Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 My argument against evolution
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 11

ASR
Skeptic Friend

69 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  10:33:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ASR's Homepage Send ASR a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:
Originally posted by ASR

Everyone has failed to aknowledge the basic question, does "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"? Everything about evolution is a derivative of that.



Not even close. Your main premise is seriously flawed.

In the case of Evolution, Science + Evidence + Logic = strong correlation. Not emotion.


I refer to my thoughts on evolution, in regards to emotion, not the process of evolution. Thanks for coming out.

I refer to my thoughts on Evolution in regards to emotion, not the process of evolution. Thanks for coming out.

From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up
Go to Top of Page

ASR
Skeptic Friend

69 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  10:42:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ASR's Homepage Send ASR a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:
Originally posted by ASR

Everyone has failed to aknowledge the basic question, does "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"? Everything about evolution is a derivative of that.



Not even close. Your main premise is seriously flawed.

In the case of Evolution, Science + Evidence + Logic = strong correlation. Not emotion.


My thoughts on emotion and its relationship with evolution as discussed in my theory is what I refer to, not the process of how we came to understand evolution. Thanks for coming out.

From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up
Go to Top of Page

ASR
Skeptic Friend

69 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  10:43:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ASR's Homepage Send ASR a Private Message
didnt see page 2, sorry bout that

From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  10:43:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ASR

quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

quote:
Originally posted by ASR

Everyone has failed to aknowledge the basic question, does "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"? Everything about evolution is a derivative of that.



Not even close. Your main premise is seriously flawed.

In the case of Evolution, Science + Evidence + Logic = strong correlation. Not emotion.


I refer to my thoughts on evolution, in regards to emotion, not the process of evolution. Thanks for coming out.

I refer to my thoughts on Evolution in regards to emotion, not the process of evolution. Thanks for coming out.



Again, your main premise is flawed. Emotions are advantageous. Perhaps not in combat, but definately so in the protection and care of young. It increases the number of young who are likely to survive to breeding age.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

ASR
Skeptic Friend

69 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  10:45:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ASR's Homepage Send ASR a Private Message
Someone asks me to ignore philosophy in my arguments against evolution, but your stance is that evolution created philosophy, how can one ignore it?

From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  10:48:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
quote:

I believe that the two sides to the human brain are science and philosophy and the result is that the world is limited in scope to the properties of these two elements and cannot comprehend anything else, thus nothing else exists. The birth of the arts, social sciences, and emotions comes from the mix of the two.


That's fine that you believe that, but it won't make sense to anyone but you. Is a chair science, philosophy, or a mix? Or does it not exist? What qualifies as science, what qualifies as philosophy, what qualifies as a mix, and finally, what qualifies as non-existance?

I would love to see you come up with qualities a thing must exhibit to not exist.

quote:
Computers are the height of science today, why can't computers evolve to feel emotions (the difference between humans and computers is philosophy, hence philosophy is integral in development of emotions), since they are a scientific life-form which can comprehend yes and no?


If your asking why computers can't evolve, you do not have enough knowledge of evolution to make an argument against it.

A computer is a machine. It is no different than a toaster. A bit more complex, but the concept is the same. Power + Input => Process => Output.

Computers don't comprehend anything, even yes and no. They have a state (or rather millions of states) which the user comprehends. Don't get those two confused.

quote:
Music - sound waves (science) mixed with a meaning using words (philosophy), it invokes emotion, love it, hate it, whatever you will.


Music was created long before the concept of a wave was ever thought of. Hell, it was created long before the concept of science and philosophy were ever throught of.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Edited by - Ricky on 10/12/2005 10:50:39
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  10:56:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ASR

Someone asks me to ignore philosophy in my arguments against evolution, but your stance is that evolution created philosophy, how can one ignore it?



You are mixing frames of reference. Evolution did not create philosophy. Man did that. Evolution describes a methodology of change for species. As this is a mechanical process, the scientific method (which has been wildly successful thus far for centuries) must be applied. While philosophy may make emotional appeals, it is not synonomous with emotion.

You seem to throw out a lot of false dilemmas.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

ASR
Skeptic Friend

69 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  11:09:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ASR's Homepage Send ASR a Private Message
That's fine that you believe that, but it won't make sense to anyone but you. Is a chair science, philosophy, or a mix? Or does it not exist? What qualifies as science, what qualifies as philosophy, what qualifies as a mix, and finally, what qualifies as non-existance?

I would love to see you come up with qualities a thing must exhibit to not exist.

"Does this exist? A: No" It's a science question. "Does it have any qualities? A: No" Science qualifies as anything that can be determined. A chair can be determined, it is science. What a chair is used for, that is philosophy (to sit or to stand on and reach something out of reach, it's debatable) Philosophy is all things that are debatable, everything that you can think about but cannot touch. How much is gold worth? Cannot be answered with yes or no, it is undifinitive. For arguments sake $10,000 dollars an ounce. Do you think it is worth that much? debatable. The mix of the two is all things that require a combination of the two to exist. Is the Mona Lisa a great work? A: Yes. But you have to have a reason as to WHY it is a great work in order to say that. A DEBATABLE answer. The mix is everything that requires an input from logic and creative.

