First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ

2

Comments

  • : Like the whole deal about the evolution, the hardcore xian scientists usually work towards finding the total opposite answers of what other scientists have found, just to prove their theories about their gods are right.

    THOSE are the people that drive ME insane. Ignorant fools.
  • interesting to read this stuff. but wont join anymore..

    : : Like the whole deal about the evolution, the hardcore xian scientists usually work towards finding the total opposite answers of what other scientists have found, just to prove their theories about their gods are right.
    :
    : THOSE are the people that drive ME insane. Ignorant fools.
    :

    [blue]DarQ[/blue]

  • : There was famous Russian scientist Pavlov who described the brain reflexes.
    :
    : Was this the guy that did the 'Pavalovs dog' experiiment.. ringing the bell and the dog would salivate?
    :
    :
    That's him.
    :
    : Very interesting. We have people here that stop working and rush outside when the sandwhich van sounds its horn. I call it Pavalovs Van.
    :
    You are right
    :
    :

  • [b][red]This message was edited by lionb at 2002-11-6 11:1:10[/red][/b][hr]
    : Not all religions conflict with Science, and not all areas of Science will conflict with religion, even very strict ones. :
    :
    There should be conflict. Let me explain my point. The whole idea about God that people believes in something none material extremely powerful. How scientist could believe in none material? As a former scientist I used to believe in something what exists. I need to have evidence. I simply can't believe in something, if I do not have evidence. It doesn't matter is it physical or logical (math) evidence. I know my English is not that good but I hope you understand my point

    PS. Pavlov was not Psychologist. He worked with very material substance - brain
  • : : Like the whole deal about the evolution, the hardcore xian scientists usually work towards finding the total opposite answers of what other scientists have found, just to prove their theories about their gods are right.
    :
    : THOSE are the people that drive ME insane. Ignorant fools.
    :
    Actually, there is a big open question inside of theory of evolution. Let's take a look at some example. Apes, pithecanthropus and human being. According to evolution theory the better organized, smarter creature has to stay a live fighting with environmental obstacles. In other word apes (chimps, gorilla orangutan) had to disappear from Earth and pithecanthropus (who lived in the same area Africa) had to stay a live because those creature was much smarter than apes. Never happen. Apes (relatively lower primate) and human being (highest primate) are OK and pithecanthropus gone. I asked that question to several scientists who studied the evolution theory and never got clear answer. Again, I am materialist.
  • : PS. Pavlov was not Psychologist. He worked with very material substance - brain

    I don't know what his "official" occupation was, but conditioning dogs to salivate when a bell rings is psychology. Unless you are a neurosurgeon or something like that, you do not actually "work with" a brain. You interact with the owner of the brain and try to infer things from the interaction. And while a brain is certainly a material thing, a "mind" is not. At least not in the same sense.
  • [b][red]This message was edited by infidel at 2002-11-6 11:45:57[/red][/b][hr]
    : Actually, there is a big open question inside of theory of evolution.

    [blue]as with any science[/blue]

    : Let's take a look at some example. Apes, pithecanthropus and human being. According to evolution theory the better organized, smarter creature has to stay a live fighting with environmental obstacles.

    [blue]"has to" is a bit strong, "tends to" would be more accurate I think.[/blue]

    : In other word apes (chimps, gorilla orangutan) had to disappear from Earth

    [blue]Wrong. This is one of the primary misconceptions of creationists. Evolution does not state anywhere that ancestor species *must* die out. It just says that they aren't as well equipped to survive. But that's incomplete. Survive [i]where[/i]? If we use your logic, then there should be no fishes in the oceans because the reptiles that they evolved into should've replaced them. That is simply absurd. Humans and apes occupy different niches in the ecosystem, so there is no direct conflict. Not biologically at least. Human greed and stupidity has nearly driven the great apes to extinction, but that is a different topic, though somewhat related.[/blue]

    : and pithecanthropus (who lived in the same area Africa) had to stay a live because those creature was much smarter than apes. Never happen. Apes (relatively lower primate) and human being (highest primate) are OK and pithecanthropus gone. I asked that question to several scientists who studied the evolution theory and never got clear answer.

