Evolution or Creation?

[Flamingo]

Someday that spaceship will land/crash on earth and inside will be another written book or tablet from another civilization somewhere out there...who knows...live life to it's fullest and love your family and friends - life is too short.

Great postings HHM....

[HHM]

Here are some thoughts

1. The spark of consciousness, or self awareness. I don't see that evolution could produce it. If it produced it in humans, shouldn't we expect to see it elsewhere. It is just so unique and a huge advantage, I don't see that a random system of natural selection could produce it.

2. There are compatibilities between evolution and creation.

a. A common argument is that if you believe creationism, you have to believe in incest; well guess what, if you believe in evolution, you must believe the same thing. Even in evolution there is an Adam and an eve.

b. Long life. The bible speaks of some people (pre flood) living for 900 years. Genetics has demonstrated that such a life span is "possible". Whether people actually lived that long is another issue, but as far as "science" is concerned, such a life span is not impossible.

Ultimately, I am a compatablist, I really don't see inconsitancies between creationism and evolution or the big bang theory. Adam and Eve are both necessary for creationism and evolution, it was mankind that named the animals and have exercised dominion over them. Belief in evolution requires nearly the same amount of faith as belief in god.

After all, evolution only demonstrates diversty of species (natural selection); we have no direct evidene of evolution to or from Family, Order, Class Phylum, or Kingdom (look up the 7 biologic classifications).

[Bandit]

1. The spark of consciousness, or self awareness. I don't see that evolution could produce it. If it produced it in humans, shouldn't we expect to see it elsewhere.

If everything stayed the same with humans except give them four paws instead of hands & feet and stay upright, humans would not be able to do half of what we do with hands. It may be possible to train the toes & mouth & arms yet they will never grip guns and weapons for battle. Then remove the toungue...

I feel the same intelligence & self awareness is found in animals only they are not able to do everything or say it as humans do because they are built different. I also feel that animals can choose or not choose virtue the same way humans choose virtue or not.

That would be a good enough reason for egyptians to cut out the tongues of certain people. They would never again be able to express themselves through speech. Today if I had paws instead of fingers I would not be able to type these words so quickly, that does not mean I don't know what they mean.

Just a thought.

[HHM]

I feel the same intelligence & self awareness

Well, that is a highly debatable point and certainly "science" disagrees with it. We may be equivocating on the meaning of those terms, so we may need a short essay to define them adequately so that we are not talking past each other (but I don't want to write it).

I am not saying that animals don't have reason...but I think self-awareness, the spark of consciousness, the ability to adapt to ones environment are supremely and uniquely human traits. Higher animals have spacial awareness, can anticipate, and solve rudimentary problems. But, animals do not evolve (i.e. grow and adapt) within their species; Beavers have been building the "same" dams for 5000 years, Lions still hunt the same way they did 5000 years ago. Thus, that is why I say self awareness is the key human trait, the ability to recognize yourself in the envinronment, as both part of but dinstinct from the environment. Animals do not have that characteristic. It is such a superior characteristic, I do not think randomn mutations would have caused it. It's one thing for a bird to get a slightly longer beek to dig for insects that burrow deep in the ground, but for a randomn mutation to create a being with self-awareness, I don't think so. And at least so far, science still hasn't figured it out.

[Flamingo]

Well, that is a highly debatable point and certainly "science" disagrees with it. We may be equivocating on the meaning of those terms, so we may need a short essay to define them adequately so that we are not talking past each other (but I don't want to write it).

I am not saying that animals don't have reason...but I think self-awareness, the spark of consciousness, the ability to adapt to ones environment are supremely and uniquely human traits. Higher animals have spacial awareness, can anticipate, and solve rudimentary problems. But, animals do not evolve (i.e. grow and adapt) within their species; Beavers have been building the "same" dams for 5000 years, Lions still hunt the same way they did 5000 years ago. Thus, that is why I say self awareness is the key human trait, the ability to recognize yourself in the envinronment, as both part of but dinstinct from the environment. Animals do not have that characteristic. It is such a superior characteristic, I do not think randomn mutations would have caused it. It's one thing for a bird to get a slightly longer beek to dig for insects that burrow deep in the ground, but for a randomn mutation to create a being with self-awareness, I don't think so. And at least so far, science still hasn't figured it out.

Man's brain evolved when he became upright at the time he was forced out of the trees and onto the plains in order to survive and gather food (during one of the major climate changes). He had to start thinking and planning in order to survive - his skull grew to accomodate his growing brain and his body adjusted to walking upright and to utilize tools to hunt. The Discovery Channel and the National Geographic Channel recently have had some marvelous programming on the development of the human species. The major climate changes on earth that have taken place over the past millions of years have completely wiped out species and regenerated new ones to survive to the new climates. It is a continual process and one that is occuring now as to global warming (although man made and not natural) as to the polar bears and other species that need cold to survive. Either the species will become extinct or evolve to be able to survive in a warmer climate.

[Bandit]

Well, that is a highly debatable point and certainly "science" disagrees with it.

Everything about this stuff is debatable. Science has to disagree with it or else they wont be able to continue putting acid and poison into animals eyes and burning them alive, promoting cancer to prove something they cannot prove.

When did science prove they do not have self awareness? I watch a mother racoon for three years raise her babies & teach them virtue and how to stay alive & in fact was more decent to them then some humans are to their own offspring.

But, animals do not evolve (i.e. grow and adapt) within their species; Beavers have been building the "same" dams for 5000 years, Lions still hunt the same way they did 5000 years ago.

& birds build nests the same way & they do a great job at it so why change?
Some humans still live in caves just like they did thousands of years ago.

I see your point but animals do not speak & do not go to human school, but if they could ask questions & speak the language and could pound nails into boards with their hands... (they are smarter than humans give them credit for). Did you not ask thousands of questions to get from K to 12?...they already know how to fetch anything you tell them. Some know the difference in colors & some are aware of quantity as one in K.

When you call a human by name do they answer? choose to answer? & choose to disregard? So do animals.

Take away the human weapons & cages & chains of bondage, built by their hands, & humans will lose. In that sense, I would agree, that animals do not evolve to destroy each other for greed to rule the tiny blue planet.

[Bandit]

It is a continual process and one that is occuring now as to global warming (although man made and not natural) as to the polar bears and other species that need cold to survive. Either the species will become extinct or evolve to be able to survive in a warmer climate.

That is a perspective I like the least. It shows mans ignorance to what it is supposed to care for. Like killing thousands of buffalo just to rid of the indians.

Though that alone is enough to make one question that the earth while always evolving must not be in a perfect & complete harmony state as one might imagine with evolution. So what happens if all the water is contaminated? Most everything would die but over time the earth would probably find a way to heal itself unless water evaporated or it all reached a boiling point through some strange event like ozone holes & you end up with another Venus.
hmmmm...stuff I wonder about...

[HHM]

Everything about this stuff is debatable. Science has to disagree with it or else they wont be able to continue putting acid and poison into animals eyes and burning them alive, promoting cancer to prove something they cannot prove.

When did science prove they do not have self awareness? I watch a mother racoon for three years raise her babies & teach them virtue and how to stay alive & in fact was more decent to them then some humans are to their own offspring.




& birds build nests the same way & they do a great job at it so why change?
Some humans still live in caves just like they did thousands of years ago.

I see your point but animals do not speak & do not go to human school, but if they could ask questions & speak the language and could pound nails into boards with their hands... (they are smarter than humans give them credit for). Did you not ask thousands of questions to get from K to 12?...they already know how to fetch anything you tell them. Some know the difference in colors & some are aware of quantity as one in K.

When you call a human by name do they answer? choose to answer? & choose to disregard? So do animals.

Take away the human weapons & cages & chains of bondage, built by their hands, & humans will lose. In that sense, I would agree, that animals do not evolve to destroy each other for greed to rule the tiny blue planet.

That is what we call anthropomorphising, applying human characteristics to animals...but you don't really have any evidence to support it. Again, you are choosing the most base skills to support your theory, repetition is not a substitute for self-awareness. How about this, how many times have you had an insect respond to a name. Once we step outside the realm of higher mammals, your theory breaks down, so why should we assume it holds for higher mammals. Repetition is not self awareness.

if they could ask questions & speak the language and could pound nails into boards with their hands...

I particularly like this line of argument, the what if...but that is not the question, we don't care about the "what if", we care about reality, but based on other posts you have made, you don't really live in reality What evidence do you have?

As for human brain development, keep in mind, these theories are reversed engineered, they are explanations to support a point of view, it is not evidence. We have no "direct" evidence. These "theories" rely on reversed engineered facts to support a point of view that actually has no evidential support, i.e. manipulating facts to support a theory instead of using facts to create a theory.

Take away the human weapons & cages & chains of bondage, built by their hands, & humans will lose

Why such a negative view. Aren't those they same hands that put a roof over your head, create art, tell stories, ponder at beauty, ponder the nature of the universe, wonder about purpose, ask "why"...find an animal that can do all those things, and you might change my mind.

I think you are playing devils advocate, but at least do a better job of it

[Bandit]

That is what we call anthropomorphising, applying human characteristics to animals...but you don't really have any evidence to support it. Again, you are choosing the most base skills to support your theory, repetition is not a substitute for self-awareness. How about this, how many times have you had an insect respond to a name. Once we step outside the realm of higher mammals, your theory breaks down, so why should we assume it holds for higher mammals. Repetition is not self awareness.

