razor.

Quote

Yep. The intelligent design argument falls flat for me because it argues for a far less competent god than of the Big Bang and Evolution. I've no idea why anyone would come to the table with a "My God is less competent than your God theory", but that's how I see ID.

If God is all knowing, she knows how to start a universe with a Big Bang that leads to the evolution of creatures that believe in her. A less competent God might not possess such knowledge, and have to step in now and then to nudge things along. If I'm gonna have an all knowing God, she's really gotta know how to do amazing stuff.

A God who is all knowing does not need evolution. The evolutionary "begat" list you posted in an earlier post is an interesting hypotheses but there are plenty of scientific challenges to many of the begats whether they are even remotely factual. The fossils that are used could just as easily if not more likely to have been as a result of interbreedings and hybridizations. The "god of evolution" should have had many "failures" like 3 eyes, 5 legs, 2, heads, 4 tails etc and yet those appear to be very rare. They should have by the law of randomness, been the norm. I think that in itself is one of ToE's biggest counters. Not about what we do see but about what we don't from random mutations.

 

[Rowan Amore]

 Comparison of the full DNA sequences of different mammals shows that we are more closely related to mice than we are to pigs. We last shared a common ancestor with pigs about 80 million years ago, compared to about 70 million years ago when we diverged from rodents.

[Luna Bliss]

On 3/20/2021 at 12:24 PM, Ceka Cianci said:

On 3/20/2021 at 11:18 AM, Luna Bliss said:

Pffft....I come back to this thread and nobody has discovered how life began!

Disappoint   😉

Oh  that's easy.

Mah Hint! \o/

hehehe

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

A God who is all knowing does not need evolution.

What if the spiritual aspect of the Universe is imbedded in the material world, as a kind of usually unseen part of reality.
In this conceptualization, the material world we see manifested is the outer layer while Spirit is the inner. They are the same, really, but since we can only see the outer some think that's all there is to the Universe, and it is the human mind that actually creates the split between inner and outer layers.

And so God, the inner part of reality, is infinite and only sometimes manifests the physical, material world, and evolution is the way in which the material aspects of the Universe manifest.

This is a theory known to those who study consciousness, currently gaining greater acceptance in the Sciences, named Panpsychism.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

Does Consciousness Pervade The Universe?

          Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about Pansychism

One of science’s most challenging problems is a question that can be stated easily: Where does consciousness come from? In his new book Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness, philosopher Philip Goff considers a radical perspective: What if consciousness is not something special that the brain does but is instead a quality inherent to all matter? It is a theory known as “panpsychism,” and Goff guides readers through the history of the idea, answers common objections (such as “That’s just crazy!”) and explains why he believes panpsychism represents the best path forward.

Can you explain, in simple terms, what you mean by panpsychism?

In our standard view of things, consciousness exists only in the brains of highly evolved organisms, and hence consciousness exists only in a tiny part of the universe and only in very recent history. According to panpsychism, in contrast, consciousness pervades the universe and is a fundamental feature of it. This doesn’t mean that literally everything is conscious. The basic commitment is that the fundamental constituents of reality—perhaps electrons and quarks—have incredibly simple forms of experience. And the very complex experience of the human or animal brain is somehow derived from the experience of the brain’s most basic parts.

It might be important to clarify what I mean by “consciousness,” as that word is actually quite ambiguous. Some people use it to mean something quite sophisticated, such as self-awareness or the capacity to reflect on one’s own existence. This is something we might be reluctant to ascribe to many nonhuman animals, never mind fundamental particles. But when I use the word consciousness, I simply mean experience: pleasure, pain, visual or auditory experience, et cetera.

Human beings have a very rich and complex experience; horses less so; mice less so again. As we move to simpler and simpler forms of life, we find simpler and simpler forms of experience. Perhaps, at some point, the light switches off, and consciousness disappears. But it’s at least coherent to suppose that this continuum of consciousness fading while never quite turning off carries on into inorganic matter, with fundamental particles having almost unimaginably simple forms of experience to reflect their incredibly simple nature. That’s what panpsychists believe.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/

[Arielle Popstar]

59 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

 Comparison of the full DNA sequences of different mammals shows that we are more closely related to mice than we are to pigs. We last shared a common ancestor with pigs about 80 million years ago, compared to about 70 million years ago when we diverged from rodents.

Pigs and humans have many more physical and behavioral traits in common then do humans and mice. Not that I am trying to make a case for such a thing but pointing out that hybridization of originating species/kinds could well be a more likely scenario than the theory of evolution as it is commonly postulated. A site that gets deep into it can be found at macroevolution.net but will forewarn anyone looking there that some of the pictures there can be disturbing and some things cannot be unseen.

[Arielle Popstar]

41 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

What if the spiritual aspect of the Universe is imbedded in the material world, as a kind of usually unseen part of reality.
In this conceptualization, the material world we see manifested is the outer layer while Spirit is the inner. They are the same, really, but since we can only see the outer some think that's all there is to the Universe, and it is the human mind that actually creates the split between inner and outer layers.

