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 -
spartan max2

No one chooses what they believe

573 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danydandan
46 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Ya know...

Does anyone really know the "truth"?

So, we have a problem.

God only knows, and s/he/it won't tell us. If s/he/it even is interested in us or exists in the first place. If s/he/it doesn't exist then nobody knows the truth. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually, you cant know he is correct as he is wrong :) 

Read any or all of the sources i have provided. NEITHER of you has provided a single source to demonstrate the correctness your own views 

Move on as far as you like, but don't lie and then leave.

This debate began with the nature of human beliefs as a form of human cognition 

Humans evolved the abilty to think In abstract forms.

This  opened us up to beliefs and regions, to faith without a capital, and with one. 

Belief and faith is a functional appendage like our fingers, and evolved for the same reasons.

It was a pro survival adaptation which natural selection spread across the human race to help us cope with an increasing awareness of things like; death, pain, suffering, etc., as abstract constructs  

You  and others who decry any form of faith may feel the need to deny this and argue against it, but it is an established scientific understanding.

it goes to the very nature, origins, and purpose, of things like faith and belief in human cognition 

 

You need to go back then, we all provided the links that you have been copying and pasting and misinterpreting from. 

But this is neither here nor there the topic is squashed. 

Cormac is the correct one, he is versed in the subject and he has done an incredible job of helping advance an understanding of the subject. 

For your part, it wasn’t the worst thing that you are in error, you provided a fertile real life example of the common misconceptions. 

You can think whatever you want. 

Don't bother responding; I am done with the topic.

All the best. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
8 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

We ALL? Don't you know the meaning of ALL? Mr. Walker for one, and I for two, are part of the ALL, and we know Cormac is incorrect. If we were all in all 100, your all would be just 98% of the all. And we all know that 98% is not at all, 100%. 100% is equal to ALL.Correction, we don't all know that 98% is not All.

That is the problem with some, criticizing others for twisting the meaning of words, and there, they themselves abuse the meaning. Don't say all, just say some, or a few, or many, or most, etc.. But even using those terms correctly, you need to add and subtract the individual numbers from the population you have corralled with the ALL.

Of course, I stand corrected, I am speaking for myself only. ;)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

humans lived in small closely related groups so their genetic makeup would have little variation

Hi, there, jmccr8,

It seems that in this small close related group, our group, there is, apparently, quite a lot of variation. And therefore it negates you assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

You need to go back then, we all provided the links that you have been copying and pasting and misinterpreting from. 

But this is neither here nor there the topic is squashed. 

Cormac is the correct one, he is versed in the subject and he has done an incredible job of helping advance an understanding of the subject. 

For your part, it wasn’t the worst thing that you are in error, you provided a fertile real life example of the common misconceptions. 

You can think whatever you want,  we all know better.

Don't bother responding; I am done with the topic.

All the best. 

Pathetic.

If  you  believe this rubbish you are deluded. 

Misinterpretation is a subjective process. IMO mcormac is legitimately misinterpreting  the nature of evolution due to some past lessons or teaching which was in error.

You on the other hand are simply ignorant on this topic and i doubt you have ever studied or read much on the subject a t all   You have, as usual, simply chosen to argue with me for your own reasons and with no facts to support your pov 

I am always amused by your puerile attempts at psychological manipulation  Do you really find the y work with people you know? 

or are the y not  intentionally manipulative, but genuine ignorance 

 

eg

 

For your part, it wasn’t the worst thing that you are in error, you provided a fertile real life example of the common misconceptions. 

You can think whatever you want,  we all know better.

A i am not in error

B I never quoted any  misconceptions only science It is your mind which incorrectly interpreted what i wrote due to personal bias.

(There are many misconceptions about evolution and some are mentioned in the sources i provided. None of my points are wrong or misconceptions) 

C "All" is a big claim. As it happens, of the specific comments and posters a t least 3 indicated support for my pov,  while the rest really didnt  contribute Only you and cormac actually pursued this deabte.

I suspect because a t first he misunderstood what i was saying and then both of you became too entrenched and invested in your pov to give an inch.

So far you have failed to factually refute even ONE of the points i have made about evolution. which i think says it all   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
11 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Hi, there, jmccr8,

It seems that in this small close related group, our group, there is, apparently, quite a lot of variation. And therefore it negates you assertion.

Hi Pettytalk

Not sure what you're inferring here, do you mean a group here in the forum or as some of us are discussing archaic humans and how they adapted?

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Pathetic.

If  you  believe this rubbish you are deluded. 

Misinterpretation is a subjective process. IMO mcormac is legitimately misinterpreting  the nature of evolution due to some past lessons or teaching which was in error.

You on the other hand are simply ignorant on this topic and i doubt you have ever studied or read much on the subject a t all   You have, as usual, simply chosen to argue with me for your own reasons and with no facts to support your pov 

I am always amused by your puerile attempts at psychological manipulation  Do you really find the y work with people you know? 

or are the y not  intentionally manipulative, but genuine ignorance 

 

eg

 

For your part, it wasn’t the worst thing that you are in error, you provided a fertile real life example of the common misconceptions. 

You can think whatever you want,  we all know better.

A i am not in error

B I never quoted any  misconceptions only science It is your mind which incorrectly interpreted what i wrote due to personal bias.

(There are many misconceptions about evolution and some are mentioned in the sources i provided. None of my points are wrong or misconceptions) 

C "All" is a big claim. As it happens, of the specific comments and posters a t least 3 indicated support for my pov,  while the rest really didnt  contribute Only you and cormac actually pursued this deabte.

I suspect because a t first he misunderstood what i was saying and then both of you became too entrenched and invested in your pov to give an inch.

So far you have failed to factually refute even ONE of the points i have made about evolution. which i think says it all   

 

Take a deep breath. 

Cormac will address any points you have questions about, I am no longer interested in the topic.

All the best.

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
34 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Of course, I stand corrected, I am speaking for myself only. ;)

Darwin, speaking for himself. From On The Origin of Species.

I believe, as was remarked in the last chapter, in no law of necessary development. As the variability of each species is an independent property, and will be taken advantage of by natural selection, only so far as it profits the individual in its complex struggle for life, so the degree of modification in different species will be no uniform quantity.

Besides, if we want to get technical about it, there is such a thing as a "population of 1 individual".

http://www.bbc.com/travel/gallery/20180129-welcome-to-monowi-nebraska-population-1

One.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
41 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Pettytalk

Not sure what you're inferring here, do you mean a group here in the forum or as some of us are discussing archaic humans and how they adapted?

jmccr8

Hi again,

That's the problem with you, you are never sure. Are you sure that 1 added to 1 makes 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Hi again,

That's the problem with you, you are never sure. Are you sure that 1 added to 1 makes 2?

Hi Pettytalk

I was giving you an opportunity to engage productively in as polite a manner as I could. That said you were commenting about a selective group here which was not the topic of discussion as we are talking about genetic adaptation. Should you care to engage in a clear and concise manner that is relevant to the topic discussed I am more than willing to entertain your input.

jmccr8

Edited by jmccr8
correction of comment
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Darwin, speaking for himself. From On The Origin of Species.

I believe, as was remarked in the last chapter, in no law of necessary development. As the variability of each species is an independent property, and will be taken advantage of by natural selection, only so far as it profits the individual in its complex struggle for life, so the degree of modification in different species will be no uniform quantity.

Besides, if we want to get technical about it, there is such a thing as a "population of 1 individual".

http://www.bbc.com/travel/gallery/20180129-welcome-to-monowi-nebraska-population-1

One.jpg

Deleted, read the thread Petty, this has been addressed repeatedly.

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

God only knows, and s/he/it won't tell us. If s/he/it even is interested in us or exists in the first place. If s/he/it doesn't exist then nobody knows the truth. 

A good logical deduction. But induction logic says that, if there is truth, then there is God. Of course, I'm basing it on your affirmation, my evidential support, that God only knows the truth, and on which I quite agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius
6 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

A good logical deduction. But induction logic says that, if there is truth, then there is God. Of course, I'm basing it on your affirmation, my evidential support, that God only knows the truth, and on which I quite agree.

There is no logic to this statement. It is meaningless as is the concept of objective truth. Truth is the value we place on cognitive maps we create.

 

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
16 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Pettytalk

I was giving you an opportunity to engage productively in as polite a manner as I could. That said you were commenting about a selective group here which was not the topic of discussion as we are talking about genetic adaptation. Should you care to engage in a clear and concise manner that is relevant to the topic discussed I am more than willing to entertain your input.

jmccr8

Through the evolution of my thoughts, and posts, you seem to be a facetious questioner to me. And are only intent on getting a little entertainment out of it. I never considered you a seriously interested person in mostly of what I have posted. I think it best if you just entertain the input from your long time friends on this forum. 

When at such time that I note some seriously put questions, I may reconsider addressing them, with the permission of the Mods, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, Pettytalk said:

Through the evolution of my thoughts, and posts, you seem to be a facetious questioner to me. And are only intent on getting a little entertainment out of it. I never considered you a seriously interested person in mostly of what I have posted. I think it best if you just entertain the input from your long time friends on this forum. 

When at such time that I note some seriously put questions, I may reconsider addressing them, with the permission of the Mods, of course.

Hi Pettytalk

That is fine with me as you have yet to actively engage in a productive discussion which is why I chide you.

jmccr8

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Mutations occur naturally in the human genome. They are random occurrences of nature rolling the dice. Almost all are inconsequential, having no cumulative effect on human evolution, or having neither positive nor negative effect. Sometimes nature rolls snake eyes--or in one case--blue eyes, not a survival characteristic, but one that persisted, none-the-less.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
7 minutes ago, Br Cornelius said:

There is no logic to this statement. It is meaningless as is the concept of objective truth. Truth is the value we place on cognitive maps we create.

 

Br Cornelius

It was merely an exchange that, privately, it has its merits. You obviously do not know the truth as to why it makes no logical sense to you. Pedantry would be appropriate here, and then it would make the general meaning clear. But I don't have time for more details. I'm on my last detail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius
1 minute ago, Pettytalk said:

It was merely an exchange that, privately, it has its merits. You obviously do not know the truth as to why it makes no logical sense to you. Pedantry would be appropriate here, and then it would make the general meaning clear. But I don't have time for more details. I'm on my last detail. 

There is no evidence for a universal objective truth. Thats the end of the matter really. we can infer and assume such a thing but it is never proven. The divergence of truth across the human population is the strongest evidence we have that the concept of universal truth is a human construct.

If we start from flawed axioms then we inevitably arrive at flawed conclusions.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
3 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Math cannot get along without letters and words, and neither the word alone, as for the construction of the Cosmos both are used. 

The equation — E = mc2 — means "energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." It shows that energy (E) and mass (m) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing.

Without the Living Word of God the equation falls apart. Genesis 1:3  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

I hope you realise that what you are suggesting is that your deity is actually an atomic weapon.  Have you ever seen the movie Dark Star?

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Its bizarre to think that people believe that the existence of a phenomenon is dependent on the (imperfect) equation that describes it. Who really thinks that ?

 

Br Cornelius

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
28 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Pettytalk

That is fine with me as you have yet to actively engage in a productive discussion which is why I chide you.

jmccr8

Is that the purpose of your evolution, to chide? Who are you to be chiding anyone?

Anyway, I was very productive on this thread, as I produced the evidence to corroborate the point made by another individual you seem to chide all the time.

You must be a chide molester, with all that scolding you go about giving.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, Pettytalk said:

Is that the purpose of your evolution, to chide? Who are you to be chiding anyone?

Anyway, I was very productive on this thread, as I produced the evidence to corroborate the point made by another individual you seem to chide all the time.

You must be a chide molester, with all that scolding you go about giving.

 

this made me laugh so much, but we all need it some days

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius
Posted (edited)

Ultimately when those who firmly believe in objective reality fail to prove their point - they resort to the sword to make it a big more strongly on the universal principle that you can't object if you are dead.

 

Br Cornelius

 

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
29 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

I hope you realise that what you are suggesting is that your deity is actually an atomic weapon.  Have you ever seen the movie Dark Star?

I know of a song with that name.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
10 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

this made me laugh so much, but we all need it some days

You did say you are a carpenter of sort, then why not go and hammer some nails instead of people. Go and practice some Self chiding, before you go about wanting to chide others.

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.