Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Provider Evolution

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 4:56:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Conscience does not favour survival. So even if there is a conscience gene, those who lack such a gene DO have higher chance of survival.

Irony is every man has a conscience and the development of conscience seems to be around the same time in a child when he starts having an ego, greed and fear.

Now, fear or greed might be necessary for survival BUT ego... Nope.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 6:34:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:56:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Conscience does not favour survival. So even if there is a conscience gene, those who lack such a gene DO have higher chance of survival.

ME: apart from philosophizing, you didn't answer the question: Was there supposed to be a conscience gene in the make up for the one celled grub of the primordial Slime..we could include hate, love in its various forms fear, treachery, desire, intellect and any other human device.

Irony is every man has a conscience and the development of conscience seems to be around the same time in a child when he starts having an ego, greed and fear.

Now, fear or greed might be necessary for survival BUT ego... Nope.

ME: all ego means is personality, it is another word for soul. One can be an egotist, having a self instructed egotistical idea of himself...But it is a wrong choice of words to use just ego, it is self, you as a person is your ego.

One MUST have an ego to survive. IMO
Looncall
Posts: 461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 11:21:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Ho-hum. Humans are a social species; hadn't you noticed? Of course our makeup includes features for getting along together.

The fact that religious con men try to convince people otherwise does not negate this simple observation.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 12:37:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience?

All genetic characteristics in all organisms are a result of evolution.
I don't think I'm willing to say though that all organisms have consciousness.
For those organisms that have consciousness, evolution drove the acquiring of that characteristic.

Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

Yes, humans and many "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors."
http://fcmconference.org...

Atheists, agnostics and evolutionists possess these substrates ans exhibit intentional behaviors; this is the criteria.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Well, there are genes that code for those neural substrates, and our behaviors cannot be accomplished without genes, so...no fables here.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:53:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 11:21:54 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Ho-hum. Humans are a social species; hadn't you noticed? Of course our makeup includes features for getting along together.

The fact that religious con men try to convince people otherwise does not negate this simple observation.

ME: Okay, Ho Hum, but was it put there by evolutionary means? Did the one celled grub in the primordial slime know that humans would be social animals and need to have a conscience?.....Ho Hum that one.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:03:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 12:37:32 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience?

All genetic characteristics in all organisms are a result of evolution.
I don't think I'm willing to say though that all organisms have consciousness.
For those organisms that have consciousness, evolution drove the acquiring of that characteristic.

Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

Yes, humans and many "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors."
http://fcmconference.org...

Atheists, agnostics and evolutionists possess these substrates ans exhibit intentional behaviors; this is the criteria.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Well, there are genes that code for those neural substrates, and our behaviors cannot be accomplished without genes, so...no fables here.

ME: So these things like the personality of a living being can be changed of you manipulate the genetic structure of that living being. Genetic Manipulation is possible as we see from the works of Monsanto, the most unconscionable manipulators on the planet.

They can also be changed by neuron-surgery. Is this what you are saying?

The things I mentioned are intangible, you cannot see a conscience, or love, or hate or any of the intangible emotions, you can see the result of them like seeing what the wind does without seeing the wind, right? This is why I have difficulty in accepting that these genetic occurrences were established by an evolutionary process millions of years ago for use in humans of today.
Looncall
Posts: 461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 10:10:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:03:23 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/8/2016 12:37:32 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience?

All genetic characteristics in all organisms are a result of evolution.
I don't think I'm willing to say though that all organisms have consciousness.
For those organisms that have consciousness, evolution drove the acquiring of that characteristic.

Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

Yes, humans and many "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors."
http://fcmconference.org...

Atheists, agnostics and evolutionists possess these substrates ans exhibit intentional behaviors; this is the criteria.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Well, there are genes that code for those neural substrates, and our behaviors cannot be accomplished without genes, so...no fables here.

ME: So these things like the personality of a living being can be changed of you manipulate the genetic structure of that living being. Genetic Manipulation is possible as we see from the works of Monsanto, the most unconscionable manipulators on the planet.

They can also be changed by neuron-surgery. Is this what you are saying?

The things I mentioned are intangible, you cannot see a conscience, or love, or hate or any of the intangible emotions, you can see the result of them like seeing what the wind does without seeing the wind, right? This is why I have difficulty in accepting that these genetic occurrences were established by an evolutionary process millions of years ago for use in humans of today.

The things you mentioned are behaviours exhibited by organisms: they are not things or substances. There us no reason why behaviours cannot evolve as the organisms exhibiting them do. They arose as benefits to the organisms that developed them, not as benefits to future humans. Evolution has no foresight.

Your objection is a non-sequitur.

The rampant reification found in religious thinking tends to taint thinking in other fields.

By the way, do you wish to discuss conscience or consciousness? There is confusion about that in this thread.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 11:51:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
ME: So these things like the personality of a living being can be changed of you manipulate the genetic structure of that living being. Genetic Manipulation is possible as we see from the works of Monsanto, the most unconscionable manipulators on the planet.

Well, the genetic manipulation should happen before the organism has been reproduced...

They can also be changed by neuron-surgery. Is this what you are saying?

Well, the personality would likely be changed a little with an intense enough neuron surgery...that wasn't really my point.

The things I mentioned are intangible, you cannot see a conscience, or love, or hate or any of the intangible emotions, you can see the result of them like seeing what the wind does without seeing the wind, right?

Ok.
So those intangibles you mention are not necessarily physical, but they are contingent on the physical.
They could not exist without neural substrates.
So, we can see the results of them based on their contingency, the neural substrates.

This is why I have difficulty in accepting that these genetic occurrences were established by an evolutionary process millions of years ago for use in humans of today.

Well, when you understand that not physical things can be contingent on the physical, it all starts to make sense.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 7:17:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Evolution and mind/body dualism are different subjects and not mutually exclusive. Someone can believe in either one but not the other, or both.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 11:28:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 12:37:32 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience?

All genetic characteristics in all organisms are a result of evolution.
I don't think I'm willing to say though that all organisms have consciousness.
For those organisms that have consciousness, evolution drove the acquiring of that characteristic.

ME: One problem with that answer, I think, the things we speak of are not made of any chemical or of some substance that can be included in a genetic line. The proof of this is that each of the "attributes" have different levels of expression in each person.
One person may love more intensely than the other, and the world of man shows that some hate with a greater intensity that others of the species.

If the emotions were from a standard progression of evolution, each "gene" would be equal, wouldn't it? OR would you say that an arm or leg can be of a different "intensity" in each creature of the same species. Probably, but I hope you know what I mean...It is early morning for me.

Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

Yes, humans and many "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors."
http://fcmconference.org...

Atheists, agnostics and evolutionists possess these substrates ans exhibit intentional behaviors; this is the criteria.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Well, there are genes that code for those neural substrates, and our behaviors cannot be accomplished without genes, so...no fables here.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 11:37:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
ME: One problem with that answer, I think, the things we speak of are not made of any chemical or of some substance that can be included in a genetic line.

Like consciousness or love?
To me, these things, though not actually physical, are contingent on the physical, such that there is no consciousness without neural substrates, and there is no love without neurotransmitters.

The proof of this is that each of the "attributes" have different levels of expression in each person.

Yeah, that sounds right.

One person may love more intensely than the other, and the world of man shows that some hate with a greater intensity that others of the species.

Yeah, that sounds right too.

If the emotions were from a standard progression of evolution, each "gene" would be equal, wouldn't it?

It's likely that our mammalian ancestors benefited from having the neural substrates for consciousness and love, so merely having those attributes, regardless of the intensity, would be the "standard progression" as you put it.
The equal part is that they have the neural substrates.

OR would you say that an arm or leg can be of a different "intensity" in each creature of the same species. Probably, but I hope you know what I mean...It is early morning for me.

Yeah, the equal part is that they simply have the arm or the leg like others of the species, while the "intensity" or "gradation" in each arm of each creature can vary.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 11:45:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 10:10:51 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:03:23 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/8/2016 12:37:32 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience?

All genetic characteristics in all organisms are a result of evolution.
I don't think I'm willing to say though that all organisms have consciousness.
For those organisms that have consciousness, evolution drove the acquiring of that characteristic.

Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

Yes, humans and many "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors."
http://fcmconference.org...

Atheists, agnostics and evolutionists possess these substrates ans exhibit intentional behaviors; this is the criteria.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Well, there are genes that code for those neural substrates, and our behaviors cannot be accomplished without genes, so...no fables here.

ME: So these things like the personality of a living being can be changed of you manipulate the genetic structure of that living being. Genetic Manipulation is possible as we see from the works of Monsanto, the most unconscionable manipulators on the planet.

They can also be changed by neuron-surgery. Is this what you are saying?

The things I mentioned are intangible, you cannot see a conscience, or love, or hate or any of the intangible emotions, you can see the result of them like seeing what the wind does without seeing the wind, right? This is why I have difficulty in accepting that these genetic occurrences were established by an evolutionary process millions of years ago for use in humans of today.

The things you mentioned are behaviours exhibited by organisms: they are not things or substances. There us no reason why behaviours cannot evolve as the organisms exhibiting them do. They arose as benefits to the organisms that developed them, not as benefits to future humans. Evolution has no foresight.

Your objection is a non-sequitur.

ME: Might be concentrating on pseudo-interlectulaising Rather t han the subject matter. You say that "They are not things of substance"...I said "The things I mentioned are intangible"

Please define who is not following on from the previous subject.

"They arose as benefits to the organisms that developed them, not as benefits to future humans. Evolution has no foresight." This one is most confusing. a benefit to an organism without any foresight...When did evolution start to think about Benefits to anything? Didn't evolution just blunder along, supplying mutations, cross family breeding, mules and mongrels that died out, dropping like flies to leave no trace in the fossil finds but, instead, landing on the pages of some fanciful writers dreams of fame.

The rampant reification found in religious thinking tends to taint thinking in other fields.

ME: I don't disagree with that, but it has little to do with the subject matter here IMO. Maybe it is just a bit of veiled sarcasm.

By the way, do you wish to discuss conscience or consciousness? There is confusion about that in this thread.

ME: I have mentioned "conscience" eight times in my posts, never consciousness, So go figure. I don't blame you for being confused with your concepts, so far.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 11:49:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 10:10:51 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:03:23 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/8/2016 12:37:32 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience?

All genetic characteristics in all organisms are a result of evolution.
I don't think I'm willing to say though that all organisms have consciousness.
For those organisms that have consciousness, evolution drove the acquiring of that characteristic.

Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

Yes, humans and many "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors."
http://fcmconference.org...

Atheists, agnostics and evolutionists possess these substrates ans exhibit intentional behaviors; this is the criteria.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Well, there are genes that code for those neural substrates, and our behaviors cannot be accomplished without genes, so...no fables here.

ME: So these things like the personality of a living being can be changed of you manipulate the genetic structure of that living being. Genetic Manipulation is possible as we see from the works of Monsanto, the most unconscionable manipulators on the planet.

They can also be changed by neuron-surgery. Is this what you are saying?

The things I mentioned are intangible, you cannot see a conscience, or love, or hate or any of the intangible emotions, you can see the result of them like seeing what the wind does without seeing the wind, right? This is why I have difficulty in accepting that these genetic occurrences were established by an evolutionary process millions of years ago for use in humans of today.

The things you mentioned are behaviours exhibited by organisms: they are not things or substances. There us no reason why behaviours cannot evolve as the organisms exhibiting them do. They arose as benefits to the organisms that developed them, not as benefits to future humans. Evolution has no foresight.

Your objection is a non-sequitur.

The rampant reification found in religious thinking tends to taint thinking in other fields.

By the way, do you wish to discuss conscience or consciousness? There is confusion about that in this thread.

ME: further...Genes and Human Behavior
I
HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ADDRESS
the question, "Are there morally objectionable
behaviors that appear to be caused entirely by genetic factors
without any meaningful volitional component?" The answer to this question is
a simple "No."

ia.edu/cu/biology/faculty/pollack/publications/essays-and-reviews/Genetics_and_Morality.pdf

Interesting paper.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 11:58:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/12/2016 11:49:30 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/9/2016 10:10:51 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:03:23 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/8/2016 12:37:32 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience?

All genetic characteristics in all organisms are a result of evolution.
I don't think I'm willing to say though that all organisms have consciousness.
For those organisms that have consciousness, evolution drove the acquiring of that characteristic.

Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

Yes, humans and many "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors."
http://fcmconference.org...

Atheists, agnostics and evolutionists possess these substrates ans exhibit intentional behaviors; this is the criteria.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Well, there are genes that code for those neural substrates, and our behaviors cannot be accomplished without genes, so...no fables here.

ME: So these things like the personality of a living being can be changed of you manipulate the genetic structure of that living being. Genetic Manipulation is possible as we see from the works of Monsanto, the most unconscionable manipulators on the planet.

They can also be changed by neuron-surgery. Is this what you are saying?

The things I mentioned are intangible, you cannot see a conscience, or love, or hate or any of the intangible emotions, you can see the result of them like seeing what the wind does without seeing the wind, right? This is why I have difficulty in accepting that these genetic occurrences were established by an evolutionary process millions of years ago for use in humans of today.

The things you mentioned are behaviours exhibited by organisms: they are not things or substances. There us no reason why behaviours cannot evolve as the organisms exhibiting them do. They arose as benefits to the organisms that developed them, not as benefits to future humans. Evolution has no foresight.

Your objection is a non-sequitur.

The rampant reification found in religious thinking tends to taint thinking in other fields.

By the way, do you wish to discuss conscience or consciousness? There is confusion about that in this thread.

ME: further...Genes and Human Behavior
I
HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ADDRESS
the question, "Are there morally objectionable
behaviors that appear to be caused entirely by genetic factors
without any meaningful volitional component?" The answer to this question is
a simple "No."

ia.edu/cu/biology/faculty/pollack/publications/essays-and-reviews/Genetics_and_Morality.pdf

Interesting paper. You will also see that the lecturer is saying that evolution made its offspring as organisms with a right to free choice...Curious, as Creations says the same thing about god's creation of man.

A free choice, when the evolution "force" says' here take this, try it out for a few million years, and hope it is beneficial and if it doesn't work don't blame me"...No choice there.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 12:53:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Much of our conscience comes from the emotion of empathy. Studies have found that some chemicals in the brain affect empathy such as Oxycontin.
http://www.livescience.com...
http://oregonstate.edu...
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 2:15:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/13/2016 12:53:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Much of our conscience comes from the emotion of empathy. Studies have found that some chemicals in the brain affect empathy such as Oxycontin.
http://www.livescience.com...
http://oregonstate.edu...

ME: Many drugs affect the brain function which will also affect the body function. Oxycontin is an opiate and they a renowned for their effect on the Pain Receptors.
which, raised another question: Pain an intangible (Not gene specific) has a receptor that is tangible...Seems to be getting rather complicated for just random evolutionary change, Don't' you think? Before the receptor evolved the pain could get severe enough to kill the organism, thus thee would be no need for a receptor in a dead organism.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 3:40:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/13/2016 2:15:38 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/13/2016 12:53:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Much of our conscience comes from the emotion of empathy. Studies have found that some chemicals in the brain affect empathy such as Oxycontin.
http://www.livescience.com...
http://oregonstate.edu...

ME: Many drugs affect the brain function which will also affect the body function. Oxycontin is an opiate and they a renowned for their effect on the Pain Receptors.

We certainly don't have the full picture but it seems reasonable to me that empathy could be the result of chemicals in the brain and these have been partially able to explain it already.

which, raised another question: Pain an intangible (Not gene specific) has a receptor that is tangible...Seems to be getting rather complicated for just random evolutionary change, Don't' you think?

Evolution has been demonstrated to make complicated things.

Pain is created when the brain gets signals from the nerves that damage has happened. The sensation of pain is created in neural pathways called nociceptors.

Before the receptor evolved the pain could get severe enough to kill the organism, thus thee would be no need for a receptor in a dead organism.

There are many examples of organisms similar to our ancestors that don't feel pain. For example bacteria don't feel pain. So our ancestors were able to survive without feeling pain. However the feeling of pain allows some organisms to survive better than others because it causes them to avoid harmful behavior. So evolution selected organisms that feel pain.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 8:54:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/13/2016 3:40:25 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/13/2016 2:15:38 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/13/2016 12:53:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Much of our conscience comes from the emotion of empathy. Studies have found that some chemicals in the brain affect empathy such as Oxycontin.
http://www.livescience.com...
http://oregonstate.edu...

ME: Many drugs affect the brain function which will also affect the body function. Oxycontin is an opiate and they a renowned for their effect on the Pain Receptors.

We certainly don't have the full picture but it seems reasonable to me that empathy could be the result of chemicals in the brain and these have been partially able to explain it already.

ME: from what I see the brain is affected by drugs, but does not use drugs to function, as it is relying on electric impulses, th signals to the brain that cause muscle function and a far greater ability that I can understand.

Mainly the drugs that affect the communication of the brain to muscle is the opiates and the drugs like LSD and Grass, so called social drugs.

All I can make of this is that thought, and thought responses, which include all the "emotions" so far mentioned are intangible, non-genetic functions. The fact that these emotions can be triggered by another non-tangible response, such an act of anger towards you may cause an act of anger to rise in you. I would be a difficult existence if when you felt thirsty the brain responded with giving you the craving for salt and etc.

Again I have to doubt any theory of evolution in place of creation. Many say that Creation is a hard story to understand...But really????

which, raised another question: Pain an intangible (Not gene specific) has a receptor that is tangible...Seems to be getting rather complicated for just random evolutionary change, Don't' you think?

Evolution has been demonstrated to make complicated things.

Pain is created when the brain gets signals from the nerves that damage has happened. The sensation of pain is created in neural pathways called nociceptors.

Before the receptor evolved the pain could get severe enough to kill the organism, thus there would be no need for a receptor in a dead organism.

There are many examples of organisms similar to our ancestors that don't feel pain. For example bacteria don't feel pain. So our ancestors were able to survive without feeling pain. However the feeling of pain allows some organisms to survive better than others because it causes them to avoid harmful behavior. So evolution selected organisms that feel pain.

ME: Some humans are born with a pain deficient symptom. congenital analgesia, but function normally in other areas. Does this mean that there is a mutation that evolutionary change has introduced at random?

ME: I don't know, but can bacteria respond to something touching it. Apparently the human egg does in a small way, but it know that is is being "moved". Even spermatozoa is affected by touch as it travels to the womb. What brain function causes the urge for the male sperm to fight its way to the female egg?

All a bit too difficult for evolution to explain I feel, and I must say that anything I have read here is not very convincing.
Looncall
Posts: 461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 11:31:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/13/2016 8:54:36 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/13/2016 3:40:25 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/13/2016 2:15:38 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/13/2016 12:53:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Much of our conscience comes from the emotion of empathy. Studies have found that some chemicals in the brain affect empathy such as Oxycontin.
http://www.livescience.com...
http://oregonstate.edu...

ME: Many drugs affect the brain function which will also affect the body function. Oxycontin is an opiate and they a renowned for their effect on the Pain Receptors.

We certainly don't have the full picture but it seems reasonable to me that empathy could be the result of chemicals in the brain and these have been partially able to explain it already.

ME: from what I see the brain is affected by drugs, but does not use drugs to function, as it is relying on electric impulses, th signals to the brain that cause muscle function and a far greater ability that I can understand.

Mainly the drugs that affect the communication of the brain to muscle is the opiates and the drugs like LSD and Grass, so called social drugs.

All I can make of this is that thought, and thought responses, which include all the "emotions" so far mentioned are intangible, non-genetic functions. The fact that these emotions can be triggered by another non-tangible response, such an act of anger towards you may cause an act of anger to rise in you. I would be a difficult existence if when you felt thirsty the brain responded with giving you the craving for salt and etc.

Again I have to doubt any theory of evolution in place of creation. Many say that Creation is a hard story to understand...But really????

which, raised another question: Pain an intangible (Not gene specific) has a receptor that is tangible...Seems to be getting rather complicated for just random evolutionary change, Don't' you think?

Evolution has been demonstrated to make complicated things.

Pain is created when the brain gets signals from the nerves that damage has happened. The sensation of pain is created in neural pathways called nociceptors.

Before the receptor evolved the pain could get severe enough to kill the organism, thus there would be no need for a receptor in a dead organism.

There are many examples of organisms similar to our ancestors that don't feel pain. For example bacteria don't feel pain. So our ancestors were able to survive without feeling pain. However the feeling of pain allows some organisms to survive better than others because it causes them to avoid harmful behavior. So evolution selected organisms that feel pain.

ME: Some humans are born with a pain deficient symptom. congenital analgesia, but function normally in other areas. Does this mean that there is a mutation that evolutionary change has introduced at random?

ME: I don't know, but can bacteria respond to something touching it. Apparently the human egg does in a small way, but it know that is is being "moved". Even spermatozoa is affected by touch as it travels to the womb. What brain function causes the urge for the male sperm to fight its way to the female egg?

All a bit too difficult for evolution to explain I feel, and I must say that anything I have read here is not very convincing.

All this is just argument from ignorance. You don't understand things, so they cannot be so. Aren't you embarrassed to be admitting this in public?

Creation is easy to understand, ancient campfire tales are easy; it's just hard to believe.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 11:27:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/13/2016 8:54:36 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/13/2016 3:40:25 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/13/2016 2:15:38 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/13/2016 12:53:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Much of our conscience comes from the emotion of empathy. Studies have found that some chemicals in the brain affect empathy such as Oxycontin.
http://www.livescience.com...
http://oregonstate.edu...

ME: Many drugs affect the brain function which will also affect the body function. Oxycontin is an opiate and they a renowned for their effect on the Pain Receptors.

We certainly don't have the full picture but it seems reasonable to me that empathy could be the result of chemicals in the brain and these have been partially able to explain it already.

ME: from what I see the brain is affected by drugs, but does not use drugs to function, as it is relying on electric impulses, th signals to the brain that cause muscle function and a far greater ability that I can understand.

Mainly the drugs that affect the communication of the brain to muscle is the opiates and the drugs like LSD and Grass, so called social drugs.

All I can make of this is that thought, and thought responses, which include all the "emotions" so far mentioned are intangible, non-genetic functions. The fact that these emotions can be triggered by another non-tangible response, such an act of anger towards you may cause an act of anger to rise in you. I would be a difficult existence if when you felt thirsty the brain responded with giving you the craving for salt and etc.

Again I have to doubt any theory of evolution in place of creation. Many say that Creation is a hard story to understand...But really????

There is a lot involved in emotions including chemicals in the brain and electrical impulses. I don't see why you think they are not tangible. There are some things that we don't understand about them but that doesn't make the gaps supernatural.

which, raised another question: Pain an intangible (Not gene specific) has a receptor that is tangible...Seems to be getting rather complicated for just random evolutionary change, Don't' you think?

Evolution has been demonstrated to make complicated things.

Pain is created when the brain gets signals from the nerves that damage has happened. The sensation of pain is created in neural pathways called nociceptors.

Before the receptor evolved the pain could get severe enough to kill the organism, thus there would be no need for a receptor in a dead organism.

There are many examples of organisms similar to our ancestors that don't feel pain. For example bacteria don't feel pain. So our ancestors were able to survive without feeling pain. However the feeling of pain allows some organisms to survive better than others because it causes them to avoid harmful behavior. So evolution selected organisms that feel pain.

ME: Some humans are born with a pain deficient symptom. congenital analgesia, but function normally in other areas. Does this mean that there is a mutation that evolutionary change has introduced at random?

Congenital analgesia does come from mutations. The wikipedia page about it even talks about them. Random mutations do happen and some of them are negative. Notice how almost all people do feel pain? This is because while you are able to survive without feeling pain especially in a first-world country, when you are living in the wild the ability to feel pain is very beneficial to you making the right choices to avoid harm.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

ME: I don't know, but can bacteria respond to something touching it. Apparently the human egg does in a small way, but it know that is is being "moved". Even spermatozoa is affected by touch as it travels to the womb. What brain function causes the urge for the male sperm to fight its way to the female egg?

Yes, things do result to harmful stimuli, but that doesn't mean they feel pain. The ability to feel pain requires an advanced brain with consciousness.

All a bit too difficult for evolution to explain I feel, and I must say that anything I have read here is not very convincing.

There is a lot of observational, genetic, and fossil evidence for evolution so we know it is true no matter how well it explains pain. Generally the brain is a topic we don't completely understand so it is no surprise we don't completely understand how it evolved.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 11:33:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/13/2016 11:31:41 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:54:36 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/13/2016 3:40:25 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/13/2016 2:15:38 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/13/2016 12:53:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Much of our conscience comes from the emotion of empathy. Studies have found that some chemicals in the brain affect empathy such as Oxycontin.
http://www.livescience.com...
http://oregonstate.edu...

ME: Many drugs affect the brain function which will also affect the body function. Oxycontin is an opiate and they a renowned for their effect on the Pain Receptors.

We certainly don't have the full picture but it seems reasonable to me that empathy could be the result of chemicals in the brain and these have been partially able to explain it already.

ME: from what I see the brain is affected by drugs, but does not use drugs to function, as it is relying on electric impulses, th signals to the brain that cause muscle function and a far greater ability that I can understand.

Mainly the drugs that affect the communication of the brain to muscle is the opiates and the drugs like LSD and Grass, so called social drugs.

All I can make of this is that thought, and thought responses, which include all the "emotions" so far mentioned are intangible, non-genetic functions. The fact that these emotions can be triggered by another non-tangible response, such an act of anger towards you may cause an act of anger to rise in you. I would be a difficult existence if when you felt thirsty the brain responded with giving you the craving for salt and etc.

Again I have to doubt any theory of evolution in place of creation. Many say that Creation is a hard story to understand...But really????

which, raised another question: Pain an intangible (Not gene specific) has a receptor that is tangible...Seems to be getting rather complicated for just random evolutionary change, Don't' you think?

Evolution has been demonstrated to make complicated things.

Pain is created when the brain gets signals from the nerves that damage has happened. The sensation of pain is created in neural pathways called nociceptors.

Before the receptor evolved the pain could get severe enough to kill the organism, thus there would be no need for a receptor in a dead organism.

There are many examples of organisms similar to our ancestors that don't feel pain. For example bacteria don't feel pain. So our ancestors were able to survive without feeling pain. However the feeling of pain allows some organisms to survive better than others because it causes them to avoid harmful behavior. So evolution selected organisms that feel pain.

ME: Some humans are born with a pain deficient symptom. congenital analgesia, but function normally in other areas. Does this mean that there is a mutation that evolutionary change has introduced at random?

ME: I don't know, but can bacteria respond to something touching it. Apparently the human egg does in a small way, but it know that is is being "moved". Even spermatozoa is affected by touch as it travels to the womb. What brain function causes the urge for the male sperm to fight its way to the female egg?

All a bit too difficult for evolution to explain I feel, and I must say that anything I have read here is not very convincing.

All this is just argument from ignorance. You don't understand things, so they cannot be so. Aren't you embarrassed to be admitting this in public?

ME: Not in the least embarrassed. The one that can admit they do not know everything is the one who will accept being educated.

Apparently, you believe that you are the be all and end all for knowledge. Now that is embarrassing, and it would be most annoying in social circles. But, I guess, your evolution theories can allow for your mutation.

Creation is easy to understand, ancient campfire tales are easy; it's just hard to believe.

ME: What a bland, meaningless comment, How boring you are. I guess you wouldn't be embarrassed if I told you what it means to be a "loon" in my country.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 12:05:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/13/2016 11:27:34 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:54:36 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/13/2016 3:40:25 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/13/2016 2:15:38 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/13/2016 12:53:33 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience? Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.

Much of our conscience comes from the emotion of empathy. Studies have found that some chemicals in the brain affect empathy such as Oxycontin.
http://www.livescience.com...
http://oregonstate.edu...

ME: Many drugs affect the brain function which will also affect the body function. Oxycontin is an opiate and they a renowned for their effect on the Pain Receptors.

We certainly don't have the full picture but it seems reasonable to me that empathy could be the result of chemicals in the brain and these have been partially able to explain it already.

ME: from what I see the brain is affected by drugs, but does not use drugs to function, as it is relying on electric impulses, th signals to the brain that cause muscle function and a far greater ability that I can understand.

Mainly the drugs that affect the communication of the brain to muscle is the opiates and the drugs like LSD and Grass, so called social drugs.

All I can make of this is that thought, and thought responses, which include all the "emotions" so far mentioned are intangible, non-genetic functions. The fact that these emotions can be triggered by another non-tangible response, such an act of anger towards you may cause an act of anger to rise in you. I would be a difficult existence if when you felt thirsty the brain responded with giving you the craving for salt and etc.

Again I have to doubt any theory of evolution in place of creation. Many say that Creation is a hard story to understand...But really????

There is a lot involved in emotions including chemicals in the brain and electrical impulses. I don't see why you think they are not tangible. There are some things that we don't understand about them but that doesn't make the gaps supernatural.

which, raised another question: Pain an intangible (Not gene specific) has a receptor that is tangible...Seems to be getting rather complicated for just random evolutionary change, Don't' you think?

Evolution has been demonstrated to make complicated things.

Pain is created when the brain gets signals from the nerves that damage has happened. The sensation of pain is created in neural pathways called nociceptors.

Before the receptor evolved the pain could get severe enough to kill the organism, thus there would be no need for a receptor in a dead organism.

There are many examples of organisms similar to our ancestors that don't feel pain. For example bacteria don't feel pain. So our ancestors were able to survive without feeling pain. However the feeling of pain allows some organisms to survive better than others because it causes them to avoid harmful behavior. So evolution selected organisms that feel pain.

ME: Some humans are born with a pain deficient symptom. congenital analgesia, but function normally in other areas. Does this mean that there is a mutation that evolutionary change has introduced at random?

Congenital analgesia does come from mutations. The wikipedia page about it even talks about them. Random mutations do happen and some of them are negative. Notice how almost all people do feel pain? This is because while you are able to survive without feeling pain especially in a first-world country, when you are living in the wild the ability to feel pain is very beneficial to you making the right choices to avoid harm.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

ME: I don't know, but can bacteria respond to something touching it. Apparently the human egg does in a small way, but it know that is is being "moved". Even spermatozoa is affected by touch as it travels to the womb. What brain function causes the urge for the male sperm to fight its way to the female egg?

Yes, things do result to harmful stimuli, but that doesn't mean they feel pain. The ability to feel pain requires an advanced brain with consciousness.

ME: I would think that any brain would have to have consciousness to function even in the least ability. When you consider the intricacies of the human, the brain the nervous system the emotions and mechanical advantages, it is very improbable that any living being would have any of these things without a functioning brain, don't you think?

All a bit too difficult for evolution to explain I feel, and I must say that anything I have read here is not very convincing.

There is a lot of observational, genetic, and fossil evidence for evolution so we know it is true no matter how well it explains pain. Generally the brain is a topic we don't completely understand so it is no surprise we don't completely understand how it evolved.

ME: I do like the exchange with you, you are treating the debate seriously. Naturally evolution is your belief and it is your 'bag', so you will have a bigger range of answers than I do have questions. I imagine the same would apply if I started to talk about creation, and the scientific proof of many events that have occurred and recorded from many years ago.

I accept that you have a "knowledge" and that is why I respect you tolerating my questions. On the other hand, the Looney in the following post is nothing but a pestilence.

Do I understand that the 'blueprint' for human life was at the beginning of life millions of years ago, I think it is stated as 4.5 million, and that blueprint was carried in the one cell bug that I continually refer to in my posts.

Of course, there would have to be much activity towards causing life to come into being as well, and in your terms, f millions of years before the one cell bug.

About fossil evidence. Science seems to be disappointed in the fossil evidence in proving the transitional stages of living beings. Even when some fossil is discovered, and the discoverer insists that it show a transitional change, it often came to a miscalculation. The example of this was the slate fossil that had both sides of the living being, and the discoverers of these fossils sell them separately. The result was that one group called their side one thing, and another group called their side another.(I put this example and it origin in the posts here)

There is no fossil finds that show a living being changing over the millions of years that is claimed between the original animal and the modern animal.

To many of your fellow believers, this may sound just argumentative, but it is something that scientists base their whole studies upon.

I compare the simple words of the prophets of old as they write the simple explanations for events of creation, and, even applying scientific proof for some of these events, scientists of today have not dis-proved the creation story. Admittedly there is no exact proof of the several evolution theories are wrong, other than the misconceptions from different evolutionists.

Just like Christendom of this world today, there are many "evolutionists" that establish a mental image of the story of life and that is the one they "preach" regardless of contradiction.

You may stop the discussion anytime you like. I know I
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 12:12:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Here is a thought about evolution, one that can't be denied IMO

Taking the limitations of mankind, the many mistakes made, and the evil intent of many studies by mankind and then allowing that the evolution theories are man made theories and fraught with error, is it not in the best interest of the thinking person to treat the evolution story with the same concern of the "Truth" as spoken by the next door gossiper?
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 2:17:17 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
So, do fossils prove evolution? Even if we grant that every fossil looks the way it is reconstructed and that sequences demonstrating evolution really do exist, fossils cannot count as evidence for evolution. They can merely be consistent with evolutionary theory (which they aren"t!) " not evidence for the theory. Why is this so? No-one can know if any fossil is related. And because of this, we cannot know if one particular fossil evolved from another. If we cannot know that one particular fossil evolved from another, we cannot use them as proof that one fossil evolved from another (aka evolution)!

Now some may say that similarities between organisms determine relationships. In other words, similar organisms are probably related. But this reasoning falls flat. Many similarities exist between the marsupial mouse and the placental mouse. However, evolutionary scientists believe that the placental mouse and the horse are more closely related than the placental mouse and the marsupial mouse. In this instance, and in many others, similarities do not equate to relatedness. The argument from similarity as evidence for relatedness is a dead end.

http://evolutiondismantled.com...

ME: The fossil record is very limited and among the thousands of fossils found most are fragments and of no use in comparing with other life forms.

From reading the information, It is deduced that fossils are found, mainly, in sedimentary rock, which occurs at one level, although at different depths in the earth structure.

How do you get sedimentary rock? From solidification of sediment of course, sediment is caused by the rock elements being in a large wash of water and settling after the water has subsided.

Sedimentary rock is found at many heights in the earth structure, but it also dates the fossils there-in as being at the same time period, thus it would be impossible to find transitional fossils that evolution says takes millions of years to occur.

An example to prove that fossils are found at all levels are the fossil finds of sea shells on the top of mountains..Of course, Noah's flood could also contribute to the dispersion of sea creatures and shells.

Evolution, with only a 200 year history and the invention of many sciences, has not proved itself at all.

Just as there is mass confusion with religion there is the same confusion within the sciences , which include:

Natural sciences, the study of the natural phenomena;
Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and societies.
Natural sciences
Astronomy, the study of celestial objects and phenomena that are outside the Earth's atmosphere, e.g. stars, the cosmos, etc.
Biology, the study of life.
Ecology and Environmental science, the studies of the interrelationships of life and the environment.
Chemistry, the study of the composition, chemical reactivity, structure, and properties of matter and with the (physical and chemical) transformations that they undergo.
Earth science, the study of earth and specialties including:
Geology
Hydrology
Meteorology
Science-based or Physical Geography and Oceanography
Soil science
Physics, the study of the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces and interactions they exert on one another, and the results produced by these forces.
The main social sciences include:

Anthropology
Communication
Cultural studies
Economics
Education
Geography
History
Linguistics
Political science
Psychology )
Social policy
Sociology
Development studies
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have made some notation from the bottom list to be added to the top list. If there are others for evolution, please mark.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 8:39:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/14/2016 2:17:17 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
So, do fossils prove evolution? Even if we grant that every fossil looks the way it is reconstructed and that sequences demonstrating evolution really do exist, fossils cannot count as evidence for evolution. They can merely be consistent with evolutionary theory (which they aren"t!) " not evidence for the theory. Why is this so? No-one can know if any fossil is related. And because of this, we cannot know if one particular fossil evolved from another. If we cannot know that one particular fossil evolved from another, we cannot use them as proof that one fossil evolved from another (aka evolution)!

Now some may say that similarities between organisms determine relationships. In other words, similar organisms are probably related. But this reasoning falls flat. Many similarities exist between the marsupial mouse and the placental mouse. However, evolutionary scientists believe that the placental mouse and the horse are more closely related than the placental mouse and the marsupial mouse. In this instance, and in many others, similarities do not equate to relatedness. The argument from similarity as evidence for relatedness is a dead end.

http://evolutiondismantled.com...

ME: The fossil record is very limited and among the thousands of fossils found most are fragments and of no use in comparing with other life forms.

From reading the information, It is deduced that fossils are found, mainly, in sedimentary rock, which occurs at one level, although at different depths in the earth structure.

How do you get sedimentary rock? From solidification of sediment of course, sediment is caused by the rock elements being in a large wash of water and settling after the water has subsided.

Sedimentary rock is found at many heights in the earth structure, but it also dates the fossils there-in as being at the same time period, thus it would be impossible to find transitional fossils that evolution says takes millions of years to occur.

An example to prove that fossils are found at all levels are the fossil finds of sea shells on the top of mountains..Of course, Noah's flood could also contribute to the dispersion of sea creatures and shells.

Evolution, with only a 200 year history and the invention of many sciences, has not proved itself at all.

Just as there is mass confusion with religion there is the same confusion within the sciences , which include:

Natural sciences, the study of the natural phenomena;
Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and societies.
Natural sciences
Astronomy, the study of celestial objects and phenomena that are outside the Earth's atmosphere, e.g. stars, the cosmos, etc.
Biology, the study of life.
Ecology and Environmental science, the studies of the interrelationships of life and the environment.
Chemistry, the study of the composition, chemical reactivity, structure, and properties of matter and with the (physical and chemical) transformations that they undergo.
Earth science, the study of earth and specialties including:
Geology
Hydrology
Meteorology
Science-based or Physical Geography and Oceanography
Soil science
Physics, the study of the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces and interactions they exert on one another, and the results produced by these forces.
The main social sciences include:

Anthropology
Communication
Cultural studies
Economics
Education
Geography
History
Linguistics
Political science
Psychology )
Social policy
Sociology
Development studies
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have made some notation from the bottom list to be added to the top list. If there are others for evolution, please mark.

ME: If there was any exact science in evolution it would explain, and prove where the emotions started to arrive in the tree of life. The human has the most complex set of emotions of any of the animal kind, we also have failures in these emotions, and we have many theories on the value, function, mental driving force of these emotions and, in fact emotions have been the driving force for the establishment of other science disciplines. When you take all that into account, then one would consider how previous animals could survive without all this future science.

As with creation, evolution needs to admit that the random, non directional process of the tree of life cannot apply to the massive intellect, and logical application from the humans that evolutionists place their faith in, the scientists. If it is not the scientists it must be another super intelligent being that has run the tree of life in all its glory, and the universe in all its balance, and all thought in its manner of understanding...Don't ya' reckon.
Looncall
Posts: 461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 10:59:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 8:39:20 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/14/2016 2:17:17 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
So, do fossils prove evolution? Even if we grant that every fossil looks the way it is reconstructed and that sequences demonstrating evolution really do exist, fossils cannot count as evidence for evolution. They can merely be consistent with evolutionary theory (which they aren"t!) " not evidence for the theory. Why is this so? No-one can know if any fossil is related. And because of this, we cannot know if one particular fossil evolved from another. If we cannot know that one particular fossil evolved from another, we cannot use them as proof that one fossil evolved from another (aka evolution)!

Now some may say that similarities between organisms determine relationships. In other words, similar organisms are probably related. But this reasoning falls flat. Many similarities exist between the marsupial mouse and the placental mouse. However, evolutionary scientists believe that the placental mouse and the horse are more closely related than the placental mouse and the marsupial mouse. In this instance, and in many others, similarities do not equate to relatedness. The argument from similarity as evidence for relatedness is a dead end.

http://evolutiondismantled.com...

ME: The fossil record is very limited and among the thousands of fossils found most are fragments and of no use in comparing with other life forms.

From reading the information, It is deduced that fossils are found, mainly, in sedimentary rock, which occurs at one level, although at different depths in the earth structure.

How do you get sedimentary rock? From solidification of sediment of course, sediment is caused by the rock elements being in a large wash of water and settling after the water has subsided.

Sedimentary rock is found at many heights in the earth structure, but it also dates the fossils there-in as being at the same time period, thus it would be impossible to find transitional fossils that evolution says takes millions of years to occur.

An example to prove that fossils are found at all levels are the fossil finds of sea shells on the top of mountains..Of course, Noah's flood could also contribute to the dispersion of sea creatures and shells.

Evolution, with only a 200 year history and the invention of many sciences, has not proved itself at all.

Just as there is mass confusion with religion there is the same confusion within the sciences , which include:

Natural sciences, the study of the natural phenomena;
Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and societies.
Natural sciences
Astronomy, the study of celestial objects and phenomena that are outside the Earth's atmosphere, e.g. stars, the cosmos, etc.
Biology, the study of life.
Ecology and Environmental science, the studies of the interrelationships of life and the environment.
Chemistry, the study of the composition, chemical reactivity, structure, and properties of matter and with the (physical and chemical) transformations that they undergo.
Earth science, the study of earth and specialties including:
Geology
Hydrology
Meteorology
Science-based or Physical Geography and Oceanography
Soil science
Physics, the study of the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces and interactions they exert on one another, and the results produced by these forces.
The main social sciences include:

Anthropology
Communication
Cultural studies
Economics
Education
Geography
History
Linguistics
Political science
Psychology )
Social policy
Sociology
Development studies
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have made some notation from the bottom list to be added to the top list. If there are others for evolution, please mark.

ME: If there was any exact science in evolution it would explain, and prove where the emotions started to arrive in the tree of life. The human has the most complex set of emotions of any of the animal kind, we also have failures in these emotions, and we have many theories on the value, function, mental driving force of these emotions and, in fact emotions have been the driving force for the establishment of other science disciplines. When you take all that into account, then one would consider how previous animals could survive without all this future science.

As with creation, evolution needs to admit that the random, non directional process of the tree of life cannot apply to the massive intellect, and logical application from the humans that evolutionists place their faith in, the scientists. If it is not the scientists it must be another super intelligent being that has run the tree of life in all its glory, and the universe in all its balance, and all thought in its manner of understanding...Don't ya' reckon.

No, I don't reckon so. All you have here is argument from ignorance and arrogant dismissal of the hard work of thousands of dedicated scientists over many years.

You have not justified your assertions, you have just appealed to your superstitions.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 11:52:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 10:59:29 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:39:20 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/14/2016 2:17:17 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
So, do fossils prove evolution? Even if we grant that every fossil looks the way it is reconstructed and that sequences demonstrating evolution really do exist, fossils cannot count as evidence for evolution. They can merely be consistent with evolutionary theory (which they aren"t!) " not evidence for the theory. Why is this so? No-one can know if any fossil is related. And because of this, we cannot know if one particular fossil evolved from another. If we cannot know that one particular fossil evolved from another, we cannot use them as proof that one fossil evolved from another (aka evolution)!

Now some may say that similarities between organisms determine relationships. In other words, similar organisms are probably related. But this reasoning falls flat. Many similarities exist between the marsupial mouse and the placental mouse. However, evolutionary scientists believe that the placental mouse and the horse are more closely related than the placental mouse and the marsupial mouse. In this instance, and in many others, similarities do not equate to relatedness. The argument from similarity as evidence for relatedness is a dead end.

http://evolutiondismantled.com...

ME: The fossil record is very limited and among the thousands of fossils found most are fragments and of no use in comparing with other life forms.

From reading the information, It is deduced that fossils are found, mainly, in sedimentary rock, which occurs at one level, although at different depths in the earth structure.

How do you get sedimentary rock? From solidification of sediment of course, sediment is caused by the rock elements being in a large wash of water and settling after the water has subsided.

Sedimentary rock is found at many heights in the earth structure, but it also dates the fossils there-in as being at the same time period, thus it would be impossible to find transitional fossils that evolution says takes millions of years to occur.

An example to prove that fossils are found at all levels are the fossil finds of sea shells on the top of mountains..Of course, Noah's flood could also contribute to the dispersion of sea creatures and shells.

Evolution, with only a 200 year history and the invention of many sciences, has not proved itself at all.

Just as there is mass confusion with religion there is the same confusion within the sciences , which include:

Natural sciences, the study of the natural phenomena;
Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and societies.
Natural sciences
Astronomy, the study of celestial objects and phenomena that are outside the Earth's atmosphere, e.g. stars, the cosmos, etc.
Biology, the study of life.
Ecology and Environmental science, the studies of the interrelationships of life and the environment.
Chemistry, the study of the composition, chemical reactivity, structure, and properties of matter and with the (physical and chemical) transformations that they undergo.
Earth science, the study of earth and specialties including:
Geology
Hydrology
Meteorology
Science-based or Physical Geography and Oceanography
Soil science
Physics, the study of the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces and interactions they exert on one another, and the results produced by these forces.
The main social sciences include:

Anthropology
Communication
Cultural studies
Economics
Education
Geography
History
Linguistics
Political science
Psychology )
Social policy
Sociology
Development studies
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have made some notation from the bottom list to be added to the top list. If there are others for evolution, please mark.

ME: If there was any exact science in evolution it would explain, and prove where the emotions started to arrive in the tree of life. The human has the most complex set of emotions of any of the animal kind, we also have failures in these emotions, and we have many theories on the value, function, mental driving force of these emotions and, in fact emotions have been the driving force for the establishment of other science disciplines. When you take all that into account, then one would consider how previous animals could survive without all this future science.

As with creation, evolution needs to admit that the random, non directional process of the tree of life cannot apply to the massive intellect, and logical application from the humans that evolutionists place their faith in, the scientists. If it is not the scientists it must be another super intelligent being that has run the tree of life in all its glory, and the universe in all its balance, and all thought in its manner of understanding...Don't ya' reckon.

No, I don't reckon so. All you have here is argument from ignorance and arrogant dismissal of the hard work of thousands of dedicated scientists over many years.

You have not justified your assertions, you have just appealed to your superstitions.

ME: You fit t he descriptive saying..."There are none so blind as those that do not want to see".
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 12:04:44 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/8/2016 4:34:29 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Did Evolution of all living organisms provide for a conscience?
Unlikely, since some organisms don't even have brains.

Do Atheists, agnostics and Evolutionists have a conscience, and If yes, what is the criteria of that conscience.
We seem to. Our conscience seems to be a product of psychosocial development, meaning it's formed in part by the way humans mature psychologically, and in part by the way society educates them.

Since our development may not care whether our education is religious or secular, there's no reason to suppose that religious education in ethics, civics and human understanding does anything more than a secular education does in the same. Equally, there's no reason to suppose that a cruel, ignorant, unjust religious education (say) should produce a healthier outcome for individuals and society than a kind, wise, respectful secular education -- and there's quite a lot of scientific evidence now that it doesn't.

I am asking on the premise that evolution does not seem to have a conscience gene, nor, in the telling of the evolution fables would it need one.
We know that altruism occurs in multiple species, and so do tendencies to cooperate, tolerate, sacrifice, be loyal, seek approval, comfort, be comforted -- many of the traits we associate with conscience.

How much of this develops genetically and how much behaviourally is still being explored.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 9:02:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
As I ask questions, and get the guessed answers, I find that further questions arise.

The average age for humans today is set at around 70 years. we may each older age, but the average is as stated.

If we all come into existence via an evolution process that contained the genetic structure of all the animals, including humans, do animals live at a varying age limit. This age limit can be as much as a hundred of years or more for the animal and stay the same average for the 'Far more improved human variety?

And, why do the magical scientist have no understanding of why Humans deteriorate into old age, or even when old age starts?

Aging is again one of the intangibles that evolution cannot hope to explain. But try, if you are brave.