Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?

[spidergoat]

Our constituent particles will go on existing, but the pattern called you won't be recognizable. The thing called you was never really a separate thing anyway, but a loose association, a temporary weather pattern in a larger storm.

 

[Oli]

Quantum immortality is speculation.
And how can the death of consciousness support reincarnation?

 

[Norsefire]

Our constituent particles will go on existing, but the pattern called you won't be recognizable. The thing called you was never really a separate thing anyway, but a loose association, a temporary weather pattern in a larger storm.

That supports re incarnation

Quantum immortality is speculation.
And how can the death of consciousness support reincarnation?

The death of a brain; if new brains are born "you" could be that brain, i.e, you are a conscious being as a brain, because you HAVE to be conscious

I think it's entirely ignorant to assert that there isn't an afterlife. It's about as stupid as strong atheism.

 

[Oli]

The death of a brain; if new brains are born "you" could be that brain, i.e, you are a conscious being as a brain, because you HAVE to be conscious

So it couldn't be a new pesronality?
Reincarnation begs the question where did the first personalities come from if we've all been recycled a gazillion times....

I think it's entirely ignorant to assert that there isn't an afterlife. It's about as stupid as strong atheism.

It's stupid to assert that as there is no evidence the hypothesis would appear to be invalid?

 

[Norsefire]

So it couldn't be a new pesronality?
Reincarnation begs the question where did the first personalities come from if we've all been recycled a gazillion times....

I'm not talking about personalities I'm talking about consciousness. As long as consciousness exists, you MUST be conscious, in some way or another

It's stupid to assert that as there is no evidence the hypothesis would appear to be invalid?

Strong atheism is a positive position, not a negative one; indeed, it's a belief, just like theism.

 

[Oli]

I'm not talking about personalities I'm talking about consciousness. As long as consciousness exists, you MUST be conscious, in some way or another

Except when you die, or are aslepp or before you were born... Consciosness is an emergent property: it comes out the complexity of the brain.

Strong atheism is a positive position, not a negative one; indeed, it's a belief, just like theism.

Nope: it's a belief based on lack of evidence and weight of probability, as opposed to theism which is a belief based on wishful thinking and gullibility.

 

[Norsefire]

Except when you die, or are aslepp or before you were born... Consciosness is an emergent property: it comes out the complexity of the brain.

Before you were born, how do you know that you didn't used to be a person? Memory is tied to the physical body, but the soul would not be.

Nope: it's a belief based on lack of evidence and weight of probability, as opposed to theism which is a belief based on wishful thinking and gullibility.

That's where you are wrong, they can not determine probabilities and for reasons mentioned earlier in regards to ID, the probablity of ID is high enough that it's foolish to positively claim God does not exist

 

[Norsefire]

Read this

Scientific research
Main article: Reincarnation research
Thomas Huxley, the famous English biologist, thought that reincarnation was a plausible idea and discussed it in his book Evolution and Ethics and other Essays. The most detailed collections of personal reports in favor of reincarnation have been published by Professor Ian Stevenson, from the University of Virginia, in books such as Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation and "Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects Volume 1: Birthmarks" and "Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects Volume 2: Birth Defects and Other Anomalies".

Stevenson spent over 40 years devoted to the study of children who have apparently spoken about a past life. In each case, Professor Stevenson methodically documented the child's statements. Then he identified the deceased person the child allegedly identified with, and verified the facts of the deceased person's life that matched the child's memory. He also matched birthmarks and birth defects to wounds and scars on the deceased, verified by medical records such as autopsy photographs.[40][41]

In a fairly typical case, a boy in Beirut spoke of being a 25-year-old mechanic, thrown to his death from a speeding car on a beach road. According to multiple witnesses, the boy provided the name of the driver, the exact location of the crash, the names of the mechanic's sisters and parents and cousins, and the people he went hunting with – all of which turned out to match the life of a man who had died several years before the boy was born, and who had no apparent connection to the boy's family.[42]

Stevenson believed that his strict methods ruled out all possible "normal" explanations for the child’s memories. However, it should be noted that a significant majority of Professor Stevenson's reported cases of reincarnation originate in Eastern societies, where dominant religions often permit the concept of reincarnation. Following this type of criticism, Stevenson published a book on European cases suggestive of reincarnation.[43]

There are many people who have investigated reincarnation and come to the conclusion that it is a legitimate phenomenon, such as Peter Ramster, Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Walter Semkiw, and others, but their work is generally ignored by the scientific community. Professor Stevenson, in contrast, published dozens of papers in peer-reviewed journals.[44]

Some skeptics, such as Paul Edwards, have analyzed many of these accounts, and called them anecdotal.[45] Philosophers like Robert Almeder, having analyzed the criticisms of Edwards and others, suggest that the gist of these arguments can be summarized as "we all know it can't possibly be real, so therefore it isn't real" - an argument from personal incredulity.[46]

The most obvious objection to reincarnation is that there is no evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body, and researchers such as Professor Stevenson recognize this limitation.[47]

Another objection is that most people do not remember previous lives. Possible counter-arguments are that not all people reincarnate, or that most people do not have memorable deaths. The vast majority of cases investigated at the University of Virginia involved people who had met some sort of violent or untimely death.[48]

Some skeptics explain that claims of evidence for reincarnation originate from selective thinking and the psychological phenomena of false memories that often result from one's own belief system and basic fears, and thus cannot be counted as empirical evidence. But other skeptics, such as Dr Carl Sagan, see the need for more reincarnation research.[citation needed] Carl Sagan asked the Dalai Lama what would he do if a fundamental tenet of his religion (reincarnation) was definitively disproved by science.

