Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This connection between the self and the world is mediated by neural patterns of excitation. It is all built into the brain
A plant can sense the external world: sunflowers follow the sun, mimosas and Venus Flytraps react to touch. Plants do not have a brain.

A brain is not required for sentience. You might want to rethink your approach here.
 
40.png
Aloysium:
This connection between the self and the world is mediated by neural patterns of excitation. It is all built into the brain
A plant can sense the external world: sunflowers follow the sun, mimosas and Venus Flytraps react to touch. Plants do not have a brain.

A brain is not required for sentience. You might want to rethink your approach here.
A reader interested in having a meaningful conversation would understand that what was being discussed were higher forms of life, when the brain was mentioned. Actually, I would go further to say that there exists sentience in bacteria, in their interactions with one another and other elements in the environment that are to them nurturing or dangerous. Atoms, on the other hand, although they exist as unified forms, behaving in a determined manner acting upon and reacting to physical factors, do not have sentience in themselves. A pantheist might argue that their being is part of the totality of a sentient universe. In terms of life, the physical reality is required for the organizational soul of a living thing to express its sentience, its relational nature.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I’m wrong here. But it seems that you are attempting to select specific aspects of science that appear to bolster your religious views. And rejecting those aspects that contradict it.
I broadcast the science that challenges the secular dogmatic belief. As you can see by my posts, you and other committed dogmatists have to face this.
 
Ah…you ARE a YEC. That explains it. I need to bear that in mind for future discussions.
I don’t know the age of the earth and whether or not God waited for so long. I think 6,000 years is too young and 14B too old. They just knocked off 2B years though as they found the universe expansion rate to be accelerating.

As you can see from the web site in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (time, space and matter). Exactly when that was we do not know.
 
40.png
Wozza:
Correct me if I’m wrong here. But it seems that you are attempting to select specific aspects of science that appear to bolster your religious views. And rejecting those aspects that contradict it.
I broadcast the science that challenges the secular dogmatic belief. As you can see by my posts, you and other committed dogmatists have to face this.
We do? Well, that’s news to me, Buffalo. I don’t want to be rude as you seem like a nice guy, but outside these forum walls I’ll be ignoring you. It’s nice that you have a web site to keep you interested. And it’s nicely presented as well. You’ve done some good work there.

But don’t kid yourself that a few web pages put up on a wet weekend and umpteen posts in an obscure thread on a Catholic forum amount to anything but mild bemusement (and some amusement) for the vast majority of people who happen to come across it.
 
But don’t kid yourself that a few web pages put up on a wet weekend and umpteen posts in an obscure thread on a Catholic forum amount to anything but mild bemusement (and some amusement) for the vast majority of people who happen to come across it.
From the Royal Society ( what I have been posting for many years now - a must read) -

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

“But in the past decade, without much notice by general audiences, a more wide-ranging debate has arisen from different areas of biology as well as from history and philosophy of science, about whether and in which ways evolutionary theory is affected, challenged or changed by the advances in biology and other fields.”
While documenting numerous empirical and theoretical advances, at the level of core assumption most current textbooks on evolution, whether explicitly or implicitly, still offer a theoretical framework that is largely based on the MS of the 1930s and 1940s. (hat tip to @edwest)

His comments on Natural Selection (hat tip to @buffalo)

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015
 
@Wozza This is from the Royal Society.

Listen to the dialogue at 35:30 minutes. Design, no it cannot be.


Late for tea - hilarious…😀
 
40.png
Wozza:
Ah…you ARE a YEC. That explains it. I need to bear that in mind for future discussions.
I don’t know the age of the earth and whether or not God waited for so long. I think 6,000 years is too young and 14B too old. They just knocked off 2B years though as they found the universe expansion rate to be accelerating.

As you can see from the web site in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (time, space and matter). Exactly when that was we do not know.
Hm. I’m guessing you know lots about creationism. But your knowledge of science in general seems to be a bit fuzzy. Regarding entropy for example. Closed and isolated systems?

And the current best estimate of the planet is about 4.54 billion years. Is 14B meant to be 14 billion? That’s simply wrong. That’s the age of the universe.

So take as much off that as you like. And give me your best estimate of the planet itself. If you come up with some YEC figures then everything that you post from then on needs to be read in that context.
 
And the current best estimate of the planet is about 4.54 billion years. Is 14B meant to be 14 billion? That’s simply wrong. That’s the age of the universe.
I was referring to the age of the universe.
 
40.png
Wozza:
And the current best estimate of the planet is about 4.54 billion years. Is 14B meant to be 14 billion? That’s simply wrong. That’s the age of the universe.
I was referring to the age of the universe.
So what is your most accurate estimate of the age of the planet? One cannot discuss evolution without some common ground.

So your best guess?
 
40.png
Wozza:
Closed and isolated systems?
So I posed this question and your side passed.

If the solar system is an open system, where are its boundaries, to where it becomes closed?
Buffalo, I just went back to the begining of the year to see what other interests you have. I like to check on what things people are discussing. Gives me a better feeling for the guy on the other side of the screen.

You ONLY post on this subject. That’s hundreds of posts in 5 months and you are fixated on this topic. Apart from a couple in the last day or so, you have no other interests. How many post on this tread? Seems like a few people pop in now and then just to check to see if you’re ok.

Seriously dude. You need to get out more. This is sad. I feel like I shouldn’t be encouraging this.
 
Last edited:
Seriously dude. You need to get out more. This is sad. I feel like I shouldn’t be encouraging this.
I have been posting here for many many years and on many different threads. You do not have to worry about me, but I appreciate it.

Rather than focusing on the poster, be concerned with their actual arguments.
 
So what is your most accurate estimate of the age of the planet? One cannot discuss evolution without some common ground.

So your best guess?
The age makes no difference as to the current thread. I believe in a younger earth, but I cannot narrow it down. Recently dino bones have been carbon dated to around 28,000 years bp, so at least that old.
 
40.png
Wozza:
So what is your most accurate estimate of the age of the planet? One cannot discuss evolution without some common ground.

So your best guess?
The age makes no difference as to the current thread. I believe in a younger earth, but I cannot narrow it down. Recently dino bones have been carbon dated to around 28,000 years bp, so at least that old.
OK. Thanks for your time. I have better things to do with mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top