It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: cooperton
I was a zealous adherent to evolution for almost a decade.
After searching enough, there is not any compelling data to insist that it is true, or even possible.
After relieving myself of this philosophical burden, I was able to realize universal truths, not being squandered by the imagination of material reductionists.
I was a zealous adherent to evolution for almost a decade. After searching enough, there is not any compelling data to insist that it is true, or even possible.
originally posted by: cooperton
...That is, if evolution is true. It strips humanity and individuals of meaning. You can't argue any sort of meaning if we were generated by unintelligent chaotic material interactions. ...
In 1802, English clergyman and theologian William Paley expounded his reasons for belief in a Creator. He stated that if while crossing a heath, he were to find a stone lying on the ground, he might reasonably conclude that natural processes had put it there. But if instead he were to find a watch, he would scarcely come to the same conclusion. Why? For the simple reason that a watch has all the hallmarks of design and purpose.
PALEY’S ideas had a profound influence on the English naturalist Charles Darwin. Yet, contrary to Paley’s logic, Darwin later proposed that the apparent design in living organisms could be explained by a process that he termed “natural selection.” Darwinian evolution was seen by many as the definitive answer to arguments for design.
A great deal has been written on the subject since the days of Paley and Darwin. The arguments in favor of design on the one hand and of natural selection on the other have frequently been refined, elaborated on, and updated. And both sides of the subject have greatly influenced what people believe about purpose—or lack of purpose—in the universe. What you believe might well influence how purposeful you feel your life is. How so?
The Logical Consequences of Darwinism
Belief in Darwin’s theory has led many sincere people to conclude that their existence is devoid of real purpose. If the cosmos and everything in it are the product of spontaneous combinations of elements after the primordial big bang, then there can be no real purpose to life. The late Nobel Prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod stated: “Man knows at last that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe from which he emerged by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty.”
A similar thought is expressed by Oxford professor of chemistry Peter William Atkins, who declares: “I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless.”
By no means do all scientists agree with that outlook. And for very good reasons.
Fine-Tuning—Evidence of Purposeful Design?
...
originally posted by: TzarChasm
With all due respect cooperton, this seems to be less about the accuracy of evolution research and more about the integrity of your self image in relation to the universe at large.
originally posted by: Barcs
Then why have you never refuted the talkorigins link I posted?
originally posted by: Phantom423
Whether you believe or don't believe is irrelevant. The fact is you don't have a clue how to analyze data.
originally posted by: whereislogic
...
“THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING BIRD”?!
...
Haha no you're just too incapable of thinking on your own to even register what I am saying. The objective and unbiased have no problem understanding my argument. You just brush it off as being a threat to your dogma so you blindly dismiss it without actually addressing it logically. You, like barcs, do not / cannot explain things in your own words. So I realize why you still don't think I have presented a proper refutation of the lame material reductionist theory of evolution. It's because you don't understand what I am arguing. Or you close a blind eye to it. If you want to actually have a discussion, then argue what I say, don't just claim I don't know what I am talking about, when all my scientific references are based in actual empirical data - something you are unfamiliar with being a blind adherent to evolution. Seriously, try to refute what I am saying from a logical perspective, using your own words. Otherwise it shows you are just an automaton reverberating the speculation of others. Let's start with the impossibility of evolving sexual organs: the impossibility of evolving sexes
Evolution presents an existential dilemma to those who believe it, because it is an incomplete answer. And you'll say "yeah they're figuring it out, and will eventually". But will they? You are putting your faith in an answer that will never come. The closest thing to an answer given by science was the conclusion of the quantum physicists, which you ignore because it disagrees with your beliefs. It is not just the philosophical conclusion of evolution that is deranged and worthless, it is also the lack of research - like real empirical demonstrations showing that evolution happens - that is the most telling that the theory is absolutely bunk.
"He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there's even a 1% chance that he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty. And we have to destroy him." - Bruce Wayne
originally posted by: TzarChasm
To be fair, I'm not pursuing the theory of evolution for a sense of cosmic self fulfilment because that's not what the theory is for.
but it seems that purely clinical investigation of evolution has yielded very positive medical advancements and improved our grasp of agriculture and animal harvesting. Your higher intelligence concept doesn't appear to be directly responsible for such technical upgrades
originally posted by: Phantom423
You have no data. Whatever you believe is irrelevant without some validation. Come back when you have it.
originally posted by: Phage
Far too narrow a definition.
Pretty sure that's a logical fallacy.
Tzarchasm was attempting to say that evolution has nothing to do with cosmic self fulfillment, my argument was that it is an explanation for the origin of humankind so it absolutely does involve self-realization.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton
If evolution were to prop up a genocidal philosophy then I would agree with you,...
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Phage
Far too narrow a definition.
Pretty sure that's a logical fallacy.
Tzarchasm was attempting to say that evolution has nothing to do with cosmic self fulfillment, my argument was that it is an explanation for the origin of humankind so it absolutely does involve self-realization. Why even post if you're not going to add to the discussion?
originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm
Do you only care that we evolve, but don’t care about why we evolve?
Do the facts influence you at all or do they just sit on a shelf somewhere out in the ether.
Is there any value in the fact that you have the ability to trace back your origins, any excitement, disappointment? Or general meh?
Is evolution valueless?
Or could Evolution be a story that explains a set of facts that support a set of values?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm
Do you only care that we evolve, but don’t care about why we evolve?
Do the facts influence you at all or do they just sit on a shelf somewhere out in the ether.
Is there any value in the fact that you have the ability to trace back your origins, any excitement, disappointment? Or general meh?
Is evolution valueless?
Or could Evolution be a story that explains a set of facts that support a set of values?
Some questions don't need answers. And some answers are only pursued for the sake of a political agenda. The origin of humankind or the universe at large doesn't affect my values or my self esteem.
originally posted by: Phage
Tc was right and your argument is specious. The evolution of man as distinct from any other creature is irrelevant to the theory. Your argument is that man is the crown of creation. We aren't and the theory does not say otherwise.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Some questions don't need answers.