Falsifying Creation

I am also curious as to how those who refute God's specific creation of mankind would explain man's "ability to 'know that they know'; the ability to seek truth for its own sake; moral sense and the appreciation of beauty." (reference http://dejnarde.ms11.net//creation.htm)

Why do these need explanation?

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

I would find these responses to my questions to be of a greater value if they would answer the question with information, not just general opinionated statements without any information supporting it. Also the fact that humans have such things show that they cannot be simple effeciencies gained through evolution, but rather a human and only human gift given by God. Having a larger brain and more neurons has absolutly no reason to give humans the advanced thinking that they do. That my friend is why my question must be answered. To ignore answering would to be ignoring the fundamental distinction in humankind from the animal kingdom. I know the answer, but my answer is not evolution. I am simply curious as to what others who do not believe in God given gifts chose to accept as their reason for its existance.

You are asking broad questions. It is not clear what you are actually asking.Were you looking for an explanation as to how the brain works? That's an on-going research area. I'm not sure why you would be asking for that.

The question is broad, as to leave the question open to any imformation that people can explain their own beleifs or findings in scientific research.

I would want to know because I want to know how others who disagree with God's creation of the human mind chose to justify what science cannot explain, or if have something that can explain it, to please share it with me. I am always open to new information. I have always just wondered this question to myself, and I would appreciate anyone's response who feels fit to respond.

There are many, many things which are not now explained and some may never be.If you suggest that not knowing an answer to something has anything to do with a god then you are using "god of the gaps" reasoning. This is considered to be very bad theology and real Christians do NOT like it.A couple of reasons for this dislike are:
1) gaps get closed. If you think a gap is some support for the existance of god then when a gap is closed you have in some way diminished the chance of god existing.2) The history of this has been one of perfect failure. Lightening is not thrown my Zeus, the sun is not a god in a fiery chariot, disease is not caused by demons and so on and so on. It is embarassing to be attached to such historically poor reasoning.

quote:

---

I would want to know because I want to know how others who disagree with God's creation of the human mind chose to justify what science cannot explain, or if have something that can explain it, to please share it with me. I am always open to new information. I have always just wondered this question to myself, and I would appreciate anyone's response who feels fit to respond.

---

What is wrong with evolution being the method by which god creates the human mind?
There is a fairly clear relationship between the ratio of brain to body size and intelligence. Human intelligence is largely the result of that. The gradual enlargement of brain size in the human lineage is very clear in the fossil record. There is evidence that suggests that early humans like homo erectus began to show a dramatic increase in brain size is related to a high protein-high fat diet. Most previous humans and proto-humans were more herbivorous. Archaeological sites with remnants of fires caused by homo erectus had scorched animal bones. Homo erectus is the species in which brain size began to grow dramatically. Human language is a fairly recent development, which occured when the larynx dropped, previous humans were physiologically incapable of speech. Human creativity and fully modern cognitive ability is probably just as recent. Demonstratable creativity doesn't appear until after humans diverged from a single population after recovering from near extinction about 70,000 years ago.Edited by CACTUSJACKmankin, : No reason given.Edited by CACTUSJACKmankin, : fix

quote:

---

I would want to know because I want to know how others who disagree with God's creation of the human mind chose to justify what science cannot explain, or if have something that can explain it, to please share it with me.

---

I don't know how the human mind (consciousness and the like) emerges from the purely physical interconnections of the neurons that compose our brains. There are lots of things that I don't know. However, the point is that I don't see any reason to assume that any kind of deity is ultimately responsible for this phenomenon.What is needed to convince me that some god is responsible for the human mind is (1) to convince me that God exists, and (2) to convince me that the human mind cannot come about through purely naturalistic processes.Is this more along the lines you were asking for, trh?

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

I don't see that it shows any such thing. It could be a human and only human gift given by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or it more likely could be a set of traits currently only known to reach that particular level in humans, but not yet fully explained by science.Nearly every week lately you can find a scientific paper where brain scans of various sorts have localized some way of thinking - like envy - to some little fold of the brain. And the same little fold is involved in chimps or capuchin monkeys in similar situations. Even a monkey brain is possibly far too complex, with too many potential electric/neuronal circuits, to be reducible to a fully understood mechanism. But that does not mean that their brains or our brains aren't mechanisms.

I am curious about how people explain human consciousness. I appreciate anyones ideas. If you look at a chimpanzee brain and a human one, you will realize that the only thing humans have over chimpanzees is pure quantity of brain mass, and things such as envy are very simple and not at all like questioning existance. Also what in the world was the speghetti thing about? I have no idea what that was getting at.

quote:

---

I am curious about how people explain human consciousness. I appreciate anyones ideas. If you look at a chimpanzee brain and a human one, you will realize that the only thing humans have over chimpanzees is pure quantity of brain mass, and things such as envy are very simple and not at all like questioning existance.

---

In science we don't really have a definition of consciousness. We are pretty sure that it derives from brain function because loss of brain function makes consciousness go away. One of the ways of determining areas of brain function is by loss of areas of the brain and seeing which functions go away. In this sense, consciousness is clearly derived from brain function. However, we still really don't know how to define consciousness and until we do we won't be able to fully understand levels of consciousness and to what degree consciousness exists in animals.

quote:

---

Also what in the world was the speghetti thing about? I have no idea what that was getting at.

---

The flying spaghetti monster is a parody of intelligent design. Proposing the argument that if ID should be taught alongside evolution in the name of "fairness" so should the flying spaghetti monster.

quote:

---

We are pretty sure that it derives from brain function because loss of brain function makes consciousness go away.

---

Heh heh heh.

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

Falsifying evolution does not prove Biblical creation (as in True.Origins). Science is not conducted by trying to prove a NEGATIVE. What evidence do you have on your side to PROVE creation?What those Bible-thumping creationist ministries fail to understand is that in no way does disproving evolution (if that were posible) prove YEC. Why should it be YEC? Why can't it be any other forms of creationism?

Proving a theory or an idea can-not simply be done by destroying all questions around it. It must have a proof to exist by it's self. Besides, maybe by falsifying a theory you may actually get a piece of it wrong. You can't simply go zapping out large brain tanks without showing a little proof. The thing i'm trying to say is that by "eliminating" one theory, it chain-reacts into destroying other theories.Like if you were to falsify creationism or evolution, what would happen to the universal clockwork theory? It would have to to be scraped.