Gaps in Evolution

[PaulF2]

**Hey “Charles Darwin”,

Atheism is irrational nonsense. If you were honestly looking for truth you’d see that.**



First of all, you claim that your mind is your brain and nothing more and that your brain is a material thing produced by an undirected physical process.

Nope, i claim there is not one shread of empirical evidence that suggest otherwise. If you don’t agree then please present it.

**Therefore, it should be very easy for you to see that you can NOT trust that your mind **

What?

would have any inclination to seek what it true nor would it have an ability to DETERMINE what is true with any certainty whatsoever.



**From this alone, it should be clear that you should spend WAY less time pontificating than you do, eh? **


**
A more intellectually passive hobby would seem to be in order for someone who must, by his own worldview, admit that he’s not capable of producing anything logical or true - that is, unless it furthers his ability to pass on his selfish genes.**



In short, in order for you to have any confidence that truth exists, you must acknowledge a Source for truth. And in order for you to believe that your brain has any ability to find truth you have to understand that it has a non-material element.



**Secondly, by ignoring the impossible odds against this universe producing life - that is, the many “anthropic coincidences” - you are implicitly suggesting a reality much more complex and unknowable than that which you deny - God. **

The odds are 1 in errrrrr 1. I don’t “deny” god?
**
There is essentially only one way around the anthropic coincidences problem, and that is to assert a nearly infinite number of other universes that did not produce sentient life. You believe in many more things that you can’t see or touch than those of us who know that God exists.**

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR… You could do the intellectually honest thing, and admit at this point in time we don’t have enough evidence to form a meaningful hypothesis. Wild speculation gets us no where.

That’s for starters.

That was jibberish.

It seems you were greatly confused by the lion’s share of my post! That’s about what I expected - I suggest you read it again, as many times as are necessary.

You realize emoticons and empty exclamations are not any sort of actual reply, right?

 

[grannymh]

Nope, i claim there is not one shread of empirical evidence that suggest otherwise. If you don’t agree then please present it.
.

I do not mean this to be rude – Would you please present any empirical evidence (not speculation) concerning any of the functions of the human brain. Seriously, I am collecting data about the human brain without any prejudice on my part.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

It seems you were greatly confused by the lion’s share of my post! That’s about what I expected - I suggest you read it again, as many times as are necessary.

You realize emoticons and empty exclamations are not any sort of actual reply, right?

I was confused by your ramblings. If your trying to make a point please be coherent.

 

[PaulF2]

Excellent starters … it should also be the finishers of many faulty arguments (but experience shows that it will not be).

If the mind was reducible to matter and physical laws, then it could not produce rational or even abstract outcomes. All mental calculations would be the product of natural laws – operating by evolutionary forces (randomness and survival urges). The brain could not adhere to abstract truths which have no counterpart in nature (such as the fact that 317 is a prime number).

Just as you said, the brain would not be able to determine what is true – it would not have a choice in its operation. Products of the mind would be accidental and would serve only the functions needed for survival.
There would be no free will since all behavior would be determined by physical, evolutionary processes.
There would be no need for or existence of morality – since nature cannot and could not command or forbid any human action. Nature just “is” – it does not plan for human life, it does not care that there is human life. If humans were reducible to nature, then humans wouldn’t care either.

But the fact that atheists, in their personal lives, contradict every one of these points (and many more), means that atheistic materialism is irrational (but that can only be judged by a rational view). Actually, from the materialist view, atheism is non-rational – since there would be no need or purpose for rationality.

The atheist who spends time pontficating or arguing or denouncing religion here on CAF is contradicting the materialist premise.

Thanks for expanding on my bullet points a bit. This stuff is about the most basic logic imaginable, isn’t it? Which is probably why it’s always guaranteed to get a large rise out of any atheist it’s presented to - these are thoughts best avoided!
Pax Christi,
Paul*

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I do not mean this to be rude – Would you please present any empirical evidence (not speculation) concerning any of the functions of the human brain? Seriously, I am collecting data about the human brain without any prejudice on my part.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=brain&hl=en&btnG=Search

 

[tjm190]

… Have you seen my posts 1-4 or so back? I stated alot of stuff from websites, how did you miss it

I also noticed that after a little bit of surfing the web, I can find info that dispels Evolution Counter arguements Kind of easily. Read a few posts back.

I’m sorry, but throwing mountains of reading material at someone is not how this works, unless you would like me to link you a text book on evolution.

 

[PaulF2]

I was confused by your ramblings. If your trying to make a point please be coherent.