If your asking why computers can't evolve, you do not have enough knowledge of evolution to make an argument against it.

A computer is a machine. It is no different than a toaster. A bit more complex, but the concept is the same. Power + Input => Process => Output.

Computers don't comprehend anything, even yes and no. They have a state (or rather millions of states) which the user comprehends. Don't get those two confused.

If computers reach a conclusion that it cannot understand it crashes.

quote:
Music - sound waves (science) mixed with a meaning using words (philosophy), it invokes emotion, love it, hate it, whatever you will.


Music was created long before the concept of a wave was ever thought of. Hell, it was created long before the concept of science and philosophy were ever throught of.
[/quote]

Music was conceived after comprehending sound. Sound is science. The first musician understood enough. If you believe in Hell then GOD understood science and philosophy well before Hell was created.

From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up
Go to Top of Page

ASR
Skeptic Friend

69 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  11:11:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ASR's Homepage Send ASR a Private Message
quote:

You are mixing frames of reference. Evolution did not create philosophy. Man did that. Evolution describes a methodology of change for species. As this is a mechanical process, the scientific method (which has been wildly successful thus far for centuries) must be applied. While philosophy may make emotional appeals, it is not synonomous with emotion.

You seem to throw out a lot of false dilemmas.


A neuron fires in the brain to create a thought, be it scientific or philosophical thought, thus evolution must have created philosophy.

From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  11:26:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ASR

quote:

You are mixing frames of reference. Evolution did not create philosophy. Man did that. Evolution describes a methodology of change for species. As this is a mechanical process, the scientific method (which has been wildly successful thus far for centuries) must be applied. While philosophy may make emotional appeals, it is not synonomous with emotion.

You seem to throw out a lot of false dilemmas.


A neuron fires in the brain to create a thought, be it scientific or philosophical thought, thus evolution must have created philosophy.



Those things are completely unrelated. And your conclusion is flawed.

A neuron fires to create an impulse. That impulse may be a thought. It may be a state message on arm position. It may be a pain message. That evolution made the equipment does not follow that philosophy is a hardwired trait. Especially since philosophy is learned, not inherent.

This is a categorical error of division.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/div.htm

Your premise is logically flawed.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  11:34:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ASR

Everyone has failed to aknowledge the basic question, does "Science + Philosophy = Emotion"? Everything about evolution is a derivative of that.

I'll answer that, NO. Emotions are well studied purely chemical electrical and structural brain function.

If you're trying to argue that consciousness could not have evolved you are simply ignoring years of research in favor of pure contemplation without evidence.

And, BTW, perhaps folks here didn't fail to understand your points but rather you failed to make them clearly.
Go to Top of Page

ASR
Skeptic Friend

69 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  11:35:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ASR's Homepage Send ASR a Private Message
Those things are completely unrelated. And your conclusion is flawed.

A neuron fires to create an impulse. That impulse may be a thought. It may be a state message on arm position. It may be a pain message. That evolution made the equipment does not follow that philosophy is a hardwired trait. Especially since philosophy is learned, not inherent.

This is a categorical error of division.

Your premise is logically flawed.
[/quote]
If philosophy is completely unrelated to the brain and evolution then why can't ants philosophy?

From the moon they looked down to see if we measured up
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  11:36:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
Evolution exists whether philosophy comes along or not, your trying to use the vein of philosophy as the scalpal to dissect evolution, so to speak.

Also evolution of thought and evolution of species are wholly different, not in concept but in mechanics and hard data. Evolution of species cannot be discounted by attacking a fault of thought evolution.


"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  11:39:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ASR

If philosophy is completely unrelated to the brain and evolution then why can't ants philosophy?

How do you know they can't?

Philosophy is a noun.
Philosophize is the verb.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 10/12/2005 :  11:40:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
If computers reach a conclusion that it cannot understand it crashes.

A computer cannot understand anything. A computer is a machine. Computers crash for many reasons, NEVER because they don't understand something.
quote:
"Does this exist? A: No" It's a science question. "Does it have any qualities? A: No" Science qualifies as anything that can be determined. A chair can be determined, it is science. What a chair is used for, that is philosophy (to sit or to stand on and reach something out of reach, it's debatable) Philosophy is all things that are debatable, everything that you can think about but cannot touch. How much is gold worth? Cannot be answered with yes or no, it is undifinitive. For arguments sake $10,000 dollars an ounce. Do you think it is worth that much? debatable. The mix of the two is all things that require a combination of the two to exist. Is the Mona Lisa a great work? A: Yes. But you have to have a reason as to WHY it is a great work in order to say that. A DEBATABLE answer. The mix is everything that requires an input from logic and creative.

This has nothing to do with evolution. Stop Jumping around and simpley state what your problem with evolution is.



If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 11 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.64 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000