Why did man evolve an...........

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

appreciation for art and music? I just can't see how those abilities fit well with the whole "survival of the fittest" concept. The only explanation I can think of is those abilities are simply byproducts of the ability to recognize patterns. However that explanation just doesn't feel right. We appreciate art and music too much for it to be a byproduct.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I've bolded the fallacies in your argument. My point being, even if you personally can't think of plausible explanations, this is not an argument against evolution. In fact, even if it were true that no one had yet thought of plausible explanations, that still would not be an argument against evolution.

Do you see why?

Just because we cannot think of plausible mechanisms (yet) to fill the gaps in our understanding of the universe does not logically imply that you get to spackle those holes up with God. And what kind of God is it that you want, that he is ever-shrinking as our scientific knowledge is ever-growing?



[/ QUOTE ]

"WE DON'T KNOW YET, BUT WE'RE RIGHT IN OUR METHOD SO STAY THE COURSE"? "wE ARE THE KEEPERS OF THE KINGDOM"?

This is tantamount to positing that God which you decry.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. Given your inability to even quote properly, I'm sure this will be a waste of time, but I will try anyway.

Evolutionary theory is constructed from a few well established scientific truths and logic, nothing more. From a previous post:

[ QUOTE ]
This is a question for NotReady and anyone else who would care to answer. In another thread NotReady claimed that "atheistic" evolution wasn't science (I'm not sure what "atheistic" has to do with it--is that like atheistic gravity or atheistic plate tectonics?).

So let me pose this question. If you have:

a) Self-replicators organisms whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism), and

b) The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made), and

c) Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all), and

d) The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype, then

Evolution is inevitable.

So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?


[/ QUOTE ]

God, on the other hand, is not based on any well established scientific truths, nor on logic. Hence, the two are very, very different.

[ QUOTE ]
The difficulty is that modern science has separated itself from knowledge of those three attributes of consideration.

They are the "GOOD", the "BEAUTY", and the "TRUE".

The "GOOD" in that science is bereft of any moral consideration.

The "Beauty" in that only the intellect is considered bereft of feelings.

The "TRUE" in that only a small consideration of truths are considered within their own scope in that what is considered is materially evident within abstract thinking.

We can all believe that the future is within our grasp but we don't need science to arrogate this human understanding common to all men.

[/ QUOTE ]

This all seems to be mumbo-jumbo.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
Man definitely needs a transcendence that the natural world cannot provide. In the radio debate Between White and Hitchens, an interesting point is made that the greatest scientific achievements of man, such as the moon landing, have added next to nothing in terms of art and culture, but a religious figure like St. Francis of Assisi have been inspiring great works up to the present day. The mysteries of self consciousness and language have not been unlocked by science, yet create all that is beautiful. Science has produced many godless nerds who have trouble procreating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly

The fact that humanity can recognize art and appreciate it is clearly an indicator of our preordained divinity. It is just so blatantly obvious that something that appears upon shallow inspection to be be evolutionarily useless to us is inherently a sign of God. Evolution falls to pieces when it produces things without utility. For example just consider vestigial organs, crystal clear evidence that God exists and further had a sense of humor in creating the inferior creatures around us with non usable body parts or organs. Although it is overwhelmingly undeniable that God made so many birds flightless so that we could keep them as pets and eat them with such ease, perhaps the greatest evidence of God (and Jesus) to date is the banana.

I laughed for a moment at the 'sexual selection' explanation for this holy property of man, but laughter soon turned to outrage. Sexual and social selection may be responsible for the visceral attraction man has to incredibly unwieldy and impractical breast sizes and low body fat percentages that yield sterility, but it could never ever serve as an evolutionary filter on higher cognitive abilities during the development of man. Listen to me, talking about the 'development of man' like I believe in evolution anyways. Ridiculous.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Man definitely needs a transcendence that the natural world cannot provide


[/ QUOTE ]

Hitchens reminded me of Dawkins' opening in The God Delusion. No matter how much science discovers you still can't reduce man to a random flow of atoms - even those who believe that's all we are can't escape their true nature, the imago Dei.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionary theory is constructed from a few well established scientific truths and logic, nothing more. From a previous post

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand perfectly. In the first place THIS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY is based upon well established(ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT YOU BELIEVE) HYPOTHESES and subsequent to this logic (which can lead you anywhere you want) leads to ERROR.It may sound good or even feel good because it is easy and facile but deadly wrong.