You’re posturing. You avoided what you find impossible to deal with.

Any reasonably intelligent person who’s mind isn’t clouded by atheistic dogma would understand exactly what I said, I can tell you that.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You’re posturing. You avoided what you find impossible to deal with.

Any reasonably intelligent person who’s mind isn’t clouded by atheistic dogma would understand exactly what I said, I can tell you that.

No you made an absurd claim that because the brain is natural it means it can’t be trusted…

“Therefore, it should be very easy for you to see that you can NOT trust that your mind”

You then rambled on a load o jibberish based on your initial unfounded cliam.

Oh and any “reasonably intelligent person” knows that atheism is not a belief system therefore “atheistic dogma” is an impossibility

 

[Angel7]

I’m sorry, but throwing mountains of reading material at someone is not how this works, unless you would like me to link you a text book on evolution.

Its just 1 or 2 threads back, the one with the pictures, and there was one before that I think.

I posted alot of stuff there

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for expanding on my bullet points a bit. This stuff is about the most basic logic imaginable, isn’t it? Which is probably why it’s always guaranteed to get a large rise out of any atheist it’s presented to - these are thoughts best avoided!

Exactly right. Your logic was crystal clear and irrefutable. That argument is usually met with a claim that your points are “confusing”. Then, the discussion will quickly change to another topic (perhaps attacking religion or ridiculing God), then there might be some accusations about being hurt by the comments or the arrogance of believers – anything and everything but dealing with the rock-hard logic that we just saw.

It’s a child’s game. Hide and seek from the truth. Pretending to use reason while at the same time denying the source of it. This is the universal response from atheists – even the biggest names in atheism (Dawkins, etc) do the same thing. By their own lives they contradict their atheistic notions.

**

Agreed – I recently read a superb book by Dr. Barr. He’s a brilliant Catholic author.

 

[Angel7]

No you made an absurd claim that because the brain is natural it means it can’t be trusted…

“Therefore, it should be very easy for you to see that you can NOT trust that your mind”

You then rambled on a load o jibberish based on your initial unfounded cliam.

Oh and any “reasonably intelligent person” knows that atheism is a belief system therefore “atheistic dogma” is an impossibility

Replace Athiesm With Evolution

some would rather believe in Anything Proving Evolution at times, (such as parallel Universes) then proof of G-d.

Have you ever Heard of Immediate Evolution? I believe it is called?
Where a New species comes Full developed out of an Old species? Now that, is pretty strange.

“In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don’t see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record”

Punctuated Equilibrium thats the name of it. Had to surf a little to find it.
gosai.com/science/darwin-debunked.html

 

[tjm190]

Well try try refuting this argument on your own- When your body is cold, the hypothalamus often gives us “goosebumps.” These goosebumps are goosebumps are the method by which primates and other mammals fluff up their fur to keep warm- however, we don’t have fur. So why the goosebumps if they serve no purpose? Well, it should be obvious, that this fur is a result of the fact that our ancestors had fur, so this function served a purpose in the past- but the fur is gone, so we have a vestigial function.
Or God gave us a purposeless trait solely intended to trick us into thinking we evolved from a time when this function had a purpose.

 

[PaulF2]

No you made an absurd claim that because the brain is natural it means it can’t be trusted…

That’s not too close to what I said. I said that by your own assertions - that your mind is nothing but a physical thing that evolved by a process that has no goal in mind, that is driven only by self-preservation - that there is no basis for believing, as you do, that it is something capable of finding and recognizes truth about anything! This is very elementary logic, my friend.

If this is false, then what assurance do you have that what your brain is telling you - about God or anything else - is TRUE? Why should that clump of neurons that evolved just to keep your ancestors eating and mating be able to do that? Are you sure you understand the question?

As was also pointed out, such a material brain could not possibly “know” any abstract concept. Since, according to you, every thought you have is NOTHING but a pattern of specific, physical neurons firing, no two brains are even capable of considering the same abstract concept! Tell me, how does your brain represent pi (the concept, not the number)? Or “truth” for that matter? Clearly, what your brain thinks they are can’t even be identical to any other brain’s representation!

You then rambled on a load o jibberish based on your initial unfounded cliam.

Constant hyperbole is not the mark of a man confident in his reasoning, my friend.

Oh and any “reasonably intelligent person” knows that atheism is not a belief system therefore “atheistic dogma” is an impossibility

Atheism is not a belief system? You don’t believe there’s no God? Which is it?

You may know a thing or two about evolution, but it doesn’t appear you have experience in the field of logic at any level.

