I am sorry that you have been attacked like that but, you should avoid making claims like that in forums even if they are true. Your intelligence will often be apparent from what you post more than anything.
Exactly! On the internet anyone can claim to be anything but without substantiation it is meaningless. On the other hand the content of what one posts is what builds credibility. If the content is accurate and references accredited sources then respect will be earned in due course. In essence the only viable "currency" (for want of a better term) on the internet is credibility.
That was never claimed. No. Large change can take more time than humans have. But, we have clear evidence through fossils, dna, etc. And, there are changes that have been documented, including the arrival of new species as has been cited in this thread. Not "merely". It actually takes time and often (or usually) requires many steps to effect significant change. Again, cases of new species have been documented as they happen under conditions of professional observation. Larger changes are also well documented, but have taken place as an aggregations of numerous smaller changes over longer periods of time. Again, there is nothing tautological about that. You keep saying "no evidence", but evidence has been cited. That is not a legitimate form of debate.
I am of the belief that the first form of intelligence in the universe would exist in something like Energy from Quantum Vaccuum........ fundamental or nearly fundamental energy may be a better word for it. I believe that intelligence in fundamental energy evolved for something like eternity previous to the creation of the earth and the initiation of carbon based like on earth. So.... I believe that the first form of Abiogenesis occurred not in matter, but in energy...... nearly infinite time before that major Big Bang event of 13.72 or so billion years ago. This post is a bit long but it elaborates on my position in quite a bit of detail: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ptember-11-2001.440512/page-5#post-1068048611
I don't see evidence that intelligence is a thing. It seems more logical to me that there is a competitive advantage in making better decisions, being able to look ahead farther, being able to plan and make strategy, being able to gather evidence and analyze our environment, etc. Once there is life, it would seem inevitable that there would be a niche for brains being a significant feature while other life forms depend somewhat more on other features, such as size, speed, biological weapons (teeth, venom, claws, etc.), prodigious reproduction, ability to survive extremes, etc. It's interesting to extrapolate our understanding of intelligence, considering whether the universe is itself is intelligent, or whatever. But, it doesn't appear to me to be any kind of requirement for humans being what they are.
I guess i will let the hecklers & mockers win. I don't see any desire for a rational discussion, & i can't get anyone to follow the scientific methodology laid out in the OP. I had hoped that this could be a thoughtful, reasoned debate over the most basic question that has dogged mankind forever: 'How did we get here?' But there are too many religious bigots, who can only see & promote their own beliefs, & close their minds to any other possibilities. So i'll pick up my toys of science & reason, & run along. I never really expected this to work.. i wasn't born yesterday.. there is just too much hysteria & dogmatism among human beings, for there to be any critical examination of the scientific bases for the most deeply held core beliefs. I don't really think that this trend in dogmatic mandates of belief are a positive, for scientific inquiry, and it is a growing problem, for any empirical study. It is a blending of absurdism & naturalism, which used to be miles apart, but now seem to have found a way to live in conflicted harmony. But that is another topic. Anyway, i just don't have the patience to deal with the hostility, mocking, & ridicule, anymore. It is too hard to be rational, when faced with constant jeering & heckling on the sidelines. I find the anti-science hecklers to be like antifa.. disrupting & banning any alternate expressions that don't fit within their worldview. And just as conservatives can't have a rational debate at antifa dominated events, it seems that i cannot 'speak' openly & freely, without a constant barrage of distortions, straw men, ad hominem, & many other fallacies. This only confirms to me, the religious nature of UD, & the jihadist zeal its promoters & followers have for this belief, add to that perception. A dissenting voice is drowned out in an echo chamber of propaganda. I have better, more peaceful, & more productive things to do with my time, than face a constant flood of irrational hysteria & religious bigotry. This is certainly not a useful venue for reason or thoughtful discussion, so why even bother?
Attempts have been made and data presented that SHOULD HAVE resulted in useful and informative debate. Unfortunately YOU have eliminated this by dismissing the data rather than discussing it.
I just thought i should explain why i am not participating in my own thread... ..and, thanks for the illustration! No evidence. No data. Ad hominem.. yep, standard fare. There is no reason for me to care. Why should i? I merely attempted a rational, scientific exercise, but nobody seems interested. The fault lies with me, for presuming such a preposterous notion!
Yes, the fault does lie entirely with the OP because he started a thread about theist disinformation in the science forum. He then used theist tactics to dismiss all scientific data that exposed the fallacies of his theist disinformation. Throughout this thread the OP heckled and denigrated those who posted factual scientific information while never once actually providing a genuine scientific rebuttal to anything. That the OP has now admitted his failure and tries to blame others for his own disingenuity says volumes. Those of us who have seen this same tantrum before will be able to predict that the OP will start another theist thread in the science forum in the future with the exact same intention and it will be just as much of a failure as this one and all of the others like it in the past. Some things never change and some refuse to learn from past mistakes.
Scientific method would not suggest the discussion should progress beyond an issue as large as the very definition of your "transitions" term - a definition YOU suggest is central (though refuse to define) and on which you rely. Also, science is founded on evidence. Yet, you have dismissed evidence repeatedly without giving a justification for doing so. What do you really expect to have happen in a discussion of science if there is a problem with your premise that is that enormous and if evidence is to be discarded without very strong reasons? Frankly, I wish you would stick around, as I think we could at least make progress on how science works. After all, there ARE open questions in evolution, yet evolution remains a foundation of all modern biology. You should be curious about how science works. And, you certainly have no valid complaint about the conduct of posters in this thread.
You understand that claiming you’ve been given no evidence or data in this thread is an easily demonstrated lie right?
Computers....... especially the extremely advanced ones that could be used in AI are evidence of intelligence being perphaps somewhat like the progression of human technological capability. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...plications-of-artificial-intelligence.434082/ The Philosophical implications of Artificial Intelligence. and here is an interesting sentence....... ......
I suspect intelligence is a bad word for it. Computers will get better at solving various problems and we will provide the information and algorithms for them to do so. We'll even get computers to improve the way they solve problems - improving their own algorithms. I doubt that means they are intelligent, even though they solve problems that are very hard for humans to solve and become good at seeming to be human I think the better measure to think about might be called consciousness.. And, while I believe that comes purely from the human brain, I think we have an enormous distance to go before we create that with a machine - no matter how large or fast.
Actually.... my real point is that fundamental or nearly fundamental energy is so off the scale powerful in comparison to the greatest energies that manifest here in four dimensional space time that I cannot hardly imagine something along the line of circuitry developing in fundamental energy nearly an eternity previous to the latest major Big Bang event of 13.72 billion or so years ago?! www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/ Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman's writings on the behavior of Waves.... is really quite brilliant...... and to my understanding implies intelligence beginning nearly infinite time previous to the Big Bang....... http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/fund/fund1.htm http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/fund/fund3.htm http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/book/life1.htm The time is coming when our greatest and most objective intellects will realize that what near death experiencer Christian Andreason wrote about the nearly infinitely ancient Big Bang / Big Flash event....... fits perfectly with String Theory and Wave Theory: http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/index.html "How did we come into Spiritual existence?
Well, much of what these people say sounds like woo to me. With "string theory" we should remember that we have serious people working on posibilities that can not be tested due to limits of scientific progress. Thus there are many "string theories" and they are all outside of scientific method. I hope something comes of that work, but using it's current state as confirmation of some other idea seems problematic. Such work is not "bad" in any way - we got Higgs boson work before there was any way of testing. But, theories inbolving strings are plentiful, have short life spans and often come with amazing requirements, such as there being dozens of physical dimensions beyond our basic three we know about. Again, saying something "fits" with string theory can not mean much, I think. In science, most progress gets made by looking at what is most likely. So, when considering near death experience, it seems highly likely that gradually dying brains would start functioning in odd ways. Even healthy brains concoct fabulous dreams that can seem absolutely real. In fact that is commonplace. Study of dreams? Now, there is a topic! So, my view: I don't accept the assumption that a dying brain should be believed. Frankly, it sounds to me like people are considering these dreams to be more likely to be real simply because of the fact of approaching death. The fact of approaching death should make us be more doubtful, not less doubtful about seeing these particular dreams as reality. After all, such brains are known to be failing, and those brains are the only test equipment and certainly not objective. I would be less likely to believe a broken thermometer, too.
Only a fool says that something is true when it comes to scientific theory. You can say it is the best theory or the one you believe in but to say it's TRUE is very foolish, scientifically.
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact." In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously. One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory. In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
Great example of unscientific assertions... propaganda without evidence.. more death to science by decree...
If you were to ever read an comprehend this: " The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." Quite a bit of your inability to interact in debate might be alleviated.
..just an insulting reply. What 'vast body of evidence?' NONE has been presented here, even though i repeatedly tried to follow strict scientific methodology. Instead, assertions & dogmatic beliefs have been promoted, with no evidence. And your constant barrage of ad hominem makes any rational discussion impossible.. which seems to be your intent. Why do you constantly focus on MY understanding, My motives, MY abilities, rather than debate the points presented? No, the tactics on display here make any reasoned, scientific discussion impossible. I will bow out, & let you win. I am too old & crabby to patiently endure the barrage of insults that the hecklers here dish out. No science. No civility. No reason. No way. I'm outta here, & you guys can celebrate your victory.
You understand that it is a demonstrable lie to claim no evidence has been presented here right? You understand that I and numerous people in this thread have pointed out the fact that you've been presented the evidence, and that you hand waive it away and state "nuh uh" as your argument right? Why do you continue to lie about this, after having it thoroughly proven to be a lie?
Well, perhaps the point is that your attempt to debate within science has failed. For one example, much evidence has been presented, and your answer has been to simply deny that - without even an explanation. You can not do that and then claim you are adhering to scientific method.
