PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Mind Brain problem

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Life began as simple cells and eventually evolution states that with natural selection and mutation working in conjuction the cell grew and multiplied becoming living animals and slowly evolving into more complex species.Natural selection in itself is a guided process but mutation is random and for the most part  harmful. So our brains our the result of random chemicals joining eventually creating thought, but if our minds is nothing but a conglameration of random chemicals then how is it we have reason and discernable thoughts?
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 9:17 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Natural selection in itself is a guided process but mutation is random and for the most part  harmful.

Here's one of your most glaring mistakes, mutations are NOT mostly harmful, they're mostly neutral.  From here:
NeutralMutations

"Neutral mutations are defined as mutations whose effects do not influence the fitness of an individual. These can accumulate over time due to genetic drift. It is believed that the overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect on an organism's fitness."

As to how our minds think, I don't understand why you say that if our minds are a collection of chemicals, how can we reason and think?  Why can't chemicals give rise to thougt processes?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:42 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off could you please use a source other than wikipedia, second if our brains are a random collection of chemicals then how is it we have organized thoughts. Basically you cannot have a reliable mind that resulted from a random accident.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 9:52 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Basically you cannot have a reliable mind that resulted from a random accident.

Firstly it's not a random accident and secondly, why can't you?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:15 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If we were intelligently engineered, then every mutation would be harmful.

Unless the mutation takes place in the junk part of the DNA, it must do something. And if it does something, it's not crazy to think it's for better or worse.

But, in actual fact, if some mutation turned my heart blue, it would obviously be no big deal.

Life began as simple cells and eventually evolution states that with natural selection and mutation working in conjuction the cell grew and multiplied becoming living animals
Redundant. Every animal is a living animal.

So our brains our the result of random chemicals
What do you mean by "random"? Chemicals interact in well-defined ways.

The fact that we can't follow every step of the process doesn't make it random.

Are you talking about quantum physics?

joining eventually creating thought, but if our minds is nothing but a conglameration of random chemicals then how is it we have reason and discernable thoughts?
Why not?

I don't understand your use of the words "if" and "then".

Tell me, you random chemical process, what is it that bugs you? The randomness?

if our brains are a random collection of chemicals
Depends. There's no "random chance" that would produce hydroflouric acid in your brain.

then how is it we have organized thoughts
Do we?

I could say that we have organized chemical reactions that produce random thoughts.

You seem biased towards thoughts.

Basically you cannot have a reliable mind that resulted from a random accident.

First: Says who?
Second: Do you have a reliable mind? Your mind made the wrong assumption that you can't have a reliable mind that resulted from a random accident, for instance.
Wait! Then it's true! You can't have a reliable mind!! Wait! Then your mind was correct, and it's reliable! Wait!!!! Then it's not!!!!

Damn, my mind isn't reliable either...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:19 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
oct08

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe we have reliable minds because there is an intelligent creator who put them into place and as for my accident statement mutation are in essence random their is no operator deciding what happens so even if evolution could create a functioning mind would you truly be able to trust it.
 


Posts: 44 | Posted: 10:25 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe we have reliable minds because there is an intelligent creator who put them into place

Yet this is a simple, superstitious belief with no evidence to support it.  You're welcome to believe it but it's on a par with the vikings believing in Thor causing lightning.


and as for my accident statement mutation are in essence random their is no operator deciding what happens

Untrue, natural selection is acting to get rid of the harmful mutations and keep the good mutations.  No operator needed.  This is why evolution is non random, don't know why you can't understand this.

so even if evolution could create a functioning mind would you truly be able to trust it.

Sure since natural selection would positively select for a mind that could be trusted, as a matter of survival.  I still don't understand why you keep claiming evolution would produce a brain you couldn't trust.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:33 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe we have reliable minds because there is an intelligent creator who put them into place
And i don't.
One of us is wrong.
Can we both have reliable minds?
If one of us is wrong, then no.
Your mind believes that WE have reliable minds, and i proved that statement wrong, so it must be YOUR mind that's not reliable.

But never mind the syllogism. I don't think my mind is reliable either.

and as for my accident statement mutation are in essence random their is no operator deciding what happens
No operator needed.

And YES, mutations are random, but which ones pass the test of time and which ones don't IS NOT RANDOM.

so even if evolution could create a functioning mind would you truly be able to trust it.
Good question.
No, i can't.
Because evolution would produce (has produced) minds that have a strong tendency to do whatever it takes to protect the genes present in the individual.

The byproduct of this is predation, solidarity, rape, morality, killings, religions, fear, et cetera, that have a place in our minds that have nothing to do with reality.

But our minds became a little more complex than evolution would have intended (if evolution ever intended anything). And we're now able to do things like suicide and celibacy.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:47 PM on December 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why doesn't God make reliable debaters?

Creationists always leave us without at least saying "Well, i can't refute that... I don't know why i can't. But i won't believe it anyway, for my faith is above reason."

I would understand that...

About reliability:

"An Epistemological Nightmare"

(Raymond M. Smullyan, 1982)

http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/epistemologicalNightmare.html



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:02 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What you are finding is that creationism is much more about arrogance than faith.  There is so much invested in being right that any admission of being mistaken cannot be tolerated so it is far easier to bail than admit the truth.

Someone once had a wonderful sig stating that "The true mark of a Christian is humility".  We don't see many of those around here.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:37 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oct08 -
Firstly,our minds arn't really a random mix of chemicals, they are incredably well ordered. Every generation a small mutation (change) happens. If this mutation helps survival then the creature usually survives and passes on their DNA. Those with bad mutations or insuficent mutations get caught by preditors and starve. They do not pass on their DNA. There is alot of death, especially in nature. Many animals may give birth to over 20 younge. Bear in mind that a femal must produce 2 survivng younge to keep the species stable, that means 90% of them die!
So, by generation 2 a small change has happened and most of the bad mutations have died off. When the survivors breed they pass on their DNA again but another small mutation ocures. As you go through the generaions the amount of change continues to add up resulting in vastly different animals we see today. If a speices is seperated, or has limited contact, they will diverge and mutate in different ways, eventually resulting in different species.

As you can see, any mutation that would have been benificial would have helped survival and thus would have survived in the long run as DNA. A mutation to improve our brain would have helped and so would have survived and passed on its DNA.
Eventually we mutated so much that are brains have reached a rather ridiculus size and can perform many complex procidures such as building cars or reasoning. The brain is incredably complex and no one knows how it works fully. Scientists can pinpoint areas that do specific tasks but that is it.

The reason that most creatures haven't developed such a large brain is that evolution does not have a goal, humans are not the final product s their is no final product. Evolution does not have a goal and does not work to benifit a creature in the long run. It only works to benifit the creature in that particular climite under those conditions. A mutation on the aligator brain would not be very usefull and so would probably not survive. What would the aligator do with the extra brain power? It has no hands.

Evolution is a natural system and you must make sure you don't think of it as a consius entity. Evolution kills off the weak and lets the strong survive. However, certain mutations may make a creature better in the long run but not usefull now (e.g. a larger brain for alligators, wings for humans). This is because evolution is a system and forces creatures to mutate to suit their current climate and enviroment. It doesn't work for the long run as it has no thought and is only a system.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 04:20 AM on February 8, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.