Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[evolution]

And who and/or what were those "marks" and "spencer" things created by?

I think you assume too much.

To me, asking clarifying questions from a Truly OPEN perspective is the EXACT OPPOSITE of making an assumption.

How did that OPEN clarifying question lead you to think that I assume to much?

Where do you think I have made one assumption, let alone "assumed too much".

Eventually you get to a point where the green slime on the surface of a planet just got greener through nature.

So, are you suggesting that EVERY thing evolved or was created through and by, or because of, Nature, Itself?

[Sculptor1]

I think you assume too much.

To me, asking clarifying questions from a Truly OPEN perspective is the EXACT OPPOSITE of making an assumption.

How did that OPEN clarifying question lead you to think that I assume to much?

Where do you think I have made one assumption, let alone "assumed too much".

Eventually you get to a point where the green slime on the surface of a planet just got greener through nature.

So, are you suggesting that EVERY thing evolved or was created through and by, or because of, Nature, Itself?

The question assumes something was created. That is not an open question at all. It is a very narrow minded closed question, that assumes that something such as a carrot emerged on earth in much the same way as a carrot cake. We know the latter was created intentionally, but we have no warrant to suggest that a carrot was made in the same way. In fact we have evidence to demonstrate that a carrot can spontaneously emerge from the ground without help.

[Faustus5]

LOL another prime example of how assuming and/or believing one already knows the truth BEFORE actually finding out what thee actual Truth IS can lead them completely and utterly astray.

No, it is just me seeing through your BS. You aren't fooling anyone.

[evolution]

To me, asking clarifying questions from a Truly OPEN perspective is the EXACT OPPOSITE of making an assumption.

How did that OPEN clarifying question lead you to think that I assume to much?

Where do you think I have made one assumption, let alone "assumed too much".



So, are you suggesting that EVERY thing evolved or was created through and by, or because of, Nature, Itself?

The question assumes something was created.

Is there an example of a thing that was not created?

Also, are you suggesting that those "spencer" and "marks" things were not created?

By the way, why are you not answering my OPEN clarifying questions, which are being posed to you.

Are you suggesting that EVERY thing evolved was created through and by Nature Itself, or are you NOT?

That is not an open question at all.

If that is what you believe is true, then it must be true, to you, correct?

It is a very narrow minded closed question, that assumes that something such as a carrot emerged on earth in much the same way as a carrot cake.

Is that what you are assuming?

That was CERTAINLY NOT what I was assuming.

All I did was just ask you to clarify who and/or what created those "marks" and "spencer" things.

Did those "marks" and "spencer" things, to you, emerge on earth more like a carrot does or more like a carrot cake does? If you ever get around to answering my question, and thus clarifying, then all of these other unnecessary topics of discussions, which you are bringing up, would not be needed here now.

We know the latter was created intentionally, but we have no warrant to suggest that a carrot was made in the same way.

We would be able to suggest whether a carrot was created intentionally or not, if and when we know if someone intentionally seeded the ground to create a carrot. People just need to be OPEN and Honest, in this regard.

So, if you ever get around to answering my OPEN clarifying question, then we would know MORE, as well, about who and/or what created "marks" and "spencer", and whether you are suggesting that EVERY thing is created by Nature, Itself, through evolution or not.

In fact we have evidence to demonstrate that a carrot can spontaneously emerge from the ground without help.

Well that carrot obviously did need SOME help. A carrot, like absolutely ANY thing else, does not just appear, without any 'help'. Obviously, absolutely EVERY thing needs the help of at least two prior things coming together for it to emerge, or coming into being, and thus to be created and evolve.

[evolution]

LOL another prime example of how assuming and/or believing one already knows the truth BEFORE actually finding out what thee actual Truth IS can lead them completely and utterly astray.

No, it is just me seeing through your BS. You aren't fooling anyone.

Double LOL.

What do you assume and propose is my "bs" exactly?

[Faustus5]

What do you assume and propose is my "bs" exactly?

Your BS is the suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is found in the Bible. That's utter and complete nonsense, and the only reason why you won't back up this crazy idea is because there is literally nothing in the Bible to bring up that would support it.

You know this, but instead of doing the grown up thing, which would be to admit you were wrong/engaging in hyperbole, you pretend that you COULD quote scripture but won't because no one will listen to you.

You aren't fooling anyone.

[Sy Borg]

viewtopic.php?p=359448#p359448
viewtopic.php?p=359491#p359491

Darwin deny this axiom and offer this philosophy that the nature and the beings in it are included a continuous evolution autonomously. This philosophy is opposite to the axiom that says the regularity and orders in the objects is not accidentally and every regularity needs an intelligent regulator.

Hi Mans. I see from your posts that you're making the classic argument by analogy with human design, often associated with William Paley and his watchmaker analogy. It's been discussed here many, many, many times before. Have you discussed it previously with others? If so, what kinds of arguments against it did you encounter? Were any of them interesting? Given that it's such a well worn subject it would be interesting to try to find a new angle.

It's a false dichotomy anyway. Evolution is accidental in its details but certainly not random over time. Evolution is ultimately pragmatic. Darwin referred to "survival of the fittest" but I think evolution as theory's greatest flaw is it does not go far enough. For instance, what of the "evolution" (scare quotes are only for the pedantic amongst us) of simple chemicals to complex ones that preceded abiogenesis?

I see evolution as simply the gestation, growth and development of the biosphere as a whole. We think we are all separate, but we all stemmed from LUCA. In that sense, we are the entity we called LUCA, who is now about four billion years old, and has grown innumerable new structures over that time. But that is just limiting one's views to biology because the Earth's geology has been evolving too, ditto the solar system, the galaxy, and I expect that Laniakea is evolving too.

[evolution]

What do you assume and propose is my "bs" exactly?

Your BS is the suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is found in the Bible. That's utter and complete nonsense, and the only reason why you won't back up this crazy idea is because there is literally nothing in the Bible to bring up that would support it.

If you believe that that is the 'only' reason, then that must be the truth, to you.

You know this, but instead of doing the grown up thing, which would be to admit you were wrong/engaging in hyperbole, you pretend that you COULD quote scripture but won't because no one will listen to you.

Again, if you believe that this is true, then it must be, correct?

You aren't fooling anyone.

Okay, if you say so, then it must be true, to you. Am I right?

[Mans]

Please don't go a long way, note me! I,m one of the proofs and signs of God that probably you are seeking for!

Note my intelligence and logic, how I'm talking with you pleasantly?!

You may think it is me that I'm talking with you, or it is my own talent, capability and intelligence that you observe in my words!

Yes, I'm a human but not an independent beings with his own abilities.

I'm like a piece of a broken mirror that reflects a light! The amount of the light that I reflect is corresponding of my size (capabilities).

Or I'm like a flag that is shaken by wind!

My motion is not by myself but something is moving me from beyond that you can't see it.

I call it something in the example but it is correct I call him someone; a permanent live existence that everything, every energy, every ability and every life comes from him.

Now, you suppose the light is from the piece of the mirror or the flag moves by itself, while you can't see the source of the light and movement.

The capability of every human is dependent on the capacity of his intellect and knowledge and clearness of his spirit. A larger piece of a clear mirror can reflect more light. Also the mirror should be flat (honest) to show the objects and light as they are.

A concave or convex mirror shows the objects and light untruly. Also a dark piece of a mirror can't show anything or any light exactly. The clearness of a human does mean, being free from wrong desires and tendencies).

[Steve3007]

It's a false dichotomy anyway. Evolution is accidental in its details but certainly not random over time. Evolution is ultimately pragmatic. Darwin referred to "survival of the fittest" but I think evolution as theory's greatest flaw is it does not go far enough. For instance, what of the "evolution" (scare quotes are only for the pedantic amongst us) of simple chemicals to complex ones that preceded abiogenesis?

I think it depends on the sense in which we're using the word "evolution" at any given time. In the broadest sense that I can think of, it simply refers to any kind of change. Any changing physical system can be, and is, referred to as evolving. But that doesn't mean that it can't also be used in more specific contexts. Back to semantics again!

I see evolution as simply the gestation, growth and development of the biosphere as a whole. We think we are all separate, but we all stemmed from LUCA. In that sense, we are the entity we called LUCA, who is now about four billion years old, and has grown innumerable new structures over that time. But that is just limiting one's views to biology because the Earth's geology has been evolving too, ditto the solar system, the galaxy, and I expect that Laniakea is evolving too.

Again, I see no problem in seeing it as that if you're using a fairly general sense of the word "evolution". Yes, we are (the evidence suggests) all evolved from a LUCA, so, yes, in that sense we are not separate. Or you could say that we are all parts of the Earth's crust, so in that sense we are not separate. But in some other senses, clearly we are separate.

But the trouble with statements of the form "we think we're all separate but..." is that it seems to imply, to some people, that there is a binary, mutually exclusive choice between two worldviews, one of which says "everything is part of a whole" and the other of which says "there are separate things", and so those people will have pointless arguments with you about that because they don't acknowledge the context in which you say what you say.

[Steve3007]

Please don't go a long way, note me!

A quick linguistic point. Does the above mean:

"Please don't ignore my posts. Read what they have to say."?

[Mans]

Of course we human sometimes become self-importance. You actually had a good point about me. I speak honestly; I should analyze myself to see whether my comment was for attracting the attention of others to myself or it was just for enlightening?!

Satan is very trickster and does fine and stealthily. I'm worried he has deceived me to bring myself as an example in the comment. please let me I review my comment again to analyze my purpose... If it is the same that you opined I will be sorry for myself that was deceived and trapped in self-importance instead of relating the proofs of God.

But there is a probability that I spoke absolutely about God without self-showing. I hope it is so.

[Steve3007]

Of course we human sometimes become self-importance...

Do we? Okay. I wasn't talking about anybody being being self-important, or trying to attract attention, or being tricked by Satan. I was just asking what you meant by a sentence.

[Mans]

No, I didn't mean you, rather I became suspicious about myself and my purpose.

My philosophy and examples were true, but I though, did my purpose was honestly against God or I was going to pose or show myself or my skill in discussion?! In fact my suspected intention made me uneasy and regretful.

I'm blaming my ego, why I exampled myself as a sign of God? Why didn't I express this issue otherwise without bringing myself as an example?

Theology is in its place, but sometime Satan excite a person to speak about theology while the intention of the speaker is not God but his purpose is that to show himself as a knowledgeable and aware person in theology!

Now, I'm very suspicious about myself that Satan has done the same with me and tempted me to bring myself as an example.

That is what has made me regretful intensely. In fact, I wanted to bring some examples about relation between God and human, not to pose myself.

[Belindi]

How does Mans know the light is God's or Satan's ?