Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

True. But my contention and what you've expressed are not mutually exclusive claims. Both can be true.

---

We should only accept the verifiable truth the rest is only guess-work and should be treated as such.

Quote:

---

I am fine with a "degree of skepticism."

---

That is all you need. Accept the verifiable and treat rest as guess-works.

Quote:

---

Here you are wrong: we may observe external behaviors that may be a manifestation of these emotions, but the emotions themselves cannot be verified.

---

No am not wrong. We can verify the behaviours that is what I said.

Not only we can observe external behaviours but we can also monitor the internal brain chemistry. We can also study which parts of the brain lights up when you feel angry or in love. We can give you chemicals that make you more angry and we can give you chemcials that make you more peaceful.

Quote:

---

I might spank my child out of love, out of anger, out of a feeling of helplessness. Chemicals do not indicate the presence of an emotion - they indicate the presence of chemicals.

---

Wrong. It is the levels of the chemicals that generates the emotion. That is why people take drugs that give them the feeling of "euphoria".

But if I give a chemical that makes you angry or peaceful? What then?

I can give you chemicals that makes you feel nothing - what then?

It is the presence of chemcials that give rise to emotions don't they?

People with low serotonin in the brain "feel" very depressed. It is the chemicals that generates this mood.

Quote:

---

Right: so since you cannot verify what someone is feeling, does that negate the validity of that experience for the individual?

---

Subjective experiences of an individual are just that - subjective. That is what I have always said. We can't agree on subjective experiences. It is the objectively verifiable that we can agree on and make progress. Subjective experience remains just that subjective. To you strawberries may taste bland or even bitter to others it is very sweet. So you are both right in your subjective experiences of strawberries. But objectively we can verify the level of sugar content in the strawberries - this is the thing we can agree on. You may "feel" it is cold inside the room and someone else may "feel" it is hot. Both are right in your subjective experiences. But objectively we can measure the temperature with a thermometer - this is the thing we can agree on. So what this points to? Subjective experience has no beareance on the objective reality.

Quote:

---

You may capture electronic impulses - but you're not "directing" thought itself.

---

Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.

Quote:

---

No: you can duplicate a "neural network" in a computer but that doesn't mean it will possess creative ability.

---

So far it has the creative ability of a two year old. Here is an example.

http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/lnsc/html/art7.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Life did well for billions of years without any faith. The faithless dinosaurs came and went...in their passing others took over their old stomping grounds...life finds it's own way...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redzeplin

You assume this to be true. Your statement is unverifiable.

---

LOL :-) - We have not found Dinosaur Temples in the fossil record where dinosaurs worshipped their Dino-God :-)

Quote:

---

But we can accept the reality of subjective experience that we collectively experience in our own subjective way;

---

Yes accept it of course - but we can't agree on any of these things. The only thing we can agree on is the objectively verifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

We should only accept the verifiable truth the rest is only guess-work and should be treated as such.

That is all you need. Accept the verifiable and treat rest as guess-works.

No am not wrong. We can verify the behaviours that is what I said.

Not only we can observe external behaviours but we can also monitor the internal brain chemistry. We can also study which parts of the brain lights up when you feel angry or in love. We can give you chemicals that make you more angry and we can give you chemcials that make you more peaceful.

---

I should expect to hear you banging the "verifiable" drum - fine: but what you miss is that the "verifiable" is occasionally obvious (gravity works) but, at other times, the "verifiable" is in need of interpretation (i.e. the fossil record, the complexity of life forms, etc); once interpretation is required, we are now off of the platform of objectivity and wading into the ever-deepening waters of subjectivity. That is the primary point that allows me to keep resisting your insistence on "verifiable" reality - and the examples I listed in terms of interpreting the external behaviors makes my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Wrong. It is the levels of the chemicals that generates the emotion. That is why people take drugs that give them the feeling of "euphoria".

But if I give a chemical that makes you angry or peaceful? What then?

I can give you chemicals that makes you feel nothing - what then?

It is the presence of chemcials that give rise to emotions don't they?

People with low serotonin in the brain "feel" very depressed. It is the chemicals that generates this mood.

---

Legitimate feelings are a result of our interaction with the world around us. That we can manipulate our feelings with chemicals does not make the feelings legitimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Subjective experiences of an individual are just that - subjective. That is what I have always said. We can't agree on subjective experiences. It is the objectively verifiable that we can agree on and make progress. Subjective experience remains just that subjective. To you strawberries may taste bland or even bitter to others it is very sweet. So you are both right in your subjective experiences of strawberries. But objectively we can verify the level of sugar content in the strawberries - this is the thing we can agree on. You may "feel" it is cold inside the room and someone else may "feel" it is hot. Both are right in your subjective experiences. But objectively we can measure the temperature with a thermometer - this is the thing we can agree on. So what this points to? Subjective experience has no beareance on the objective reality.

---

This is where your reliance on objective reality falls apart: we - the assessors of objective reality - are incapable of being completely objective - our assessment of reality will always be colored by our biases and subjective tendencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.

---

I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

So far it has the creative ability of a two year old. Here is an example.

---

Very pretty - but this is a product of a mathematical equation.

"Creation" that is a product of a human mind behind the programming. Creativity is more than product - it is also inspiration, communication, interaction between artist and audience. I'm not convinced. The computer is a tool to create with - it itself cannot be a creative entity without a human will behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Yes accept it of course - but we can't agree on any of these things. The only thing we can agree on is the objectively verifiable.

---

I covered the holes in this idea above.

'Just because religion does some good - even if it does a lot of good - it doesn't make it right'
Well I would disagree but as this is largely about theism versus a- theism I leave it open to any of the other significant sets of religious belief to produce the same effect in their communities. I've certainly known and know many fine agnostics but I've never met any militant atheist that was not bitter, aggressive and plain nasty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I should expect to hear you banging the "verifiable" drum - fine

---

That's all you need to agree on. From this we can make computers work and send probes to distant planets.

Quote:

---

Legitimate feelings are a result of our interaction with the world around us. That we can manipulate our feelings with chemicals does not make the feelings legitimate.

---

But you don't get it do you? If you don't have certain chemicals in your body you don't feel that emotion. It is the chemcals that creates thus emotions. For example people who are clinically depressed have very low levels of serotonin in the brain. Increase this chemical the depression goes away. Some people have very low levels of testostorine - no matter how hard they try they will not able to get the feeling of sexual arousal. Give them the chemicals and they can.

Quote:

---

This is where your reliance on objective reality falls apart: we - the assessors of objective reality - are incapable of being completely objective - our assessment of reality will always be colored by our biases and subjective tendencies.

---

The Scientific Method is not based on our feelings. If it was we would not have computers.

Quote:

---

I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.

---

Thoughts are electrical impulses in the brain. You can't have a thought and not the electrical impulse.

Quote:

---

Very pretty - but this is a product of a mathematical equation.

---

LOL :-) you don't know how neural network works do you? It learns by experience like a child does. It's creativity - however limited as it is at the moment - comes from experience.

Quote:

---

"Creation" that is a product of a human mind behind the programming. Creativity is more than product - it is also inspiration, communication, interaction between artist and audience.

---

It is still early days yet with neural networks. In time they will grow and become more advanced.

Quote:

---

I'm not convinced. The computer is a tool to create with - it itself cannot be a creative entity without a human will behind it.

---

A lot of people were not convinced when the first planes were invented as way of transporting people :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

We should only accept the verifiable truth the rest is only guess-work and should be treated as such.

---

OK. What is truth? Verifiable by what means? Who decides what is and is not verifiable truth?

My reason for asking this is not a religious one. IMO, there is more evidence of the existence of Sasquatch than some of the members of the chart of human evolution. Fragments of a single skull could be anything, perhaps a malformation of a prediscovered race. But unless the human race kills a Sasquatch or finds a body, (there have been giant skulls found), the evidence is ruled "unconvincing at best." This in spite the fact that many scientists think the Patterson film to be genuine, just not as big an animal as claimed.

The recent Xing-xing proof from China, showed that all Orangutans are not from Borneo, and that Chinese peasants were not having hallucinations. Just wondering...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

But you don't get it do you? If you don't have certain chemicals in your body you don't feel that emotion. It is the chemcals that creates thus emotions. For example people who are clinically depressed have very low levels of serotonin in the brain. Increase this chemical the depression goes away. Some people have very low levels of testostorine - no matter how hard they try they will not able to get the feeling of sexual arousal. Give them the chemicals and they can.

---

Until I know more about this, I'm going to have to table this portion of the argument. I understand that chemicals have an important role in how we experience emotions - but I do not believe they are emotions themselves because emotions are a product of one's interaction with the world and this interaction is largely filtered through our consciousness - which is largely constructed through very individual and personal means (experiences, relationships, environment). If I feel righteous indignation one day, and irrational anger the next, I don't imagine there's a different chemical involved - but there is a difference between the two emotions; as such, I think the chemical is a vehicle, but not the content, of an emotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

The Scientific Method is not based on our feelings. If it was we would not have computers.

---

You ignored my argument (again); the scientific method is a sound method for examining the world around us - and it can function objectively; we, however, cannot. That's why two scientists with different world views (natrualism, creationism) can look at the same evidence, arrived at by the same scientific method and disagree on the conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Thoughts are electrical impulses in the brain. You can't have a thought and not the electrical impulse.

---

But you can have electrical impulses and no thought - think of someone who's brain dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

LOL :-) you don't know how neural network works do you? It learns by experience like a child does. It's creativity - however limited as it is at the moment - comes from experience.

---

I do not believe that machines can possess the same "creativity" as a divinely created human being. The machine may "ape" creativity, but it cannot duplicate human creativity. Creativity involves the desire to create - computers do not "desire" anything - they do what they're told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

It is still early days yet with neural networks. In time they will grow and become more advanced.

---

And then what? Create for us? What's the value in that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

A lot of people were not convinced when the first planes were invented as way of transporting people :-)

---

False analogy - the two do not compare.

You know, you can't spell "evilution" without "evil"...
Oh wait, you can, cause its evolution baby!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C9CH3q9PLI

There must be no one from my generation in this forum, otherwise this would have already been posted. What a great band and a great video.
Enjoy and chill out a bit.

Are you intentionally ripping off Eddie Vedder, Guzman?

Lote-Tree said:

Are thoughts are just that - electrical impulses.

Redzeppelin replied:

I think you confuse the vehicle with the passenger.

Since you seem familiar with the passenger yourself, maybe you'd care to explain what thought is then, and how it is possible to 'travel' along electrical impulses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I understand that chemicals have an important role in how we experience emotions - but I do not believe they are emotions themselves because emotions are a product of one's interaction with the world and this interaction is largely filtered through our consciousness - which is largely constructed through very individual and personal means (experiences, relationships, environment).

---

Without the chemicals you will not have the emotion - no matter how you interact with the world. A person with very low level of Testostrine will not be able to have the feeling of arousal - however much his conciouness filters and demands one.

Quote:

---

as such, I think the chemical is a vehicle, but not the content, of an emotion.

---

You need to elaborate on this.

Quote:

---

You ignored my argument (again); the scientific method is a sound method for examining the world around us - and it can function objectively; we, however, cannot.

---

The Scientfific Method is just that - it removes human subjectivity.

Quote:

---

That's why two scientists with different world views (natrualism, creationism) can look at the same evidence, arrived at by the same scientific method and disagree on the conclusions.

---

False. Study the Scientific Method.

Quote:

---

But you can have electrical impulses and no thought - think of someone who's brain dead.

---

And how do we know when someone is dead? We measure the Brain's Electrical Impulses - and when no impulses - we say that person is fully dead.

Quote:

---

I do not believe that machines can possess the same "creativity" as a divinely created human being.

---

That can only be your belief. But we are not interested in beliefs but truths. But as I said neural networks - early days yet..very early days yet...

Quote:

---

The machine may "ape" creativity, but it cannot duplicate human creativity.

---

Again that can only be your belief. And we are not interested in beliefs but truths. But as I said neural networks - early days yet...

Quote:

---

Creativity involves the desire to create - computers do not "desire" anything - they do what they're told.

---

As I said Neural Neworks do not work on the principle of "do as your are told"...it learns from Experience. It has to be taught and from this teaching it learns..You can't program neural network to do as you are told...it learns from experience...Our reserach into neural networks is early days yet...

Quote:

---

And then what? Create for us? What's the value in that?

---

We shall together explore the limitlessness of the imaginations :-)

Quote:

---

False analogy - the two do not compare.

---

[/quote]

I was not making an analogy but showing views of the unimaginitives ;-)

Thought some of you here might be interested in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI

"Light Years Ahead of Creationism"-a little though-provoking speech done by none other than Carl Sagan, a hero of mine.

Enjoy.

I think this video may be relevant to the discussion, i.e., what about the concept of unintelligent design? -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgSaTYLYRGI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lily Adams

Thought some of you here might be interested in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJPprykkrI

"Light Years of Creationism"-a little though-provoking speech done by none other than Carl Sagan, a hero of mine.

Enjoy.

---

This video owned. I would like to see some rebuttal if you masters of spin can handle it. :lol:

I'm watching the "unintelligent design" right now.

http://www.harunyahya.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turk

http://www.harunyahya.com/

---

From this website:

"In a few scientific circles, Darwinism is still a widespread obsession, but this does not preclude the knowledge that its days have come to an end. All the scientific suppositions that once supported the theory have crumbled, one by one. The only reason why Darwinism is still alive is because in some scientific circles, a few fanatics still passionately espouse the materialist philosophy it's based on."

That is f-ing hilarious - one of the funniest satires on a delusional mind I've seen recently. If I didn't know better, I would suspect this whole website is a production of Landover Baptist Church

landoverbaptist.org