Even science has shown that all of creation is subjective. All that you sense with your five senses is simply electrical signals in your brain hence science cannot know the physical objective world because it can only be known via scientists (and everyday people) who experience it subjectively via their cortexes in their brain.

Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that reality is defined by our subjective experience of it. If we subjectively experience that hugging a cactus causes pain, then the reality is that hugging a cactus causes pain. There is nothing mystical about this, and it does not mean that 'reality exists only in our brain'. Reality is and that we experience it is simply part of that reality.

But we're straying off-topic here. Do you have any scientific evidence for creationism, brave?

Nice to see you back, btw!

Those posts show that peer reviewed papers purporting to show evidence for evolution that include dates for fossils or layers of strata are skewed; perhaps to the extreme.

Please find me the papers and I will gladly look at them.

Otherwise an American conservative news site and a religious site are not the best sources.

Are you denying several forms of radiometric dating? On what grounds?

Or is it? This too is opinion based on what the senses tell us and sadly doesnt actually tell us what reality is (this merely sweeps the question under a rug).



You say this doesnt mean that 'reality exists only in our brain' but if reality is only experienced in our brain and our brain is also just an interpretation of the brain we cannot perceive beyond the senses (because it is the partly the senses which we cannot know for sure whether to trust couped with awareness that even tells us that we have a brain) but can only perceive via awareness/consciousness (that which ironically cannot be seen) then how can we prove that reality exists objectively?

Therefore both creation and evolution could very well be illusions of the senses.

You may think I am going off topic but I think I am simply exploring different possibilities other than just the black and white Darwinists verses orthodox Abrahamic genesis adherents.

As for creationism I have a different take on it. My scientific proof that creationism exists is that we can only observe creation (which in my view includes evolution processes) is within our own awareness (consciousness).

My scientific opinion from this is that consciousness is the ground of all creation and evolution and the senses which give us a unique yet limited perspective of reality.




You too buddy!

You assume that our perceptions are false, that what underlies our subjective experience of reality is not what we actually experience? On what basis do you make such a claim?

Your scientific evidence would appear to be similar to those who wave the bible and claim that 'proves' creationism. If we are to understand the universe we must first learn to accept that we do actually experience it. If you refuse to do this then there really is no point experiencing anything - what a horrible frame of mind that must engender!

1) Mystics and perennial philosophers for thousands of years have made the claim that there exists a more 'real' reality beyond the senses and their philosophy and explanations have been consistent through various cultures i.e that the five sense world is illusory and can be transcended.

2) The fact that it is an act of faith to believe either way that what the senses is telling us is real or illusory because we cant get beyond the senses to perceive whether they are giving us a correct interpretation of reality to know whether we are experiencing subjectively a true objective world.

3) Have you seen the matrix???? hahahahaha




How?



Or that we can. Ever heard of Plato's cave analogy? I am not saying we dont experience the universe I am simply saying that we cant tell whether we are experiencing the universe as it is. In order to understand the universe we must know our limitations with it and then work from there.




Why is there no point? It isnt the conclusion I draw from my experiences. My take is that a true reality exists and this reality is infinite bliss (as the mystics say) but that for now I am limited to my senses.

Maternal love or the instinct to protect progeny? I know when all you have is a hammer everything you deal with becomes a nail. Science is INCAPABLE of studying things like the supernatural or feelings and emotions, and can only study the physical components of those areas. To ascertain that because a certain pheromone is present and active in the instances where people are acting out of love then the pheromone is the cause of the act of love is an indication that the one doing the studying has forgotten that he is limited by the tool he is using.

So, you're saying that you don't read my posts? Check page 11.

Bias towards what? I have been trained not to show bias. If there was substantial evidence to show both the fact and theory of evolution were false, I would gravitate towards those opposing views.



Evolution is both a fact and a theory. I have stated this time and time again. Anyone who chooses to go or even sit in on a lecture in an introductory course to biology will see this.
Yes the fossil record is fact, and yes evolution is fact. It is a fact that evolution happens. The mechanisms involved is the theory.
Richard Lewontin, Steven Jay Gould, Ernst Mayr, Francisco Ayala, Maynard Smith , Sober, Ruse, Sterelny. This is a list of philosophers of biology and biologists who both criticize and accept many theories involved within evolution, but all agree (along with every single other person who knows what they are talking about) that evolution is a fact.


Evolution isn't contingent on whether something develops into another species or not.

Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. <---- If this is true then evolution occurs (and it is true everywhere you look)

This is the fact of evolution, the change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next, and this is precisely what people are trying to dispute but look foolish in the process, just like any person who tries to dispute any other fact.

Yeti, it is imperative that you answer this question:
Are you disputing the mechanism involved in evolution or the fact that there is a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.

Wait a sec, Yeti - I think you're getting confused - which isn't surprising - Science uses the word Evolution several times.

The Evolution that Cimber's referring to as a fact is the process of genetic mutation that can be observed quite readily through a microscope today. It's the mechanism that the Flu Virus uses to adapt, etc.

The Theory of Evolution is the theory that, over time, those Evolutionary changes were responsible for creating all the forms of life as we know it today from a far simpler organism.

Abiogenesis (Sometimes referred to as Chemical Evolution) is a broad name for a set of hypotheses that cover various ways that the first organism on Earth was created.

I don't think its Evolution you have a problem with. It's the Theory of Evolution and the Abiogenesis hypotheses.

Exactly, thanks for helping me clear this up Tiggs

I'm not saying that microevolution as you describe from your research with microbes does not occur. I'm sure your correct about that. I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of the results, claiming that it may be adaptation, not evolution and I'm saying that evolution as it is used to explain our existence has never been seen. That it is in fact in conflict with many other scientific laws, goes against logic and reason, not to mention the bible, and has never been seen. You are splitting hairs with me. Think about it. The theory of evolution states that we humans evolved from lower, more primitive life forms. For that to be true, it should be seen. Demonstrate a lower, more primitive life form morphing into something significantly more complex. Then you will have satisfied the requirements of proving evolution.

I am not splitting hairs. Evolution occurs and you are misunderstanding its definition. You and I are both not qualified as individuals to just change it to fit our liking. We have to go by its established definition from proof presented.

If you don't have an issue with microevolution, then you shouldn't have a issue with other kinds of evolution.
Micro and macroevolution aren't even terms us in the scientific community like to use.

Are you not aware that adaptationism is a type of fundamentalist concept of evolution? If you are in favor of adaptation, then you are agreeing with an Ayala-Dawkins concept.

It takes as little as thousands of years and at most millions upon millions of years for evolution to be recognizable on a phenotypic level. Saying that jsut because it hasn't been observed isn't a justifiable argument because the mechanism of it's process is currently working on a smaller level.

Besides, we have DNA lineages to show us that evolution works on a 'macroevolutionary' level.

That is not quite true, emotions can be studied looking at associated hormones. Endocrinology looks at such things. Your brain is just a bio-electrical organ and everything it does is caused by reactions with in the brain so such things can be recorded.
It is maternal love, the same hormones also cause romantic love.
Love and hormones.

Hi Tiggs,

I know you are arguing with different glasses on for this one, so maybe your heart is not fully in it. I wanted to dispute your claim that nucleoside bases are incapable of forming under prebiotic-perearth systems.

I am taking it you are basing your argument on the work Robert Shapiro (not the lawyer, rather the molecular biologist). Maybe you are not aware of where this argument comes from though. Shapiro, around the late 90's, really pushed the argument of the missing nucleoside bases (though in advocation for a protein first world).


In the last few years some great advancements in our understanding of prebiotic conditions and possible chemical reactions has occurred. It has been found that using dilute solutions of guanidine or urea and cyanoacetaldehyde at low temperatures produces sufficient yields of cytosine. More importantly, the half-life of cytosine at or near freezing temperatures is ~17,000 years and increases as a function of reduction in temperature. Near -20°C half-life is increased to ~717,000 years. One study found a yield of .05% production of cytosine over a course of the 2 month reaction carried out at 0°C (I).