Relate to my third position of the "mumbo jumbo" and see that dealing with TRUTH the evolutionary theory of Darwin,et.all. depends upon a material basis of life conjured out of an abstract thinking which not only denies TRUTH but also the considerations of the BEAUTIFUL and the GOOD.

There are two approaches to understanding. One is the EXTERNAL for which the materialists claim the lead today but there is also the INTERNAL UNDERSTANDING of Man himself. Serious consideration of the EXTERNAL will lead one to realize that this very understanding is related to Man's understanding of his internal self. One thinks and brings a concept to life out of oneself. Once one sees that these very concepts come from within ones thinking then the study of thought is necessary and can be accomplished with the same rigor as modern science purports to accomplish.

To look out into nature without thought is merely to be an observer in the world. The moment one thinks about matters he enters into the realm of pure thought and from this TRUTH can come about.

To count and chop and weigh matter is not science but a science that has not come to grip with MATTER and flees from this matter and produces abstract thought which is devoid of life. this is dead thought and thinking. This also why it is devoid of the TRUTH, the BEAUTIFUL, and the GOOD.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionary theory is constructed from a few well established scientific truths and logic, nothing more. From a previous post

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand perfectly. In the first place THIS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY is based upon well established(ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT YOU BELIEVE) HYPOTHESES

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Didn't actually read the post, did you? So, which of these do you disagree with:
[*] Self-replicating organisms exist, whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism).
[*] The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made).
[*] Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all).
[*] The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to some extent on phenotype.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Relate to my third position of the "mumbo jumbo" and see that dealing with TRUTH the evolutionary theory of Darwin,et.all. depends upon a material basis of life conjured out of an abstract thinking which not only denies TRUTH but also the considerations of the BEAUTIFUL and the GOOD.

There are two approaches to understanding. One is the EXTERNAL for which the materialists claim the lead today but there is also the INTERNAL UNDERSTANDING of Man himself. Serious consideration of the EXTERNAL will lead one to realize that this very understanding is related to Man's understanding of his internal self. One thinks and brings a concept to life out of oneself. Once one sees that these very concepts come from within ones thinking then the study of thought is necessary and can be accomplished with the same rigor as modern science purports to accomplish.

To look out into nature without thought is merely to be an observer in the world. The moment one thinks about matters he enters into the realm of pure thought and from this TRUTH can come about.

To count and chop and weigh matter is not science but a science that has not come to grip with MATTER and flees from this matter and produces abstract thought which is devoid of life. this is dead thought and thinking. This also why it is devoid of the TRUTH, the BEAUTIFUL, and the GOOD.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, nevermind. You appear to be a kook. Have a nice life.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Didn't actually read the post, did you? So, which of these do you disagree with:


Self-replicating organisms exist, whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism).


The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made).


Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all).


The differential reproductive success of individuals replicators within the population depends to some extent on phenotype.



[/ QUOTE ]

I really do get it, honest I do. What you are saying is that evolution has "marks" from which furthur structures, behaviors( ???this is really specious) etc. come out of. Then you say there are ERRORS which will produce something different.

I say to you that the thinking involved here is that from which HEREDITY IS COGNATED. So you are not exactly your parents because of ERRORS or is another word for this MUTATIONS. This concept of change is similar to the "Deus Ex Machina" which ws the device used by the ancient Greeks during their plays in which a machine was used to portray an act of the gods only they saw that realm in which this Darwinist bubble denies. You are positing matter into matter and it falls flat on its face. NO amount of microscopic evaluation of this focus of creativity can come about via matter as posited by the materialistic scientists. You might as well say that legs create legs or arms arms and in fact it would make more sense.

[Borodog]

I get it. You're a loon. Have a nice life. You win. I concede. It's all "COGNATED." Or whatever. Truth, Beauty, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. A Fistful of Fruitcake.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
get it. You're a loon. Have a nice life. You win. I concede. It's all "COGNATED." Or whatever. Truth, Beauty, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. A Fistful of Fruitcake.

Post Extras:


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, this type of fight does no good. On my part, the difficulties are obvious. I wish you well.

carlo

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
I say to you that the thinking involved here is that from which HEREDITY IS COGNATED.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol