Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
oslove

How to explain existence of God from reality

390 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Nuclear Wessel
9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Then why are there so many "missing links" in a large variety of species?

Such as? Do you mean like the "intermediates"? Can you give me at least three examples where there are "so many missing links"?

Quote

In other words, given what the evidence suggests, why did natural evolution change gears from very slow evolution in gradual steps to evolving suddenly, in a higher gear, and cause an evolutionary step to be accomplished much quicker like in the evolution of man?

Does the evidence really suggest that natural evolution "switched gears", as it were? What evidence are you looking at? Do you mean "why did some species not evolve much at all in the same time that it took for humans to evolve"? If so, did they? If not, disregard... I would appreciate clarification, however.

Quote

Please don't say it's because this missing evidence hasn't been discovered yet.

Well, I won't say that because I don't know what missing evidence you're referring to.

Quote

 

because it's common practice for scientists to declare that a specimen, having been discovered to be the oldest yet found, is now the ancestor to all its descendants and from that specific location where it was found, such as Africa being the place that man originated based only on the evidence discovered so far.

 

I'm not sure that it's "common practise", but it certainly would make sense to do so if the evidence suggests this. That's the beautiful thing about the many fields in science--it is ever changing; new information found today could lead to a complete rewrite of some science textbooks tomorrow.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
4 minutes ago, Will Due said:
14 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I can see why you would ask that, and I was going to put a response to that, in my way of explaining it, but I think NW did a splendid job of it. :yes:  

Evolution and such, does seem to me to be 'heartless' ;) in a way, but I think that best explains the answer to your questions. 

I find it interesting that this term and definition, has crept up lately. Not arguing against it, just find it interesting that it's here. In one sense, I feel that the definition has been around, but in different meanings. I thought that was a Scientologist, by that definition, (in which, I think I was thinking wrong on that) but yes, Naturalism seems to be the best way of looking at it. Isn't Humanism also like that? 

Thanks for clarifying it for me. :D  :tu: 

I don't understand Will, I think that 'it hasn't been discovered yet' to be a pretty good explanation for the 'missing links'. It really is impossible to find the answers to it all, at once, right? 

And isn't the scientists saying that they 'concluding' that evidence discovered is a possible chance evidence of being the ancestor, and not 'declaring' it? I think that them 'declaring' it wouldn't be prudent for someone who uses new researched evidence as something that is concluding their research. Something, that could change later. 

 

Then why is it always reported that "man evolved out of Africa" when there's still so much evidence that's missing?

Why are scientists so biased?

I believe it's reported, due to their findings so far. And I believe, they use what they already have. I find this site and page very useful in explaining it.  "Early human fossils and archeological remains offer the most important clues about this ancient past. These remains include bones, tools and any other evidence (such as footprints, evidence of hearths, or butchery marks on animal bones) left by earlier people. Usually, the remains were buried and preserved naturally. They are then found either on the surface (exposed by rain, rivers, and wind erosion) or by digging in the ground. By studying fossilized bones, scientists learn about the physical appearance of earlier humans and how it changed. Bone size, shape, and markings left by muscles tell us how those predecessors moved around, held tools, and how the size of their brains changed over a long time. Archeological evidence refers to the things earlier people made and the places where scientists find them. By studying this type of evidence, archeologists can understand how early humans made and used tools and lived in their environments. " 

Where do you find that they are 'reporting' it? And plus, is it reporting it from their evidence, or do you see them 'reporting' their conclusions that man evolved out of Africa? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I believe it's reported, due to their findings so far. And I believe, they use what they already have. I find this site and page very useful in explaining it.  "Early human fossils and archeological remains offer the most important clues about this ancient past. These remains include bones, tools and any other evidence (such as footprints, evidence of hearths, or butchery marks on animal bones) left by earlier people. Usually, the remains were buried and preserved naturally. They are then found either on the surface (exposed by rain, rivers, and wind erosion) or by digging in the ground. By studying fossilized bones, scientists learn about the physical appearance of earlier humans and how it changed. Bone size, shape, and markings left by muscles tell us how those predecessors moved around, held tools, and how the size of their brains changed over a long time. Archeological evidence refers to the things earlier people made and the places where scientists find them. By studying this type of evidence, archeologists can understand how early humans made and used tools and lived in their environments. " 

Where do you find that they are 'reporting' it? And plus, is it reporting it from their evidence, or do you see them 'reporting' their conclusions that man evolved out of Africa? 

 

All the documentaries I've watched in the last 20 years or more have presented the findings of science to indicate that the origin of man is in Africa. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

All the documentaries I've watched in the last 20 years or more have presented the findings of science to indicate that the origin of man is in Africa. 

 

 

Which documentaries, Will.

With Stubbs, she prefers to see your links, if she is in error she is in error.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
10 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Which documentaries, Will.

With Stubbs, she prefers to see your links, if she is in error she is in error.

 

 

All of them Sheri. I haven't ever seen a documentary that says otherwise. 

I pay particular attention to documentaries that deal with the evolution of man because I do not think man's origin is in Africa.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

All the documentaries I've watched in the last 20 years or more have presented the findings of science to indicate that the origin of man is in Africa. 

 

 

Like Sheri said, I like to see the source of the links, to see how you see it as such. If they present it that way, then they do, and I can't disagree with that. Or, as Sheri put it beautifully, if I am in error...*gurgle* ......... I am in error! *looks shifty eyed) 

But yes, I am quite curious as to how you saw it in these documentaries. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

All of them Sheri. I haven't ever seen a documentary that says otherwise. 

I pay particular attention to documentaries that deal with the evolution of man because I do not think man's origin is in Africa.

 

 

Well, I would be very curious as to why you saw it as them in such a way as you say, or maybe it's the way they presented it. Do you know what I mean by that, Will?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

All of them Sheri. I haven't ever seen a documentary that says otherwise. 

I pay particular attention to documentaries that deal with the evolution of man because I do not think man's origin is in Africa.

 

 

Can you post a link?

Give a title, we will google it.

Dare I ask where you think man's origins are?

And is this a UB finding?

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
4 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Like Sheri said, I like to see the source of the links, to see how you see it as such. If they present it that way, then they do, and I can't disagree with that. Or, as Sheri put it beautifully, if I am in error...*gurgle* ......... I am in error! *looks shifty eyed) 

But yes, I am quite curious as to how you saw it in these documentaries. 

 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
3 hours ago, Will Due said:

Why are scientists so biased?

What are you talking about, what bias? Scientists are 'biased' because they think (not 'declare') that man evolved out of Africa? 

Don't you think that, to be fair, prior to accusing scientists of being biased that you should at least have a good understanding of what they claim and most importantly why?  Your questions aren't really that complicated if you'd look into it.  I think the answer to your question, "why are there so many missing links" is that evolution is usually a slow process so the links you are looking for existed hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago and fossilization is not that common.  One of my favorite resources for questions like this is http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ .  Matter of fact I found the answer to your question there:

Quote

Claim CC200.1:

Given all the species that exist and have existed, there should be billions of transitional fossils in the fossil record; we should have found tens of thousands at least.

Source:

Gish, Duane T., 1994. When is a whale a whale? Impact 250 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=379

Response:

  1. Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common: 
     
    • Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely. 
       
    • Many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well. 
       
    • Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small. 
       
    • The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.

    Passenger pigeons, once numbered in the billions, went extinct less than 200 years ago. How many passenger pigeon fossils can you find? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion? 
     
  2. Other processes destroy fossils. Erosion (and/or lack of deposition in the first place) often destroys hundreds of millions of years or more of the geological record, so the geological record at any place usually has long gaps. Fossils can also be destroyed by heat or pressure when buried deep underground. 
     
  3. As rare as fossils are, fossil discovery is still rarer. For the most part, we find only fossils that have been exposed by erosion, and only if the exposure is recent enough that the fossils themselves do not erode. 

    As climates change, species will move, so we cannot expect a transition to occur all at one spot. Fossils often must be collected from all over a continent to find the transitions. 

    Only Europe and North America have been well explored for fossils because that is where most of the paleontologists lived. Furthermore, regional politics interfere with collecting fossils. Some fabulous fossils have been found in China only recently because before then the politics prevented most paleontology there. 
     
  4. The shortage is not just in fossils but in paleontologists and taxonomists. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do

I apologize for bringing all this up. I'm not trying to denigrate what science says about the evolution of man. 

I have to be honest with you now I guess, or I won't be able to explain why I've been so interested in the archeological discoveries of the ascent of man for about three decades now. Or is it the anthropological discoveries of the ascent of man.

The UB (go ahead and roll your eyes) does not support that the evolution of man originated in Africa. According to the UB, it's in Mesopotamia. 

The other thing I brought up about the missing link is also because of what the UB says about that. There aren't any missing links:

Quote

Although the evolution of vegetable life can be traced into animal life, and though there have been found graduated series of plants and animals which progressively lead up from the most simple to the most complex and advanced organisms, you will not be able to find such connecting links between the great divisions of the animal kingdom nor between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races. These so-called "missing links" will forever remain missing, for the simple reason that they never existed.

and

Quote

From era to era radically new species of animal life arise. They do not evolve as the result of the gradual accumulation of small variations; they appear as full-fledged and new orders of life, and they appear suddenly.

I know using the UB to cite anything is problematic but nonetheless, what I've found over the years is that a lot of the things the UB says are being shown to be pretty accurate. 

Anyway, I'll back off with it.

I only wanted to add some unorthodox ideas to the discussion for the purpose of possibly generating some unconventional thinking about it, and not to just stir it up.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Anyway, I'll back off with it.

I only wanted to add some unorthodox ideas to the discussion for the purpose of possibly generating some unconventional thinking about it, and not to just stir it up.

You don't have to back off with it, I'd just like to see you back stuff up, especially if you're going to kinda bizarrely accuse scientists, who face it have spent much more time and effort studying the real world than any author of the UB has, of bias.  (You're not seriously arguing that the UB is unbiased for that matter?)  If the UB has a better hypothesis that fits all of the data better, great, but 'the UB says something different happened' isn't evidence, it's the hypothesis.  I don't mind you quoting it when applicable, but it's meaningless without an explanation of why it is true (that, and I'd like to hear more of what you think about things which I know and have already seen has more depth than 'it is probably true because the UB says so').

Specific to your quotes from the UB those arguments are fairly standard creationist fare.  That thinking is definitely unconventional, so let's go with it; there are no missing links, new 'orders' of life are just appearing out of nowhere.  That disqualifies evolution as an explanation, so where did they come from?  Aliens is a good explanation, it would explain the design imperfections in the human body better than a benevolent god, maybe this is the best the aliens could do.  God is an explanation too, as are lots of supernatural beasts we can imagine.  I'm not sure what else to say, I'd need to see where you'd like this unconventional thinking to go.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
33 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You don't have to back off with it, I'd just like to see you back stuff up, especially if you're going to kinda bizarrely accuse scientists, who face it have spent much more time and effort studying the real world than any author of the UB has, of bias.  (You're not seriously arguing that the UB is unbiased for that matter?)  If the UB has a better hypothesis that fits all of the data better, great, but 'the UB says something different happened' isn't evidence, it's the hypothesis.  I don't mind you quoting it when applicable, but it's meaningless without an explanation of why it is true (that, and I'd like to hear more of what you think about things which I know and have already seen has more depth than 'it is probably true because the UB says so').

Specific to your quotes from the UB those arguments are fairly standard creationist fare.  That thinking is definitely unconventional, so let's go with it; there are no missing links, new 'orders' of life are just appearing out of nowhere.  That disqualifies evolution as an explanation, so where did they come from?  Aliens is a good explanation, it would explain the design imperfections in the human body better than a benevolent god, maybe this is the best the aliens could do.  God is an explanation too, as are lots of supernatural beasts we can imagine.  I'm not sure what else to say, I'd need to see where you'd like this unconventional thinking to go.

The UB reminds me of the Seth books or Ruth Montgomery books or A Course in Miracles or Edgar Cayce... 

They are subjective; open to interpretation, 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
2 hours ago, Will Due said:

I apologize for bringing all this up. I'm not trying to denigrate what science says about the evolution of man. 

I have to be honest with you now I guess, or I won't be able to explain why I've been so interested in the archeological discoveries of the ascent of man for about three decades now. Or is it the anthropological discoveries of the ascent of man.

The UB (go ahead and roll your eyes) does not support that the evolution of man originated in Africa. According to the UB, it's in Mesopotamia. 

The other thing I brought up about the missing link is also because of what the UB says about that. There aren't any missing links:

and

I know using the UB to cite anything is problematic but nonetheless, what I've found over the years is that a lot of the things the UB says are being shown to be pretty accurate. 

Anyway, I'll back off with it.

I only wanted to add some unorthodox ideas to the discussion for the purpose of possibly generating some unconventional thinking about it, and not to just stir it up.

 

 

It sounds like you are trying to find meaning, nothing wrong with  that Will.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

What LG said...  WD, clearly I missed a definition somewhere, or am so out of my depth my input can be dismissed... :D 'UB' = what?

Anyway, it sounds as though 'UB' doesn't get evolution, nor has been keeping up, given the latter part of the quote you supplied:

Quote

Although the evolution of vegetable life can be traced into animal life, and though there have been found graduated series of plants and animals which progressively lead up from the most simple to the most complex and advanced organisms..

In other words, we accept the overwhelming principle of evolution.  It happened.  Good start....

Quote

you will not be able to find such connecting links between the great divisions of the animal kingdom

WTH?????  WHY would there be any links between great divisions?  That's the whole basis of evolution, a minor diversion is successful, and from that an entire branch does its own thing..  while another branch, be it because of chance or different environmental niches or because they wandered south instead of north.. goes on an entirely different path.  Has the 'UB' not actually looked at the evolutionary tree and understand what it represents?

Please consider this a direct question - I know you aren't the 'UB', but you are (were?) pushing it as true.., so:

Q. 1. Point out two arms of the evolutionary tree where we should *expect* to find 'links between great divisions'.  Give your best example and explain the logic WHY there should be such links.

Quote

nor between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races.

 Q. 2. Please point out where the biggest gap exists, and we can then discuss the reasons.

Both of those 'UB' quotes are HUGE handwaves, and surely deserve proper fleshing out.  If the UB didn't offer more information than just to state those claims, then I dismiss it as ignorant.

 

Edited by ChrLzs
corrected my G's and Q's... :)
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not sure what else to say, I'd need to see where you'd like this unconventional thinking to go.

What I'm trying to point out is that the scientific evidence of the evolution of life does seem to indicate that what the UB says is true.

That we haven't been "able to find [...] connecting links between the great divisions of the animal kingdom nor between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races"  and that is interesting.

It's interesting because it says many other things along these lines, that I believe are helpful for gaining a more broad "big picture" about how it all works and that yes, God is behind everything, which may be better to accept as being true, rather than taking the opposite approach.

The UB presents the realities of life in such a way that it becomes easier, from any perspective, including the scientific viewpoint, to be biased towards God rather than being biased against him.

And I can't help but try and present it that way because to me, it's the one stone two bird thing going on. Belief in God and Science. That's what the UB does.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
36 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

What LQ said...  WD, clearly I missed a definition somewhere, or am so out of my depth my input can be dismissed... :D 'UB' = what?

Sorry ChrLzs, UB = Urantia Book.

 

38 minutes ago, Will Due said:

What I'm trying to point out is that the scientific evidence of the evolution of life does seem to indicate that what the UB says is true.

It does?  The scientific evidence says that no species evolve as the result of the gradual accumulation of small variations?  There are no links between "the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races"?  There may be missing fossils but that's the problem as they say with that kind of demand: as soon as you fill a missing link you've created two more on either side of it. 

The linkages between pre-human species and humans doesn't rely entirely on the ability to discover fossils of every species in-between.  I see plenty of links between even apes and humans with my own eyeballs; with the huge variety of life on earth, what's the explanation for why human and chimps are built physically so similar in a relative sense?  Is God lacking in creativity?

39 minutes ago, Will Due said:

The UB presents the realities of life in such a way that it becomes easier, from any perspective, including the scientific viewpoint, to be biased towards God rather than being biased against him.

Biology and evolution are not 'biased' against God, unless you think following all of the evidence to where it best leads you is 'biased'.

40 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 Belief in God and Science. That's what the UB does

But it really doesn't since it's kinda ignoring science.  There are people who I think legitimately do believe in God and evolution, they just think evolution is the method God used to create the species.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oslove

Stubbly: Did you say this,

"Which makes me wonder if one can go beyond the 'concept' and use real facts. Wouldn't that be a lot easier to debate on?"

____________________________

 

We are going there, as soon as you and I first come to the same concept of God, otherwise we must be either crazy i.e. irrational or one of us is a liar, for not wanting to at all work with me as to come to a compromised-ly concurred on concept of God.

As soon as we have come to the concurred on concept of God, that concept is in our minds, then we will go forth into the world outside and independent of our minds, to an expedition to search for the being whatever that corresponds to the concept in our mind we have both come to concurrence on.

Do you comprehend what I am trying to get us to achieve together at all, instead of you seem to be shadow boxing all by yourself.

Here is my gambit of a concept of God:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

As you know English, and you read for example the text in US currency bills, In God We Trust, you must have some notions of God - choose one and we will work together to draft a mutually agreed  on concept of God, for the debate on His existence.

Bear with me, suppose we two have only enough money to buy a sandwich which we will share together, and there are several kinds of sandwiches in the canteen, so we discuss which sandwich is the one which will be to our both's expectations of what a sandwich should be for us two.

Now I tell you, For me a sandwich must be a ham egg and cheese sandwich, what about you?

You choose also one sandwich, and we will work out the features of my ham egg and cheese sandwich, and the features of your preferred sandwich, so that we come to agree on a sandwich that in a way can be closest to the features of my preferred sandwich and the features of your preferred sandwich.

You get the idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
11 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

What LQ said...  WD, clearly I missed a definition somewhere, or am so out of my depth my input can be dismissed... :D 'UB' = what?

Anyway, it sounds as though 'UB' doesn't get evolution, nor has been keeping up, given the latter part of the quote you supplied:

In other words, we accept the overwhelming principle of evolution.  It happened.  Good start....

WTH?????  WHY would there be any links between great divisions?  That's the whole basis of evolution, a minor diversion is successful, and from that an entire branch does its own thing..  while another branch, be it because of chance or different environmental niches or because they wandered south instead of north.. goes on an entirely different path.  Has the 'UB' not actually looked at the evolutionary tree and understand what it represents?

Please consider this a direct question - I know you aren't the 'UB', but you are (were?) pushing it as true.., so:

Q. 1. Point out two arms of the evolutionary tree where we should *expect* to find 'links between great divisions'.  Give your best example and explain the logic WHY there should be such links.

 Q. 2. Please point out where the biggest gap exists, and we can then discuss the reasons.

Both of those 'UB' quotes are HUGE handwaves, and surely deserve proper fleshing out.  If the UB didn't offer more information than just to state those claims, then I dismiss it as ignorant.

 

Thanks for inquiring ChrLzs. I don't think you and I have conversed yet in this forum. 

The UB (Urantia Book) is a very unusual book. In a way, it's perhaps the most unusual 'thing' that exists in the world for several reasons I won't get into right now.

What the UB offers is a round of replete information that generally ties together what today is highly divergent - science and religion, amongst many other things.

But I'll stick to your questions and try to address them coherently. 

 

Quote

Has the 'UB' not actually looked at the evolutionary tree and understand what it represents?

The UB presents the panorama of the evolution of life as being purposely instigated and directed. It goes into great detail of how life evolved and puts it into the context of not only the planet's evolution, but the evolution of our universe and the local components important to us, such as the solar system. It goes on to describe how the various branches of life evolved as the result of the orderly unfolding of a deliberate plan and purpose, however general in its ubiquitousness as found throughout the universe but modified here on our world within certain limits of variation of the "great divisions of the animal kingdom" [and] "between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races"

The main thing about evolution that's presented in the UB, is that life never evolves to do "its own thing" however, sometimes, given the degree that the life implantation regular patterns are allowed to be modified from the norm, certain undesirable results occur that then will need to be subsequently adjusted.

 

Quote

Q. 1. Point out two arms of the evolutionary tree where we should *expect* to find 'links between great divisions'.  Give your best example and explain the logic WHY there should be such links.

This is my opinion. If life evolves in very small steps, as is conventionally thought I think, then why aren't there a vast myriad of different types of main groups of animals rather than just the relative few that we have now. Generally we have aquatic animals like fish, and land animals like insects, reptiles, birds and mammals, besides plant life right?

If evolution is "unleashed" without boundries and open to move in any direction, why then did life only evolve so few major groupings and only along certain circumscribed lines?

 

Quote

Q. 2. Please point out where the biggest gap exists, and we can then discuss the reasons.

The biggest gap might be, in the evolution of man for example, that man, as differentiated from all the other higher animals is the only one to develop language and develop those social organizations which have led to civil society and all the rest of those things that put mankind in a league so far above all the rest of the animal kingdom that we are able to have the fate of the entire world and all the life that lives here at the mercy of somebody's finger on that proverbial button.

That's a pretty big "generation" gap.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
8 hours ago, Will Due said:

Then why is it always reported that "man evolved out of Africa" when there's still so much evidence that's missing?

Why are scientists so biased?

 

Everyone is biased because that is our nature.  We are a product of our environment, and conditioning (upbringing).  The scientific method is a beautiful method that has mechanisms built in to remove bias, but it's not perfect.  It's pretty good.  Yes, mistakes happen and theories also change, get updated, replaced, etc.  Understanding is continually evolving, just like everything else is.  

When new evidence and information becomes available that contradicts the theories that are (and the interpretation of those facts associated) - the old theory will be discarded and a new version will take it's place.  I used to be critical about this.....but now, I think it really is the best that can be done at this time.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, Will Due said:

I have a question.

If God doesn't exist and life evolved entirely by accident and without design nor controlling overcare and direction, why did sight, hearing and the rest of the senses evolve for the detection of the material world in man and animals? 

In other words, why aren't we able to detect, with evolved organs, dark matter and perhaps several other things that are a part of what's real but not sensed like we do materially that scientists have evidence of?

How did nature do that? 

Decide which realities material life would be able to sense and which others not, across the board?

 

 

In general, evolution makes changes which benefit the individual or species, and  thus contribute to viability of that entity. In turn this means that the adapted entities have a higher chance for survival and become the surviving product.

. If dark matter has no impact on humans then we would have no reason to evolve a sense for it.  In a similar way our sight and hearing falls away at the extremes of frequency or wavelength  because mostly we dont NEED to see or hear in these ranges in order to survive.

  Women have evolved better colour sense and pattern recognition/abilty to detect a break in a pattern probably because they have always been the gatherers for  whom these silks are most important. Men on the other hand have better long sight and abilty to detect motion, probably because millennia of hunting evolved those adaptations   There are "blind"  organisms ranging down to bacteria, which detect, and respond successfully to, their environment, via motion, chemical sensing, and even electrical emissions 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
9 hours ago, Will Due said:

Then why is it always reported that "man evolved out of Africa" when there's still so much evidence that's missing?

Why are scientists so biased?

 

 

The original evidence suggested that humans evolved from africa and that we all had one common female ancestor whom the experts  called eve  However modern genetics suggests that humans evolved in a number of locations and that, indeed, modern humanity is a genetic mix of a t least 3 different hominid species.  It is not so much bias as working with the best evidences currently available.

To answer an earlier question, there appear to be many forms of evolution, from a slow overall process, to  more localised and faster cases. There also appear to be times when evolution speeds up. I am not an expert, but it would appear that the greater the change in an environment, the faster a species may adapt, IF it cannot move from that changing environment      

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
19 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

I've already gave the definition of Naturalism, you gave an example of hypothesis. It seems you're saying gravity and genetics aren't natural.

I'm not sure how you got that.  I believe that all natural processes are natural.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
4 hours ago, oslove said:

Stubbly: Did you say this,

"Which makes me wonder if one can go beyond the 'concept' and use real facts. Wouldn't that be a lot easier to debate on?"

____________________________

 

We are going there, as soon as you and I first come to the same concept of God, otherwise we must be either crazy i.e. irrational or one of us is a liar, for not wanting to at all work with me as to come to a compromised-ly concurred on concept of God.

As soon as we have come to the concurred on concept of God, that concept is in our minds, then we will go forth into the world outside and independent of our minds, to an expedition to search for the being whatever that corresponds to the concept in our mind we have both come to concurrence on.

Do you comprehend what I am trying to get us to achieve together at all, instead of you seem to be shadow boxing all by yourself.

Here is my gambit of a concept of God:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

As you know English, and you read for example the text in US currency bills, In God We Trust, you must have some notions of God - choose one and we will work together to draft a mutually agreed  on concept of God, for the debate on His existence.

Bear with me, suppose we two have only enough money to buy a sandwich which we will share together, and there are several kinds of sandwiches in the canteen, so we discuss which sandwich is the one which will be to our both's expectations of what a sandwich should be for us two.

Now I tell you, For me a sandwich must be a ham egg and cheese sandwich, what about you?

You choose also one sandwich, and we will work out the features of my ham egg and cheese sandwich, and the features of your preferred sandwich, so that we come to agree on a sandwich that in a way can be closest to the features of my preferred sandwich and the features of your preferred sandwich.

You get the idea?

You want a concept? Ok. You want a concept you can prove? I strongly doubt it. What part of my last post, did you not get? I do not have the same concept as you do. I did not grow up to the same concept as you did. I have had others describe various versions of God, which do I pick? Well, which one would be proved over another? For me, none! Because, growing up had me see that there isn't anything to prove any. Even my higher power, which seems to be a total different concept to what you want, is something I can't prove one hundred percent. 

Even your desired concept of a sandwich is different from mine. In fact, I could probably gross you out with my present choice of what constitutes a delicious sandwich for me. 

Bear with me, suppose we two have only enough money to buy a sandwich which we will share together, and there are several kinds of sandwiches in the canteen, so we discuss which sandwich is the one which will be to our both's expectations of what a sandwich should be for us two. " And what happens if we differ in which one. I shall force you to buy the one, I want? Or shall we ask the lunch lady if we can take one side of one sandwich, and another side of another sandwich. 

Or, I say screw it, and you have the whole thing, and I go somewhere else to forage for food or think of something. 

So, I did mention this in my last post to you. I do not have a concept of God, that you have. Yes, it's different from your's. And so, based from what I have read from your previous posts, and this one, are you saying I'm irrational? 

Well, are you? Answer this for me please. 

Then, I will just see what happens next. But, you still confuse me as to why you want to have a shared concept? (which you wont get, because as I and others here have explained............... well you know) Even a shared understanding of a concept is still a concept. How can you prove a concept. You have to have proof it exists. 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quiXilver
On 10/9/2017 at 7:50 PM, Mr Walker said:

So you are waiting for god to speak directly to you, when you will  then have your own story to tell ? :) 

na... I'm just sittin here watchin the wheels go round and round...

i really love to watch'em roll...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.