 

[grannymh]

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=brain&hl=en&btnG=Search

I do have a valid request. However, let me rephrase it to make the response easier.

Would you please present your own favorite empirical evidence (not speculation) concerning any of the functions of the human brain? If you wish, it can be an article from a magazine or an abstract or whatever you particularly like. Identifying information would need to be included so that I, too, can enjoy it.

Currently, my favorite is Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science 324 811 – 813 (2009). Some of my comments regarding this can be found on thread “Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution” in Apologetics, post 470 and others. Granted this is a technical research paper which happens to address an interesting subject. You may choose any kind of empirical evidence of a function of the human brain.

Thank you,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Exactly right. Your logic was crystal clear and irrefutable. That argument is usually met with a claim that your points are “confusing”. Then, the discussion will quickly change to another topic (perhaps attacking religion or ridiculing God), then there might be some accusations about being hurt by the comments or the arrogance of believers – anything and everything but dealing with the rock-hard logic that we just saw.

It’s a child’s game. Hide and seek from the truth. Pretending to use reason while at the same time denying the source of it. This is the universal response from atheists – even the biggest names in atheism (Dawkins, etc) do the same thing. By their own lives they contradict their atheistic notions.

Agreed – I recently read a superb book by Dr. Barr. He’s a brilliant Catholic author.

Hide and seek alright.

I’m still waiting for a single shread of empirical evidence for this “soul”.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I do have a valid request. However, let me rephrase it to make the response easier.

Would you please present your own favorite empirical evidence (not speculation) concerning any of the functions of the human brain? If you wish, it can be an article from a magazine or an abstract or whatever you particularly like. Identifying information would need to be included so that I, too, can enjoy it.

Currently, my favorite is Desmurget et al, Movement Intention after Parietal Cortex Stimulation in Humans, Science 324 811 – 813 (2009). Some of my comments regarding this can be found on thread “Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution” in Apologetics, post 470 and others. Granted this is a technical research paper which happens to address an interesting subject. You may choose any kind of empirical evidence of a function of the human brain.

Thank you,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

Well thats kinda like asking me for my favroute source of evidence for evolution, there is just to much. Why don’t you decide what you want to research and read though abstracts unitl you find research that suits your needs. Thats what i do.

 

[PaulF2]

Hide and seek alright.

I’m still waiting for a single shread of empirical evidence for this “soul”.

If you cannot refute the glaring logical issues inherent in your position - and you can’t, though it’s becoming increasingly clear you won’t even try - everything else is rather moot.

By the way, I probably accept theistic evolution, though I’m on the fence about a couple things and still entertaining some aspects of ID, so my replies to you have nothing to do with that topic.

 

[edwest2]

It really does matter. It matters very much. If you are taught the following, how do you think it would affect your behavior?

Science is wrong and can not be trusted.

Believing in God means you have to turn off your mind.

The Bible is meant to be read as a science book. Or, rather, that certain interpretations of the Bible (basically, those coming from fundamentalist protestant creationists) trump any data anyone can come up with.

How can we evangelize when nonbelievers will laugh at our obvious neglect, disdain, and willful ignorance of observable facts? (to paraphrase St. Augustine)

peace,
Mike

Mike,

Here, science does not mean all of science. In my studies of electronics, how often was evolution brought up? Zero. Here, science only means evolution.

Believing in God is viewed as mind pollution by neo-paganists and followers of Darwin’s theory as presented as working entirely by itself. You - Are - A - Random - Accident of no greater consequence than a bacteria.

The deposit of faith held by the Catholic Church provides the critical missing information that science currently ignores.

The evolution I am referring to always refers to things that supposedly happened millions of years ago. No one was around to observe. It is not repeatable in a laboratory.

I suggest you read Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn which was published in the New York Times, available online. It will show that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory and that there is actual design in nature which is observable.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Replace Athiesm With Evolution

some would rather believe in Anything Proving Evolution at times, (such as parallel Universes) then proof of G-d.

Have you ever Heard of Immediate Evolution? I believe it is called?
Where a New species comes Full developed out of an Old species? Now that, is pretty strange.

“In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don’t see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record”

Punctuated Equilibrium thats the name of it. Had to surf a little to find it.
gosai.com/science/darwin-debunked.html

Check out this neat link found by Buffalo post 820 – “Hawks” etc. He also has another interesting one in post 815.

Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution

 

[reggieM]

Hide and seek alright.

I’m still waiting for a single shread of empirical evidence for this “soul”.

“… Then, the discussion will quickly change to another topic …”

Perhaps I discovered a new law of nature here.