What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I) - Chess Forums - Page 156

pawnwhacker · 2014-12-08T11:48:07-08:00

This thread is dedicated to some of my friends from a similar (but also dissimilar) thread concerning evolution. Eloch, hapless_fool, einstein99 and all you pro/anti evolution-theory aficionados...here is a place to, once and for all, post your scientific views on the subject. I will add that I

The_Ghostess_Lola

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3101

(#3220) ....when I believed that. I was taught it, having had a Presbyterian mother and having heard of Plato. But I lost belief in that.

That's too bad 'cuz your mom was just trying to help you. Ppl lose touch w/ their youth 'cuz they grow up and start thinking too much. BTW, when was the last time you watched cartoons ?........

I don't even know what a soul would be. Oh, I know, it's the essence of you.

Yes, and It's not even close to physical. Have you found out at least that much ?

But what does that mean? Or, it's the spiritual part of you. Again, what does that mean? We can, more and more, demonstrate that consciousness arises from the workings of the brain.

Again, it's not physical.

But what would the role of a soul be?

What is the role of the Universe ? Why is it here ? What's your answer ?

It seems to be just something extra that the church would like you to believe in.

The soul was here b4 any church ever was.

It seems to be a metaphysical extravagance. And if it is unrelated to consciousness, then what is its point, anyway?

Once again, you're trying to relate it to the physical....don't be fooled.

With zero proof (!) you have no answers as to why the Universe exists, how it came to be, where all this matter & energy came from, the Arrow of Chaos (entropy), the Arrow of Time, how life was formed, etc. I mean, zero answers. None. And what's so simple-basic is that you know down deep that you'll die without any of these ?'s answered. It actually amazes me....and I'm happy to be writing this 'cuz it's brought me to realize that ppl really can be ultra-shallow 'cuz they relate everything to the physical.

I would love for spirits to exist. I would like nothing better than to be able to believe that....

I feel that you're lying to yourself here....and I won't let you lie to me. So knock it off MW....it's insulting.

I desperately, desperately, desperately want to believe that....

Again, I'm calling you a liar. You're a liar 'cuz you've married science without the possibility of divorce 'cuz it's your identity. It defines you....and you think you're hot at it....and that's the pathetic part.

Now, go watch Dora the Explorer on youtube, or better yet, go to a cricket or baseball game, or go jogging, or something....you know, get out more.

****

That felt really good - to finally dissect his words. Since he's always doing that stuff to me........

_Number_6

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3102

ProfessorProfesesen wrote:

Elroch wrote:

Yes, patterns are found. Then those patterns are tested by making predictions with them and checking those predictions. Then this is repeated thousands of times and if it never fails, to an extent that make is utterly implausible that the pattern is illusory, the pattern is called a theory, such as the Theory of Evolution.

Presumably your knowledge doesn't extend past the first sentence.

SO. The patterns are real. But we as a species we are doing what we were desidgned/evolved to do. Of course the patterns produce predictions, and are testable.

Our mind is doing what it was meant to do. Just like a sharp knife. It does what it is supposed to do.

It is like 2,4,6,8,10..... It has no meaning.

Inputs and outputs. Pattern, predictionss. Just as we can predict the next number in the above sequence.

To describe what is in front of us, and predict the subsequent item, is no major achievement.

What is of note, is to be able to believe in the Unseen, have faith, and act ALTRUISTICALLY and live for OTHERS, with love and compassion.

Yes, our mind does what it evolved to do. Pattern recognition is a MAJOR achievement and it certainly has meaning.

Have you ever stood on a street corner and thought to yourself "there is a pattern here...but it has no meaning" Then just simply stepped off the curb into traffic?

Seems pretty easy. Maybe not worth a second thought. As an example, if you have ever seen road kill you would realise that pattern recognition as it relates to the world around us is important. The curiosity to recognize and question threats is a pretty important skill to have if you don't want to be the end of your genetic line.

Predicting outcomes is easy. Tell that to the next dead thing you see on the side of a road. I'm sure whatever it is, it had all the faith in the world that it was going to get to the other side.

Elroch

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3103

ProfessorProfesesen wrote:

Elroch wrote:

Yes, patterns are found. Then those patterns are tested by making predictions with them and checking those predictions. Then this is repeated thousands of times and if it never fails, to an extent that make is utterly implausible that the pattern is illusory, the pattern is called a theory, such as the Theory of Evolution.

Presumably your knowledge doesn't extend past the first sentence.

SO. The patterns are real. But we as a species we are doing what we were desidgned/evolved to do. Of course the patterns produce predictions, and are testable.

Our mind is doing what it was meant to do. Just like a sharp knife. It does what it is supposed to do.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Presumably the fact that you can walk using your legs is also to be belittled.

It is like 2,4,6,8,10..... It has no meaning.

Actually, mathematics has a LOT of meaning.

Inputs and outputs. Pattern, predictionss. Just as we can predict the next number in the above sequence.

To describe what is in front of us, and predict the subsequent item, is no major achievement.

What is of note, is to be able to believe in the Unseen, have faith, and act ALTRUISTICALLY and live for OTHERS, with love and compassion.

These are good things, which are definitely independent of religious beliefs - there are good people with and without religious beliefs and evil people too. Religious people sometimes like to distort this by taking the position that it doesn't matter what you do - non-religious people are evil by virtue of being non-religious.

However, the qualities you describe are demonstrably lousy for stopping people dying of infections, for providing them with global communications, for creating global trade, and so on. If you disbelieve me, look at a few thousand years of history.

hapless_fool

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3104

Elroch keeps arging with people who, if they existed at all, died at least 500 years ago.

Science is a "value-neutral" activity.

Medicine is not.

Medicine, at its very core, is a moral and ethical undertaking.

All the science in the world will be of no benefit unless there is some sort of moral imperative to use it to treat and heal.

The science can easily be misused. Eugenics, human experimentation and such are blatant examples. They are, of course, much more likely to occur in societies ruled by an atheist or Darwinian ethos.

Science was, up until about 300 years ago, informed by the (largely) Christian faith. Why this was can be argued, but that it happened cannot be argued against.

When science made the committment to mechanism, scientists no longer had need of the God hypothesis.

It still doesn't, which is why atheists and Christians can work in the same lab, speak the same language, convey the same meaning and make the same accomplishments.

I have tried to keep these statements simple and give you plenty of space for your red font pleonastics, even though I appreciate the use of blue font now.

path_logic

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3105

Vibrators can be easily misused, therefore God.

Elroch

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3106

hapless_fool wrote:

Elroch keeps arging with people who, if they existed at all, died at least 500 years ago.

If that is so, they are surprisingly active on chess.com and elsewhere. I presuming you are referring to ProfessorProfesesen, since you responded to my post addressed to him. I think you need to apologise to him for your claim.

Science is a "value-neutral" activity.

Rubbish.

Medicine is not.

Glad you have changed your mind about your last statement. Like other sciences, medicine can be a signficant benefit.

Medicine, at its very core, is a moral and ethical undertaking.

That's why it is the same now as it was in biblical times. Keep sacrificing those doves: you know it makes sense!

All the science in the world will be of no benefit unless there is some sort of moral imperative to use it to treat and heal.

Yes, humanity is required. There is quite a lot of this around.

The science can easily be misused. Eugenics, human experimentation and such are blatant examples.

True.

They are, of course, much more likely to occur in societies ruled by an atheist or Darwinian ethos.

False: they are more likely to occur in societies which lack humanitarianism and appropriate laws. These things are demonstrably independent of religion.

Science was, up until about 300 years ago, informed by the (largely) Christian faith. Why this was can be argued, but that it happened cannot be argued against.

Nonsense. You might as well claim that mathematics was Christian. Science was done in societies which were dominated by religion, and its progress was not prevented entirely by religion. Note that religious ideas did not help in the slightest in the development of scientific knowledge and in some cases hindered it.

When science made the committment to mechanism, scientists no longer had need of the God hypothesis.

Indeed, there is as yet no objective need for this hypothesis, and recognising this was of great help to science. I don't see your point.

It still doesn't, which is why atheists and Christians can work in the same lab, speak the same language, convey the same meaning and make the same accomplishments.

Usually. Sometimes Christians take a dogmatic antiscientific view and have to go work for the Discovery Foundation.

I have tried to keep these statements simple and give you plenty of space for your red font pleonastics, even though I appreciate the use of blue font now.

Just for information, red is not in any way a worse colour than blue: this is shocking colourism.

SimonN1504

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3107

psyopolis wrote:

If enough monkeys were given typewriters would they duplicate your dramatic speech?

Given enough time, yes. With enough monkeys of course. To be honest they'll probably have evovled into us by then (or something like us), who could then be able to read the post and copy it. XD

pawnwhacker

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3108

RG1951: "As for member "pawnwhacker" - I poke gentle fun at his/her spelling and he/she reacts by pouring scorn on my blitz chess rating. What my inability to play blitz chess has to do with correct spelling I simply cannot imagine."

Piffle. You didn't "poke gentle fun". What you did was hit the quote button and thereby paste my multi-paragraph post and then respond with a cheap one-liner that I had misspelled "paleontology". The word was spelled correctly.

So, I thought I'd ruffle your feathers by pointing out the poor quality of your chess play. It was every bit as relevant as your erroneous cheap shot at me.

Own it, lad.

pawnwhacker

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3109

hapless_fool wrote:

Elroch keeps arging with people who, if they existed at all, died at least 500 years ago.

Science is a "value-neutral" activity.

Medicine is not.

Medicine, at its very core, is a moral and ethical undertaking.

All the science in the world will be of no benefit unless there is some sort of moral imperative to use it to treat and heal.

The science can easily be misused. Eugenics, human experimentation and such are blatant examples. They are, of course, much more likely to occur in societies ruled by an atheist or Darwinian ethos.

Science was, up until about 300 years ago, informed by the (largely) Christian faith. Why this was can be argued, but that it happened cannot be argued against.

When science made the committment to mechanism, scientists no longer had need of the God hypothesis.

It still doesn't, which is why atheists and Christians can work in the same lab, speak the same language, convey the same meaning and make the same accomplishments.

I have tried to keep these statements simple and give you plenty of space for your red font pleonastics, even though I appreciate the use of blue font now.

What utter nonsense! btw..."arging"? (I learned this stunt from RG1951.)

pawnwhacker

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3110

einstein99 wrote:

Patterns imply intelligent design, at least complex specified patterns do.😕

My neck tie has patterns, ergo: God.

Elroch

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3111

Utterly convincing proof of the existence of giants. I mean it's just obviously not a natural phenomenon.

pawnwhacker

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3112

I've been there, Elroch. Ireland: Clochán an Aifir or Clochán na bhFomhórach

ProfessorProfesesen

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3113

tex_logic wrote:

Vibrators can be easily misused, therefore God.

misused is a moral judgement. Morality was acquired from revelations. Revelations were from God. Therefore God.

ProfessorProfesesen

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3114

pawnwhacker wrote:

einstein99 wrote:

Patterns imply intelligent design, at least complex specified patterns do.😕

My neck tie has patterns, ergo: God.

The idea of god is a priori, ergo God.

hapless_fool

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3115

You're arguing with the medieval peasants again. Why don't you argue with people that are alive? No here thinks lightning is the wrath of Zeus, you know.

einstein99

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3116

pawnwhacker wrote:

einstein99 wrote:

Patterns imply intelligent design, at least complex specified patterns do.😕

My neck tie has patterns, ergo: God.

______________________

A designer anyway. 😕

pawnwhacker

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3117

I love it when some constantly post "strawman argument" and "a priori" and such. Reminds me of my youth. That's when I still thought that philosophy professors were men of wisdom.

Don't get me wrong. I did learn some things of value. But the other 90% I chucked out when I became a man on my own, a freethinker...one who could research and draw valid conclusions, along with life experiences, to break the bonds of dittoheadhood, to aspire and find true wisdom away from the dogmas of...

Wait a minute! I'm getting a bit carried away here.

pawnwhacker

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3118

einstein99 wrote:

pawnwhacker wrote:

einstein99 wrote:

Patterns imply intelligent design, at least complex specified patterns do.😕

My neck tie has patterns, ergo: God.

______________________

A designer anyway. 😕

hapless_fool

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3119

Some atheists wear girls underwear on their heads and blow their noses in their shoes. Therefore, there is no god.

ProfessorProfesesen

Feb 28, 2015

0

#3120

Atheist don't believe in God. But understand what God is. Therefore God exists.