    [blue]It's not that hard to think of an explanation. The pithecanthropus probably died out because they couldn't compete as well with more human-like ancestors who they were in direct competition with. Apes lived differently and apart from the humanoids, so evolved on a separate track.[/blue]

    : Again, I am materialist.

    [blue]I am too, more or less.[/blue]


  • : : PS. Pavlov was not Psychologist. He worked with very material substance - brain
    :
    : I don't know what his "official" occupation was, but conditioning dogs to salivate when a bell rings is psychology.
    :
    Actually it's Physiology of Behaovioral
    :
    Unless you are a neurosurgeon or something like that, you do not actually "work with" a brain.
    :
    Not exactly correct. I was Neroscientists so I know a litle bit about that subject
    :
    You interact with the owner of the brain and try to infer things from the interaction. And while a brain is certainly a material thing, a "mind" is not. At least not in the same sense.
    :
    Yes and no. No because non material thing "mind" produced by very material thing brain. No brain, no minds.
    :

  • [b][red]This message was edited by lionb at 2002-11-6 12:19:30[/red][/b][hr]
    [b][red]This message was edited by lionb at 2002-11-6 12:12:24[/red][/b][hr]
    First of all I am not creationists or evolutionists. I am materialists and used to believe in evidences. There is no good strong evidence neither for Creation nor Evolution theories. At least for me.

    If we use your logic, then there should be no fishes in the oceans because the reptiles that they evolved into should've replaced them.
    :
    Thats exactly right except one think. This is not my logic. This is evolution theory logic because according to this theory just stronger creature can survive.




  • : Thats exactly right except one think. This is not my logic. This is evolution theory logic because according to this theory just stronger creature can survive.

    Evolutionary theory does not state that only the stronger creature can survive. It doesn't say that anywhere. All it says is that an individual that is better suited to its environment will TEND to survive longer and produce more offspring.
  • : : : PS. Pavlov was not Psychologist. He worked with very material substance - brain
    : :
    : : I don't know what his "official" occupation was, but conditioning dogs to salivate when a bell rings is psychology.
    : :
    : Actually it's Physiology of Behaovioral

    How is it physiology? Behaviorism yes, but I still say it's psychology. Unless he was opening up the dog brains to see what physical responses (electrical impulses, chemical changes, etc) were caused by a bell ringing, I don't see how this is physiology.

    : Not exactly correct. I was Neroscientists so I know a litle bit about that subject

    Then I must defer to you.

    : Yes and no. No because non material thing "mind" produced by very material thing brain. No brain, no minds.

    Of course. No brain, no mind. I agree completely.
  • All it says is that an individual that is better suited to its environment will TEND to survive longer and produce more offspring.
    :
    Right again!!! But gradualy this " better suited" creatures and its offsprings will take all best spots in this particular environment/area. There simply won't be room for creatures what won't "TEND to survive". So finaly the last ones will disapear.
  • : All it says is that an individual that is better suited to its environment will TEND to survive longer and produce more offspring.
    : :
    : Right again!!! But gradualy this " better suited" creatures and its offsprings will take all best spots in this particular environment/area. There simply won't be room for creatures what won't "TEND to survive". So finaly the last ones will disapear.

    Only if they occupy the same niche.
  • : How is it physiology? Behaviorism yes, but I still say it's psychology. Unless he was opening up the dog brains to see what physical responses (electrical impulses, chemical changes, etc) were caused by a bell ringing, I don't see how this is physiology.
    :
    Because he opened the stomach and placed there special devices to collect and measure amount of saliva. Pavlov and Sheridan where first who showed that stomach job are controlled by the brain. :

  • :
    : Only if they occupy the same niche.
    :
    That's exactly right! The apes and pithecanthropus occupied the same niche. Pithecanthropus was much stronger than apes but he disappeared and apes did not! Why?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories