Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debating evolution
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 46 of 91 (311241)
05-11-2006 10:33 PM


He wants to know how a species without logic can evolve and gain logic. Here's his exact words:
quote:
With that said how does a single cell organism without a thought process and logic evolve a logic that is able to comprehend and learn. You cannot use the fact that humanities logic has increased over years as part of this argument. Simply cause the increase in knowledge is the fact that we are capable of comprehending and learning.
In order for you to believe this you have to believe in God so this isn't really that arguementive. God does draw on our hearts to do good. Wether you believe in God or not he can still use you to do his will.
IMO, we have a logic simply because we have the most developed brains. Am I not right --- is it not that simple!?

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 10:42 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 49 by jar, posted 05-11-2006 10:45 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 50 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 10:50 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2006 7:25 AM SR71 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 91 (311243)
05-11-2006 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by anglagard
05-11-2006 10:04 PM


In my subjective experience, I tend to agree, however I would like to know your sources.
I don't have any offhand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 05-11-2006 10:04 PM anglagard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 91 (311244)
05-11-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by SR71
05-11-2006 10:33 PM


IMO, we have a logic simply because we have the most developed brains.
He's not talking about logic, he's talking about reason.
It all comes from language. And we know that languages do evolve. You can even teach language to most primates.
Nonetheless, the origin of human consciousness is shrouded in mystery. Not the least of which is the mystery of what it actually is. Creationism can't answer that, either; the best they can do is assert that it's something God has to breathe into you. That doesn't really answer the question.
At some point you need to reign him in. Creationists like to machinegun question after question. You need to call him on his responsibility to defend his original arguments and rebut your evidence. Otherwise you're not actually having a discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 10:33 PM SR71 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 91 (311245)
05-11-2006 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by SR71
05-11-2006 10:33 PM


another example of the Gish Gallop.
Get used to it. When they cannot support their positions they dash away to something else.
As too logic:
Logic is no big deal. It seems to develop among almost all species, dolphin, all the primates including man, many birds, octopi and squid.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 10:33 PM SR71 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 91 (311250)
05-11-2006 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by SR71
05-11-2006 10:33 PM


quote:
IMO, we have a logic simply because we have the most developed brains. Am I not right --- is it not that simple!?
Pretty much. Our larger brains endow us with greater intelligence, which allows us create all sorts of useful, artificial tools, like logic.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 10:33 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 51 of 91 (311254)
05-11-2006 10:50 PM


quote:
2)It does cause it has proven over time the winds have caused a desert to form. Since we can prove accurately today that the winds cause the deserts growth, we can obviosly conclude that the winds had the effect to create them. Since the oldest desert in the world is only 4,000, which you didn't prove false but yet supported, it is rational to conclude that the earth is not billions of years old cause deserts would have been formed far earlier then it. Since winds have always been here do to the rotation of the earth. If this is false prove how deserts were formed and how they couldn't of been formed earlier.
He says the Coriolis affect IS proof that the earth is young because of these reasons. These were his words, and I simply replied with "the last glaciation period...?"
Was that correct?

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 11:24 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 54 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 11:28 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 90 by Alasdair, posted 05-18-2006 7:03 PM SR71 has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 52 of 91 (311276)
05-11-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by SR71
05-11-2006 10:50 PM


how about stating that deserts are formed depending on certain conditions. And that the Sahara was once grassland (is that the right biome?), and some of the prove lies in the ancient riverbed found running through it. Oh, and the Sahara, according to geology (if I'm right it's this field) is much older than 4 thousand years.
Last glacial age is a good response, but qualify it by saying that it ended twelve thousands years ago (roughly)
anyone know how fast the glaciers retreat? And what about the uplifting of N. America since their retreat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 10:50 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 53 of 91 (311277)
05-11-2006 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
05-11-2006 9:57 PM


Re: coral - ations and mathematical models.
RAZD - all of that was extremely interesting about the moon/earth gravitational field. Thanks!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 PM RAZD has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 54 of 91 (311278)
05-11-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by SR71
05-11-2006 10:50 PM


Since the oldest desert in the world is only 4,000, which you didn't prove false but yet supported, it is rational to conclude that the earth is not billions of years old
ask him how this conclusion is rational and logical. basing your date off of one method is ver risky and uncertain.
quick answer--it's not.
Oh, and deserts do disappear and reform. It often depends on where the continent is and whether there is a nearby mountain range, as well as a lack or rain. How can he explain the fact of emergence and disapperance of deserts with his assumption? ask him that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 10:50 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 55 of 91 (311284)
05-11-2006 11:35 PM


Still waiting on HIS next response but I will keep it in mind. Thank you!
What do you people do for careers? Like I said I'm a teenager and if I could be this knowledgable I would definitely choose to.

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 11:38 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 59 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 11:51 PM SR71 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 91 (311286)
05-11-2006 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by SR71
05-11-2006 11:35 PM


Like I said I'm a teenager and if I could be this knowledgable I would definitely choose to.
If you ask questions from those who know, and seek out books and other information, then you do so choose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 11:35 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 57 of 91 (311289)
05-11-2006 11:42 PM


To crashfrog
Good point. But obviously people like RAZD and yourself don't just ask questions and read to understand these subjects so well...?

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 05-11-2006 11:46 PM SR71 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 91 (311291)
05-11-2006 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by SR71
05-11-2006 11:42 PM


That's exactly how it's done.
Just question answers.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 11:42 PM SR71 has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 59 of 91 (311297)
05-11-2006 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by SR71
05-11-2006 11:35 PM


if you want to understand, you have to reach out and grab the bull by the horns. I myslef am but a teenager, but I have taken every science course offered by my high school except for physics and ecology. I'm taking summer classes at my community college to rebuild my foundation of math.
If you can, take challenging classes that make you think--perfect example would be a philosophy class or a high-level english class (think AP or IB)
oh, there is a general reply button and a specific reply button. the GR button is to the left, at the bottom page I think. The SR, which I'm using right now, is located under the post you want to reply to. It helps us understand who you are responding to if you use the SR button.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 11:35 PM SR71 has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 60 of 91 (311333)
05-12-2006 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by SR71
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


SR71 writes:
(3)The population itself is evidence of a young planet. In 1810 the population was 1 billion. within less then 200 years the population grew to 6 billion. This meants that according the rate at which population grows at a certain rate according to poplation size. Through this study the earth can't even be a million years old.
If you use E. coli, you can 'prove' that the Earth cannot be more than a few days old.
If I remember my math results correctly, it would take something like 45 days for the offspring of 1 bacterium to out-mass the entire visible universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by SR71, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 AM SR71 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024