And so God, the inner part of reality, is infinite and only sometimes manifests the physical, material world, and evolution is the way in which the material aspects of the Universe manifest.

This is a theory known to those who study consciousness, currently gaining greater acceptance in the Sciences, named Panpsychism.

I remember some of the gnostic texts had references to that and also the Bible having verses implying that. Some of the East Indian texts too if I remember right.

[Talligurl]

On 3/21/2021 at 4:06 PM, Doris Johnsky said:

If there is a God, we are unable to understand what She thinks or how She does what She does.

 

The question is not whether we can understand God, but rather whether God can reveal Himself to us. 

[Rowan Amore]

17 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

The question is not whether we can understand God, but rather whether God can reveal Himself to us. 

They say the same thing about Bigfoot.

[Theresa Tennyson]

4 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The "god of evolution" should have had many "failures" like 3 eyes, 5 legs, 2, heads, 4 tails etc and yet those appear to be very rare. They should have by the law of randomness, been the norm.

If they are "failures" - a disastrously unusable configuration - the animal would never be born, or at least be unable to breed.

Meanwhile:

https://whatdewhat.com/10-animals-two-eyes/

Edited March 22, 2021 by Theresa Tennyson

[FairreLilette]

On 3/20/2021 at 9:18 AM, Luna Bliss said:

how life began!

  😉

Mine almost began in a taxi.  True story.  But, the keyword here is, almost, but not quite.  My Dad, when my Mom went into labor with me and told my Dad they needed to go to the hospital NOW, asked my Mom if he had time for a cup of coffee.  That's my Dad.  lol  My Mom said NO!!!!!!!!!!  My Dad had just gotten home from taking my two older sisters to the movie matinee.  My Mom was home alone and almost called a taxi.  I was born almost upon arrival to the hospital.  

Edited March 22, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Aethelwine]

One problem with intelligent design, is that if we accept it, it makes us consider the nature of God and in particular their benevolence. We don't live in a heavenly world without suffering, God is not just responsible for the beautiful wonders of nature and the feelings of love we might feel but also all the suffering and the pain.  

If the world was designed intelligently then the designer is by any moral standard is a sick individual, not worthy of praise or worship.

[Aethelwine]

The key to religion is faith and universal love, neither of which are measurable by science or provable by logic, they are like poetry and art in a different category. To try to prove God is to misunderstand the concept and diminishes it.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Aethelwine

[Arielle Popstar]

5 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

One problem with intelligent design, is that if we accept it, it makes us consider the nature of God and in particular their benevolence. We don't live in a heavenly world without suffering, God is not just responsible for the beautiful wonders of nature and the feelings of love we might feel but also all the suffering and the pain.  

If the world was designed intelligently then the designer is by any moral standard is a sick individual, not worthy of praise or worship.

Accepting the potential for ID is a bit of a must scientifically as it is the opposite of blind, random chance being the organizing principle of life and the universe. Without it you have nothing more then a non refutable Darwinian theory of evolution which is therefore just another religion. Assigning good or bad morality to the creation is beyond the ken of the origins science and starts to delve into the area of philosophy.

[FairreLilette]

7 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

If the world was designed intelligently then the designer is by any moral standard is a sick individual, not worthy of praise or worship.

Governments and church hierarchies must take their blame in that.

Hispanics in South America just recently left 16,000 children at the American border, alone, abandoned.  I would suspect these are mostly children of Roman Catholics.  It makes me wonder why do they think God will provide here but not there?  God is everywhere, but not there?  Why is that?  Governments and church hierarchies have exploited and abused the little people, the working classes while being hypocrites, sinners of atrocious sins.  

Also, money is a made up concept.  Man decided to place value on goods and services.  Money was not made up by God.    

But, if you are talking about death and suffering.  It is horrible to lose one's family and loved ones.  Also, the body is rather fragile.  All parts of our body can be injured, diseased, hurt.

There is a song by Quicksilver Messenger Service called "What About Me" from about 50 years ago..and the beginning lyrics go...

"You poisoned my sweet water,

You cut down my green trees,

The food you fed my children was the cause of their disease...

My world is slowly falling down, and the air is not good to breathe,

And those of us who care enough, we have to do something."

 

I think man needs to take responsibility in that blame you are speaking about.  It's the greed.

Edited March 23, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Aethelwine]

12 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Governments and church hierarchies must take their blame in that.

Hispanics in South America just recently left 16,000 children at the American border, alone, abandoned.  I would suspect these are mostly children of Roman Catholics.  It makes me wonder why do they think God will provide here but not there?  God is everywhere, but not there?  Why is that?  Governments and church hierarchies have exploited and abused the little people, the working classes while being hypocrites, sinners of atrocious sins.  

Also, money is a made up concept.  Man decided to place value on goods and services.  Money was not made up by God.    

But, if you are talking about death and suffering.  It is horrible to lose one's family and loved ones.  Also, the body is rather fragile.  All parts of our body can be injured, diseased, hurt.

There is a song by Quicksilver Messenger Service called "What About Me" from about 50 years ago..and the beginning lyrics go...

"You poisoned my sweet water,

You cut down my green trees,

The food you fed my children was the cause of their disease...

My world is slowly down, and the air is not good to breathe,

And those of us who care enough, we have to do something."

 

I think man needs to take responsibility in that blame you are speaking about.  It's the greed.

The freewill defence doesn't deflect responsibility for natural disasters, nor can it be used to absolve anything more than partial responsibility for disease

[Aethelwine]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Accepting the potential for ID is a bit of a must scientifically as it is the opposite of blind, random chance being the organizing principle of life and the universe. Without it you have nothing more then a non refutable Darwinian theory of evolution which is therefore just another religion. Assigning good or bad morality to the creation is beyond the ken of the origins science and starts to delve into the area of philosophy.

You seem to be confusing dialectics with scientific method. 

[FairreLilette]

4 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

responsibility for natural disasters

True to some extent for natural disasters that cannot be explained.  Although the recent split in the polar vortex is thought to be due to pollution.

However, I see the greatest sickness of this world has come from man as well as man's ignorance and greed in the quest for the gold, silver and beyond.

It amazes me how deforestation was spoken about in that song "What About Me" 50 years ago but it's only now beginning to be taken somewhat seriously.

I'm not so sure about The Garden of Eden in that it would cause bodily disease.  Many philosophers have reflected if there weren't pollution, we'd probably live about 900 years average, same as those ages spoken of in Genesis.  

However, the song by Quicksilver Messenger Service is a protest song and not a religious song.  

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

On 3/22/2021 at 11:47 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

We are also 98% similar to pigs but noone seems to be talking about that. They are the only other mammal mostly hairless like humans so maybe as one evolutionists preaches, we are a hybrid from them and chimps.

We also share about 15% of our genome with plants. You seem to have completely misunderstood my argument about alien visitation. It was posited that humans might be the descendants of aliens who visited us long ago. Does it seem likely that creatures that evolved, from scratch, on another world, would share 15%, much less 98% of our genes? Even though sharing 98% of our genes with pigs, we can't mate with them, yet I'm to believe we'd be able to mate with aliens?

On 3/22/2021 at 11:47 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

There is plenty of historical writings and artwork that there have been alien visitations in past and since the Bible as well as other creation myths mention we were created in the "aliens" image, it would be a much better fit to Occam's razor.

Richard Feynman proposed a much better fit to Occam's Razor, which I'll link again...

Again, one can replace god(s) or aliens for flying saucers and not weaken the argument.

On 3/22/2021 at 11:47 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

A God who is all knowing does not need evolution.

Correct, but to work out a set of physical laws that can produce humans through evolution seems far more challenging and interesting than to just step in and drop them, fully formed, onto Earth. If you wish to come to the table with a "My God is lazier than yours" go ahead, laziness is worse than incompetence.

On 3/22/2021 at 11:47 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

The "god of evolution" should have had many "failures" like 3 eyes, 5 legs, 2, heads, 4 tails etc and yet those appear to be very rare. 

They should have by the law of randomness, been the norm. I think that in itself is one of ToE's biggest counters. Not about what we do see but about what we don't from random mutations.

Gross failures occur all the time. In humans, such errors generally result in inviability. About 10-20% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage. The actual percentage is certainly much higher as many pregnancies start and terminate without detection. Those early automatic aborts do not show up in the fossil record. That doesn't mean mistakes weren't made.

There is no "Law of Randomness". Making one up to suit your argument doesn't help you. Nor does ignoring "survival of the fittest", a central tenet of Darwin's theory that prevents your invented law from filling the planet with failures.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters
Fixed up my spelling, toned down my rhetoric.

[Ceka Cianci]

9 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

True to some extent for natural disasters that cannot be explained.  Although the recent split in the polar vortex is thought to be due to pollution.

However, I see the greatest sickness of this world has come from man as well as man's ignorance and greed in the quest for the gold, silver and beyond.

It amazes me how deforestation was spoken about in that song "What About Me" 50 years ago but it's only now beginning to be taken somewhat seriously.

I'm not so sure about The Garden of Eden in that it would cause bodily disease.  Many philosophers have reflected if there weren't pollution, we'd probably live about 900 years average, same as those ages spoken of in Genesis.  

However, the song by Quicksilver Messenger Service is a protest song and not a religious song.  

 

I think pollution or not , nobody would live anywhere near 900 years.. Just look what gravity does to us during the first 100..

Honestly, I don't think I want to make it to 100..hehehe