I particularly like this line of argument, the what if...but that is not the question, we don't care about the "what if", we care about reality, but based on other posts you have made, you don't really live in reality What evidence do you have?

As for human brain development, keep in mind, these theories are reversed engineered, they are explanations to support a point of view, it is not evidence. We have no "direct" evidence. These "theories" rely on reversed engineered facts to support a point of view that actually has no evidential support, i.e. manipulating facts to support a theory instead of using facts to create a theory.




I think you are playing devils advocate, but at least do a better job of it

You are doing a great job at avoiding my questions

What you are saying is that when winter comes & humans gather wood to keep warm because they know they will die if they don't stock up and do their yearly & daily repititions- that means they have no self awareness because repition is required to stay alive. Repition is behavior & is indeed in many ways a valid example of self awareness.

That is a real bad example, HHM


Does that mean that human repititions make them not self aware? Does that mean that when humans have needs for survival of themself & their families and for the survival of their species, makes them not self aware? because they do repitious behavior? and if they don't they will die.

The what if is not an argument. It is a valid question.

I was never in reference to insects specifically, I think you know that though we could certainly bring in the 17 year cicada into question.

it is not anthropomorphising. it is showing that anyone who observes the animal kingdom knows that humans & animals do the same exact things (except animals do not destroy the earth for greed). There is astounding evidence & you can reverse it all day long...you cannot change the animal kingdom & humans are no more than an animal (of whom some feel they are above all other humans & animals, but they are not)

Why such a negative view. Aren't those they same hands that put a roof over your head, create art, tell stories, ponder at beauty, ponder the nature of the universe, wonder about purpose, ask "why"...find an animal that can do all those things, and you might change my mind.

no. they are not the same hands. the hands of greed who spread war & death & who shed innocent blood for personal gain only, are not the same hands that enjoy life, create art, tell stories & ponder the universe. It has nothing to do with being negative.

I am going out of town for 5 days but we can talk on this some more when I get back next sunday/monday.

In the meantime, you define what makes humans self aware. Here is what one dictionary says:

adj.
Aware of oneself, including one's traits, feelings, and behaviors.

and you have not proven that what I have said & questioned is not true therefore my points are all still valid.

[Flamingo]

That is a perspective I like the least. It shows mans ignorance to what it is supposed to care for. Like killing thousands of buffalo just to rid of the indians.

Though that alone is enough to make one question that the earth while always evolving must not be in a perfect & complete harmony state as one might imagine with evolution. So what happens if all the water is contaminated? Most everything would die but over time the earth would probably find a way to heal itself unless water evaporated or it all reached a boiling point through some strange event like ozone holes & you end up with another Venus.
hmmmm...stuff I wonder about...

No matter what we do or what is done, man must leave this "Galaxy" in order to survive. I am not talking about our solar system, the entire Milky Way Galaxy. One of two events will occur first to destroy earth; the first will probably be the death of our sun. As it dies, it will be become a red giant expanding in size so far out as to hit the orbit of Venus. Earth will fry during that process. The second event that will probably occur close to that time or shortly thereafter is the collision of the Milky Way and Androemeda Galaxies. Earth, if it is still around at that time, could survive as a fried planet or be totally destroyed as a new Galaxy forms from the collision.

Man is greedy and, unlike most animals, does not plan to survive very well. Squirrels and other animals gather nuts, etc. to survive long winters where man just depletes and throws away thinking there is no end to available resources. One wonders if the human race will even survive to become intelligent enough in time to leave this planet and start anew and have enough resources left to do so....

[HHM]

Bandit, the flaw with pretty much all your argument on any topic is you assume a "question" is a type of argument. It isn't. The burden is really on your to prove your point. Again, were back to you trying to force the other side to prove a negative. That is a debate tactic, not an argument. You haven't proved that animals are self-aware, the fact that animals can respond to stimuli (and so can humans) does not make them self-aware.

Keep in mind, I am not saying higher mammals and humans are in no way similar, which you seem to assume so, I am saying we have crucial differences that set us apart in ways that cannot be accounted for by natural selection.

Also, all those "negative" traits you point out, actually help to support my position. Again, are things like greed, war, etc, are those traits present in animals...well, not in the way we normally think of greed...not in the moral sense. Sure, animals fight over food, but do we call that "greed". That moral awareness both of you point out...is a part of being "self aware". Thank you for making my argument for me

[angie1313]

If you believe this story, then the world human population must have started to grow by family incest (you figure out the possibilities).

That would and could explain alot...like Yankee fans...lol

[JollyGG]

Everything about this stuff is debatable. Science has to disagree with it or else they wont be able to continue putting acid and poison into animals eyes and burning them alive, promoting cancer to prove something they cannot prove.

Wow, people like to believe this propaganda. You would be surprised at the amount of care, approvals, etc. etc. that has to go into doing an animal research study. You have to prove that you actually need to do the study in animals, you need to prove that there is no other way to get the information, you have use the fewest animals you possibly can, you need to insure that the animals never undergo any unnecessary pain, you need to make sure that they receive enrichment (entertainment), you need give them socialization. Trust me while the stories you may have heard probably happened in the past, they are rare, Research with animals is highly regulated.

If you don't follow the rules your data is viewed as invalid. Since researchers want to get published and want to have there research know they are not going to invalidate their own research by using animals improperly. See some of these sites about animal use and care requirements for research http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/index.shtml, http://www.csupomona.edu/~research/a...%20Animals.pdf, http://www.aalas.org/index.aspx to learn about just some of the regulations that researchers who use animals follow.

[CompTweaker]

hmmmm, I cant prove or disprove that there is a god..(my brother is athiest and we have had a few debates)...but I do know there is good and evil. I also feel that "feeling" when you're doing something right or something wrong, not that I do wrong things, (well if you count cursing, drinking, sex outside of marriage, and sometimes lying to save hurting someone's feelings) but I catch myself trying to comprehend things like "how can they be so evil to do that" when watching or reading the news. Maybe it's a genetic disposition that I can't do bad things to people but others can, I don't know. I can't even comprehend the thoughts that must be going through some of those people!

And sometimes I think "spirituality" is just what it is and doesn't really need a certain religion or explanation for it. I choose to not practice any religion because most of them want to beat up on each other and argue who's right. I mean look at the wars and killings based on religion.

I once had a coworker who was usually a pretty good guy, got picked on a lot because he was big and didn't stand up for himself too much....plus he drank a lot and came into work hung over quite often. But he and I had a little talk about it one day and he told me "You know, there might not be a god or anything out there at all, but I would rather die knowing I believed than to take that chance of not believing and risk not going to heaven". And then i'm like, "yea, but what about the good people like me just searching for answers about if there really is a heaven or not, and what religion to believe in"?

I dont know if there is a god, cant prove it, cant disprove it. But there is good and evil, thats obvious. So hopefully if there really is a god and there is an afterlife that seperates the good from evil, maybe I'll stand at heavens gate with a big question mark stamped on my forehead and will be allowed to say..."um yep, now I believe it".....haha

[Bandit]

Bandit, the flaw with pretty much all your argument on any topic is you assume a "question" is a type of argument. It isn't. The burden is really on your to prove your point. Again, were back to you trying to force the other side to prove a negative. That is a debate tactic, not an argument. You haven't proved that animals are self-aware, the fact that animals can respond to stimuli (and so can humans) does not make them self-aware.

Five days and that is the best you can do?

The flaw pretty much with your argument is that you make a blanket statement as an OP. It isn't. As if it were fact and you still have not proved that animals are not self aware. you cannot even define what it means to humans and I know why. Your deliberate attempt to avoid all questions asked, tells me that if you actually answered the questions, the next set of questions would put you into default.
Negatives are proven every day. If you are going to claim that something does not exist as factual, then the burden of proof is upon you to prove it does not exist.

Keep in mind, I am not saying higher mammals and humans are in no way similar, which you seem to assume so, I am saying we have crucial differences that set us apart in ways that cannot be accounted for by natural selection.

This has nothing to do with it.

Also, all those "negative" traits you point out, actually help to support my position. Again, are things like greed, war, etc, are those traits present in animals...well, not in the way we normally think of greed...not in the moral sense. Sure, animals fight over food, but do we call that "greed". That moral awareness both of you point out...is a part of being "self aware". Thank you for making my argument for me

No, it does not support your blanket statement. All it proves is that some some humans are more ignorant than others. I never said animals are not greedy. What I said was, animals are not so greedy to destroy the earth. You also have no facts that animals do not have their own set of morals and moral awareness.
I would ask several more questions that you will diligently avoid.
Please try again.

Well, that is a highly debatable point and certainly "science" disagrees with it. We may be equivocating on the meaning of those terms, so we may need a short essay to define them adequately so that we are not talking past each other (but I don't want to write it).

Exactly. You do not want to define it, explore it or answer any or ask any questions. To define it, wont work for humans any more than it will work for animals. How many animals do you have right now? How many animals have you raised from birth? Have you ever lived on a farm? Do you hunt? What is your total time devoted to exploring the animals kingdom?

Oh ....that is right...you don't do questions
That will also depend on which scientist you ask as it has not been defined and we know why. The only definitions so far is called 'taboo'. There are plenty of scientists who will disagree.

There are hundreds of millions who are non scientists who will also disagree because science does nto have the answer or proof for everything.