While these yields may seem small, one must remember that we are talking about atmospheric chemistry, where fractions of a percent can correlate to millions and billions of tons of product.

There has also been recent work to show that adenine, similarly in low temperatures the polymerization of HCN to form adenine has been described, Both in cold and with a photochemical catalyzed step (II). That adenine forms under these conditions (nitrogen-methane atmospheres), its rather misleading to claim there is no support for such a nucleoside forming on early earth.

Furthermore, the early solar system was ripe with bio-organics and amino acids. In 1969 a meteorite fell to earth (the Murchison meteorite) and it was found to contain numerous amino acids (III). Two important things can be taken away from this, firstly meteorites with amino acids can survive entry in earths atmosphere. Secondly, this provides a possible mechanism for simple catalysis of nucleotide bases being manufactured here on earth or elsewhere in the early solar system. It has been found when adenine is introduced to samples from the Murchison meteorite, various chemical reactions occur (IV).

I think it is important to note at this point that, while we do not possess a "smoking-gun" for the emergence of life, the evidence that all the components of life (nucleotides, phospholipids and amino acids) is undoubtedly strong that these things occur naturally in young planetary solar systems. By no means do we have a definitive reaction, but lack of reaction mechanism is hardly discouraging.

Also, I think it is important to note that in following Shapiro or ID'ers line of thought, one is to assume that a RNA OR Metabolite world "came first". The reality as of now is, we simply do not know. There is no rule that says "One world must beget another". Frankly I am not at all impressed with the either or scenario. Everything I have ever learned about chemistry and biochemistry (which is a lot mind you) has only led me to believe that "nothing is quite that simple". Meaning the first biochemical world, maybe a combination of worlds (Auto-replication by nucleotides using AA's or inorganics as catalysts or visa versa) or a previously unthought of world altogether.


Anyway, some food for thought.


I. Cleaves J.H., et. al. 2006. The prebiotic synthesis of pyrimidines in frozen solution. Naturwissenschaften 93:228-231
II. Orgel L. 2004. Prebiotic adenine revisited: eutectics and photochemistry. Orig Life Evol Biosph 34:361–369
III. Kvenvolden K., et. al. 1970. Evidence for Extraterrestrial Amino-acids and Hydrocarbons in the Murchison Meteorite. Nature 228:923 - 926
IV. Amri C.E., et. al. 2004. Adenine adsorption on and release from meteorite specimens assessed by surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 35:170 - 177

There are many instances of things that used to be considered "supernatural" that science has since explained. Science is quite capable of studying things like the supernatural without any problem at all.

The more scientific knowledge that is amassed, the more "unknowns" become "knowns".

For example (and I'm sure there are plenty of people who are going to argue these):


The mechanism behind spontaneous human combustion has been proven using the scientific method.

James Randi uses the scientific method to disprove "supernatural" claims all the time - in fact, it's more or less what he does for a living.

Science has disproven the ancient belief that all things were made of the elements of earth, wind, fire, and water.

"Orbs" in photos can be proven to be something other than supernatural in nature.

"Ghost" photos are disproven over and over again.

Certain "feelings" or "actions" can be triggered in animals by such things as genetic manipulation, drugs, hormone therapy, etc.

Much of our knowledge of pharmaceuticals is based on beliefs that used to be considered "witchcraft" by the general populous. (Think "magic potions" used to cure, etc.)

Agreed!

If you agree then you shouldn't be trying to dispute whether evolution occurs or not, rather how it occurs.

No, I'm agreeing that I have issue with Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution specifically. I've already given you that I concurr with your microbiological experiments and stated my difference of opinon.

Yeti,

Microorganisms are used for models often in biology for various reasons. Namely, it is easy to keep large numbers of them and because of short generation times. Some strains of Salmonella have a doubling rate of 4 hours.

The other day you asked me for evidence of heritable beneficial mutations. One example I provided you was an experiment done with bacteria which was grown for 10,000 generations. Can you imagine the space or resources to do this experiment with mice? Or even the amount of time?

We use many animal models in biology, while this certainly can create confusion with the general reader, I believe that biologists have a firm grasp on the concepts involved in biological modeling (whether that be Eschericha coli, C. elegans, Mus musculus or Drosophila melanogaster or any other biological model commonly used). Each model we use is picked with its pros and con's in mind for the specific task.

Microorganism are often used for evolution for the reasons above. However, this does not indicate a difference in how evolution occurs. E. coli for example is used often in studies involving evolutionary biology, it is also used often as a model for mutation/gene duplication/gene induction/etc. These things happen to E. coli and humans, and most other organisms on Earth. Hence why it is used as a model in the first place.

* Grins * - I am, indeed, arguing with different glasses on. It's much more difficult than it looks.

You're right - the prebiotic argument's completely based on Shapiro. The fatal flaw in that argument, as you point out, is the assumption that the RNA world came first. Just a brief glance at Wikipedia's entry on Abiogenesis will show a wide range of other possibilities. The news that cytosine can be produced in sufficient quantity from dilute solutions of guanidine or urea and cyanoacetaldehyde pretty much renders the argument null.

Anyone that's been reading my posts over in the Science section will know that I'm a "quantum skeptic" - in short, I believe that Einstein was correct and that a Hidden Local Variable solution to Quantum Mechanics exists. I'm having a rather interesting discussion about Bell's Theorem, on and off, with StarTraveller, over in the "Fuggedaboutit Physics" thread, to that effect. As such, taking the position that Quantum mechanics is proof of a Creator was more than a little painful to have to resort to.

In summary - it took me ages to come up with even two points that might be vaguely defensible. It's been fun, however, trying to defend an alternative viewpoint - it's always educational to look at things from both sides of the fence.

Cheers, Copasetic

* Takes off Creationist Defence hat *

The problem with choosing microevolution but not macroevolution is one in which you create your own artificial limitations to genetic diversity. There is no magic line where X number of frequency changes occurs so evolution must stop. The macroevolutionary "magic" happens when 2 or more populations of the same biological species become isolated in a way that allows gene flow between these populations to stop. Only when this happens, reproductive isolation of populations, do you start to see divergences from the ancestral population. While gene flow is maintained, the frequency of alleles will most certainly change, but will in a kind of status quo for the combined populations.


Think about it like this. Let's say you were to go out in your back yard and dig two holes, then connect each hole with a little canal and fill it with water. Now, into one hole you add some red food coloring, what happens?

The red food coloring diffuses across the 2 holes. While one hole changes a little sooner than the other hole, the distribution of food coloring eventually is spread rather equally. Now let's say you fill this little canal in. Now add some blue food coloring to one hole, what happens? That hole retains all the blue food coloring, none is diffused to the 2nd hole. Now let's say you add some yellow coloring to your 2nd hole, what happens? Again, none of the yellow diffuses to the first hole because the cut off of "flow".

Now this little model is looking interesting because we have one hole which has turned a purple color and the other hole which has turned some sort of orange. Our holes look very different though they both started off as the same "type" of hole with red food coloring.

This is similar to how populations are separated/isolated from one another. The changes in food coloring keep happening (our microevolutionary processes) to each population, but over time because of different selective pressures the changes are dissimilar. This is macroevolution now! The same small types of changes that occur result in two or more populations with unique phenotypes.

While I am certainly no teacher, hopefully a little visual-imaginative exercise can help one to visualize all the confusing terms, theories and mechanisms in evolution. Hope it helped!


Edit- Bah! damn the English language!

I disagree and maintain my stance. Science is only capable of studying the physical aspects of emotions, the body's hormonal and electrical activities which occur simultaneously with emotions. But to assume that in measuring these activities, one is actually studying emotions is an indication of tunnel vision. You are choosing to have science as your only tool--your hammer, so everything has become a nail to you. This is akin to putting on rose-colored glasses any and every time you go anywhere and then ascertaining that the whole world has a pinkish tint. This may be true for you, but only because you choose to always look at things through the rose-colored glasses, but your choice does not mean it's true for all of us in every case.

If that is what you believe fair enough, I don't. I don't consider science rose-tinted glasses. I believe it shows a better representation of the world, especially as that is its aim. I personally would consider spiritualism to be rose-tinted glasses.

Indeed it is. I took a evolutionary biology class in which we did just this sort of thing. Basically we we lumped all views into 4 views: Young earth creationism, Intelligent design creationism, Theistic evolution (with its many varying degrees) and a purely naturalistic explanation of our world. We took turns arguing from each viewpoint, which for some (mostly YEC) was daunting. It was quite an interesting class indeed.


I also got the chance not to long ago to take a tour with a friends class (which was a very similar topic, a philosophical approach to the cultural war raging in America) to attend the AIG sponsored creation museum. Which was a very educating experience yet frustrating in ways unimagined as well.

I think the old saying of walking in another's shoes is often times discarded in our society, of that I am sure both sides are guilty. I think a better understanding of ones, "advisories" -for lack of a better term, goes a long way in promoting a peaceful, informative and educational exchange of ideas.

Hi Mr. Son.

While in no way disagree that there maybe more to life than meets the eye, I have to disagree with your comment in boldface. There is nothing beyond what we wish to believe that leads us in the direction of emotions have a "not so physical basis". Everything we have learned of emotions so far indicate they are merely a function and expression of biochemistry. Were this not the case our treatments of self-defeating emotions (or one might say psychological illness) would be very ineffective. In reality this is hardly the case. Problems like depression are the over expression of ones emotions, in a very literal sense. This is effectively treated, not by any of kind other-worldly treatment, but rather the "physical" aspects of ones biochemistry.


And if all emotions are physically created through biochemistry, so what? Does love not feel like love to you? Do movies suddenly become less funny because your cheerful laughter is only a physical response through chemistry? I for one love my life and those people in it. Whether the feeling comes from complex chemistry in my brain that I have no motivation to study or by some other means it makes no difference to me. The world and people in it remain a beautiful place, whether god gave you the emotions or they are 'just' chemistry. I certainly hope no one would here believes that life would be less grand were we "only" complex chemistry.

Wonder why a god would give us a brain to reason, think critically, make proper decisions with .... and then require us to do a 180, shut down such critical processes ... and rely solely on faith/hope in order to believe in Him?!

Just a thought.

I think it's actually more difficult to have faith/hope than it is to have proof. As for our logical minds, God wants us to use them. Go out and invent something awesome that will help mankind, and you will score points.

I have asked this question numerous times and have yet to receive an answer ... Why can you not be a Christian and still believe in evolution? Why can't humanity evolve in the presence of God?

Mk,

Sean

You know interestingly enough many people in the interdisciplinary world of biology and medicine are using evolution to create new types of medical treatments to help mankind. Evolutionary derived antibiotics, where you sit back and let competitive evolution run its course, is going to be a pivotal field in the treatment of evolved strains of drug resistant microorganisms.

Scientific proof for religions doesn't excist as religions are all blindly believing in gods which never showed themselves or made one thing appear out of nothing before somebody's eyes or whatever. Since that Jezus character never got proven and the story was made so that we couldn't find any pieces of him (The Bible said he finally risen to heaven at the end) so there is no actual proof that, if he excisted, he made any miracles happen. There was only one book, no other books written or letters wich concludes things like 'I saw Jeez' yesterday, he made some wine out of water for me, it was kinda cool' or whatever. Upon that, Fossil records, Radiometeric dating methods had been reschearched, applied several times with same output, so their genuine and exact. Evolution has been reschearched and agreed by the best scientists.

Stop saying 'Scientific' proof for religion, it's all blind belief and faith in someone in the sky, looking down upon us and thinking. "At who shall i throw my thunder at now?" without showing us any proof that he actually is there.

Untill you show me a genuine video of a giant hand coming down from the skies and making some wine out of water, healing some sick people and making some trees out of nothing, i shall convert and become the most religous person in the galaxy, untill then, i shall stay Atheist.

Been watching Kent Hovind's scare lectures lately, Yeti? He uses this argument to scare people.

The reality of this argument is:
WHO BLOODY CARES. If you choose Creationism over Evolution simply because it makes you feel more arrogant, important, and special, you are living in a little dream world. REALITY may not be fun.


Umm, I believe the chemical euphoria and passion towards a cause you are talking about has already been well observed and experimented.
Here's a nice article:
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/emotion.html

Of course, a bunch of chemical reactions may not seem as glamorous as you want love and emotion to be, but, tough luck.


Unfortunately, he is.
The grounds? The chance that the speed of light has changed in just the right way to make all the radiocarbon dating methods just LOOK like 4.5-13.7 billion years old.

Unfortunately, like all Creationists, he has yet to explain why THE DOZENS OF OTHER DATING METHODS AGREE.



What? You aren't making any sense here. What is 'Evolution as it is used to explain our existence'?


PLEASE NAME THEM.

OK. Yeti. Here are some questions:

1. Do you have any EVIDENCE to suggest the speed of light changes, and the majority of modern physics is wrong, or is it just a random guess?
2. Can you mathematically show us how the speed of light affects how radiometric dating works?
3. Please explain your problems with Evolution. IE- WHAT Laws are violated.
4. Can you please explain what you mean by 'Evolution as it is used to explain our existence'?
5. Can you please explain how the other dozens of non-radiometric dating methods are also wrong?
Here's a link:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?tit...recent_creation
OK. ANSWER THOSE 4 QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
OK. ANSWER THOSE 4 QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
OK. ANSWER THOSE 4 QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
OK. ANSWER THOSE 4 QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
OK. ANSWER THOSE 4 QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
OK. ANSWER THOSE 4 QUESTIONS, PLEASE.

OK. Just making sure you hear. Because the last time I asked you a few quick questions, I had to ask numerous times, and you still never replied.

Cheers,
SQLserver

You know what stinks? Everytime I come up with something you (or someone else) accuses me of copying from a creationist website. In short - NO!

Nope.

Gosh man you post a lot of information! I think it maybe a better approach to cut some of the fat out of in depth arguments posted on some webpages in the name of helping to educate people genuinely confused on what evolution is. I'm not entirely sure smothering them in information is the best way to bring about some enlightenment on a confusing issue. I for one had many a teacher who thought this was the correct way to teach people (indeed most of grad school was like this), the knowledge I gained from such experiences (and those of teaching others) leads to believe that its more important to first peak ones interest in the topic, even if that only means enticing them to ask questions about it.

Actually it has been shown that is not the case.

Of course you would. Tell me where I have stated anything incorrectly regarding the nature of science. From a logical standpoint you can't say something does not exist unless and until you have examined every square inch of the universe and found it to be so. Therefore, from a logical standpoint, simply because science, by it's very nature cannot examine something, it does not then mean that does not exist or is not true, all you can actually say is that science cannot be used to make a determination regarding that "something," correct?


Sorry copasetic, but you are falling into the same error matt seems to be committing. Science is not the end-all be-all decider of what is and what isn't true, only what can and can't be studied with it. Science by it's very nature is only capable of being used to examine physical events/situations. Therefore, science can only examine the physical events that occur simultaneous with emotions. But to say since these endorphins are present when love or hate, happiness, or anger are being felt, they are the cause of those emotions is false, illogical, and unscientific. The fact that this is all that science can measure does not in any way mean that is all that is occurring, it only means that is all science can be used to study. I am a great fan of science, I really am. I am also a great fan of television. However, I do not use television to cook my food, nor do I use it to clean my clothes, not because I don't enjoy television, but because television is incapable of cooking my food or cleaning my clothes and I am smart enough to realize the limitations of my dear TV. Likewise, although I am a great fan of science, I am well aware of the limitations of that wonderful tool and the fact that I realize it has limitations does not in any way reduce my love and respect for it, in fact, it is because of my love and respect for science that I understand how and when to use it.

LOL hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhaahahahahahahhaah
ahahahahahahahaha
Were you serious, or were you trying to be funny?
A. I wasn't 'accusing you' of anything. I've seen Hovind's lectures, and was just asking.
B. Even if you were using his argument, so what? Nothing wrong with that.(BESIDES the argument's points, of course)
C. I found it a little strange that he asks all 3 of those questions in his 'Age of the Earth' lecture, and does the same 'Evolution side of it and Creationism side of it' to scare people into believing creationism.
D. I'd like you to point out 1 TIME where I've chastised you for using a Creationist link. I've always been highly AGAINST saying 'lol biaz linkz' or 'lol i can't believe you are that stoopid im not gonna explain'. I can point out where you've claimed it is unfair to use an 'Evolutionist' link. Honestly, any argument, NO MATTER WHERE IT IS FROM, is a good argument if it makes valid points, backs up sources, and etc.

E. Did anyone else see the pure irony in Yeti's post? Well, perhaps it is technically not irony, but it is hilarious none the less.
Hint: Read the post of mine he replied to.


Absolutely- Usually, I try and do that. However, here, I didn't really want to talk about emotions(What I linked to.), so I just gave him the article. Other times I will give links to back up a claim, or provide sources; I usually post the actual arguments though.

For the Evidence against a Recent Creation link, I'VE already summarized the best points and posted them AT LEAST TWICE on this thread, and the Creationists always seem to ignore it.


Indeed; I try and do that as much as possible. Usually, only when I want someone to know I have sources when I make a claim, or when I want to get a particular point over with do I use just links. I try and summarize the important points, or at least copy and paste the good stuff.


Cheers,
SQLserver

Wow, man, I just had a freaking revelation!

Gravity is caused by my dog, Spike. I mean, sure it seems to happen when large bodies of matter are present, but saying those large bodies of matter cause Gravity is illogical!

The universe was created Yesterday by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sure there are all of those memories, objects, books, and writings, but to assume that their presence the universe is older then yesterday is illogical and unscientific.

Oh man, this is GREAT! Science can't Prove anything! I can know believe the most romantic and elegant and easiest things I've ever wanted to believe, and No one can prove me wrong!

Yes! All hail his noodly goodness! Infidels shall be cast into a vat of steaming marinara sauce!

Actually, Iams, your situation is even worse.
Of course, you realize that if the following have been shown(and I believe they have), then your argument is WORSE then all of those:
1. Without the presence of said chemicals, one does not experience the euphoria/love emotion?
2. I'm pretty sure people have done in depth analysis of exactly HOW these chemicals create a feeling of love/euphoria.
They understand exactly how crystal meth, weed, etc. give one a feeling of high, so I doubt they haven't done similar studies with emotion.
I understand it must release hormone/chemicals that change neuron signals and synapses in some way... I'll look it up.

Cheers,
SQLserver

Ah, resorting to stupidity. You're attempt to ridicule tells me I must have struck a chord! You're very predictable sql.

Only if you can prove one is definitely the cause and the other the effect. Are we positive the production of the chemicals cause the emotion? Is it at all possible the emotions cause the production of the chemicals?
I'm pretty sure they have studied how the production of the chemicals occurs in some sort of conjunction with the expression of the emotions.


You're talking about examining the physical effects of particular chemicals in the brain. Do the physical reactions explain the visions, insights, emotions, etc. experienced during that altered state? I would say no.


You're still assuming that simply because two things occur in conjunction one must be the cause of the other. Two questions come to mind:
1. How can we determine with 100% certainty (I can already hear the cry of "You don't need 100% certainty!!!!) which is the cause and which the effect?
2. How can we determine with 100% certainty that one is the cause of the other?

There is no error to fall into, there is no reason to assume emotions are anything but biochemical reactions. Lack of endorphins (or many of the other biochemical molecules which are actually the cause for those emotions you describe) shows us people are incapable of feeling some of those emotions. Theres nothing illogical and unscientific going on here, but your presumption that biochemical are not the cause for emotion. To say endocrine signals are not the cause of emotion is really an uneducated statement.

For instance, a recent study found a mutant gene that results in no production of serotonin. We know serotonin interactions are key to healthy brain function, in the case of these people the lack of this neuro-endocrine signal is the cause of sever sadness (what we call an emotion) and depression. If your not into reading scientific papers, I would recommend Constance Holden's recap of the story in Science.

Holden, Constance. 2004. Mutant Gene Tied to Poor Serotonin Production and Depression. Science 306:2023

There are many examples in psychological-medical studies, involving vasopressin, oxytocin or many of the other neuroendocrine signals.

For Sqlserver and Mattshark. The scientific data you asked me for.

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkalan.html

http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/Sp...0of%20Light.htm

I liked that comment in the second one where they said they had difficulty getting their data published. Intereseting considering the fact that a decrease in measured c values will throw off all accepted dates for the age of the earth, fossils, and layers of strata.

Ps. For Sqlserver - please notice the concise and to the point response.

Regards.

Actually it goes something like this,

A visual or environmental stimulus acts upon ones nervous system. This causes a conformational change in the state of intercellular signals and transmitters. The conformational change results in the expression of new chemistry. The purpose of this chemistry is generally to release these "emotion causing molecules". The molecules posses specific cellular receptors which target different parts of the nervous system and cause changes in these parts responsible for "feelings".



Yes they do, why do you think lysergic acid works? Because visions, insights and altered states are just that, a momentary lapse in ones neurochemistry.



We know certain chemicals invoke "emotional" responses because we can study it in animal models. For instance we can inject mice with homocysteine track it in their bodies, see where it gets localized too and observe the emotional responses of anger and aggression in them.

Yeti, I have a half complete explanation complete with mathematical examples of why this untrue on my desktop. I will finish it and post it first chance I get.

Oh good; I'm already doing so much these days!


PS- You still have to answer my questions. Perhaps you missed them? I can PM them to you if you want.


Actually I was making a valid point. That was EXACTLY what your argument was getting across.

I'll find more on this in the morning, though.

You did a great job of describing the chemical processes that occur in the human body when emotions are being experienced. Can you prove that this actually causes the emotions? I don't think so. You can prove that every time a human feels a particular emotion, some chemical processes precede and some follow it, you can prove that certain chemical reactions seem to be invariably linked with certain emotions, but that's all you can prove, right?


I didn't say you weren't making a valid point, I pointed out you were doing it in a stupid way to ridicule a point. You seem to resort to ridicule any time a chord is struck to try to make it seem it's beneath you to acknowledge the point.

Iams, regardless of whether emotions are chemically based or not, you seem to be forgetting that it doesn't matter where these feelings come from because they mean something to us. Love is love and hate is hate. Just because they are achieved chemically doesn't mean squat when you hold up the value of love and hate up to the light. Yes, they are natural functions of the body. But so what? Does that fact diminish the love you have for your wife and children? I would hope not. Just because we acknowledge science does not mean we are nihilists. I don't look at the world around me and say "well, I'm just the product of natural chance and my disposition is affected by natural chemicals in my body. so I guess this all means nothing." Certainly not. Just because these things are true, that I am a product of millions upon millions of years of evolution, and just because certain chemicals make me feel certain ways doesn't change anything for me. Its not about the cause, i.e. the chemical, but the end result, i.e. love.

Is that an epistemological issue with proving causation? Like do you doubt that smoking can cause lung cancer, or that brain scans can reveal that tumours cause various visual disturbances?