 

[Oli]

Before you were born, how do you know that you didn't used to be a person? Memory is tied to the physical body, but the soul would not be.

I don't know: but there's nothing to suggest that I was.

That's where you are wrong, they can not determine probabilities and for reasons mentioned earlier in regards to ID, the probablity of ID is high enough that it's foolish to positively claim God does not exist

Numerical probabilities don't need to be determined: the evidence that there IS a god is non-existent to slim. Therefore the weight of probability is that there isn't one...
The probability of ID?
No evidence for that either.

Only a fool says since there's no evidence to say that X exists I'll still believe it's probable that it does.

 

[Norsefire]

I don't know: but there's nothing to suggest that I was.

An interesting problem is there is no way of knowing, because if you were another person, you lost all memory of it. Also read the little excerpt above

Numerical probabilities don't need to be determined: the evidence that there IS a god is non-existent to slim. Therefore the weight of probability is that there isn't one...
The probability of ID?
No evidence for that either.

Only a fool says since there's no evidence to say that X exists I'll still believe it's probable that it does.

There is no evidence, again, it's based on observation and logical thinking.

Didn't we just have this discussion?

 

[Oli]

An interesting problem is there is no way of knowing, because if you were another person, you lost all memory of it.

So if there's no way of knowing the point becomes moot since it cannot inform or affect my current life.
Null question.

There is no evidence, again, it's based on observation and logical thinking.

Observation and logical thinking?
Nah, it's a question of interpretation.
Theists have faulty perception

Didn't we just have this discussion?

This is SciForums.
We ALWAYS have the same discussions if you sticak around long enough

 

[Norsefire]

So if there's no way of knowing the point becomes moot since it cannot inform or affect my current life.
Null question.

It's still interesting to research, though. If we prove that there is an afterlife, it would probably change the way people live their lives.

Observation and logical thinking?
Nah, it's a question of interpretation.
Theists have faulty perception

I already explained this; we can observe forces of causation, and therefore we know that our universe was either created or came to be naturally. Anything beyond, as details, are irrelevant and unknowable.

This is SciForums.
We ALWAYS have the same discussions if you sticak around long enough

True, lol

 

[Norsefire]

Here is some interesting info

Under regression therapy to a prior life, the individual can identify with a certain individual of a particular prior time period. Apparently, he/she will experience whatever the individual experienced at that particular point in time, as well as communicate verbally or orally in an ancient language. Interestingly, after awakening from regression therapy the individual will no longer be able to recognize the ancient languages. Sometimes, the individual's present personality may be able to partake in the regression in a passive role, that is, the individual will view the prior life as if he/she was watching a movie. He/she may hear the words without understanding what is being said.
Among the eleven subjects, nine gave information that deviated only slightly from the historical time frame. It is amazing that only 1% of the population was found to be inaccurate in the information provided under hypnosis. It is clear to me that if all those memories are mere illusions, such a low fail rate is impossible.

 

[Norsefire]

And this

. Does reincarnation exist after all? Scientific data collected as of date seems to suggest that reincarnation is a fact of life. Here are some supporting pieces of evidence:

1) Scientific research has discovered many cases of prior life memory recollections among young children. These recalls were studied, categorized and confirmed through rigorous research.

2) Details that subjects recalled about their prior lives correspond to historical records. Furthermore, there was great consistency among prior life recollections of the same time periods and geographical areas.

3) Subjects recalled ancient languages and words that they did not learn during this lifetime. Furthermore, after the hypnotic state ended they no longer could speak or understand those languages.

4) Some subjects among relatives, friends, or even strangers, recalled the same people, events and details independently.

5) Recalling past lives' agonies and events were instrumental in addressing and often alleviating today's ills and problems, such as terror and long-time pain.

It is very difficult to explain these phenomena as illusions. But they may not be readily accepted by modern science as evidence for the concept of reincarnation.

 

[Oli]

11 subjects, 9 gave information that deviated from history and then they claim that only 1% (of the population! Some one teach them how to apply statistics) was inaccurate?

Let's see: 9/11 = 1%.
Yep, got it.
Oh hang on....

 

[Saquist]

As the video stated, merely natural selection and developing certain traits isn't proof that an organism can transform into an entirely other organism. Furthermore, the idea of intelligent design is still a viable one and, as explained in the video, remains a real possibility.

I concur.
While there is no real problem with the suggest that they can do this. It is a matter of math. And it's simply not likely at all that life builds up to more complex forms when the very nature of everything in the universe is to decay.

 

[Oli]

And it's simply not likely at all that life builds up to more complex forms when the very nature of everything in the universe is to decay.

Apart from the fact that exactly that it is seen every day you mean?

 

[Vkothii]

How do you know there isn't an afterlife? It's not all religious; what about quantum immortality?

What do you think "quantum immortality" is?

What IS dumb is your assertion, without any sort of logic or evidence, that you know exactly what happens after death.

What's even dumber, is your assertion without any real evidence, that you know what happens. How is that logical?

And also, even if consciousness dies when the brain dies, that SUPPORTS the idea of reincarnation.

No it doesn't. Where did you get that illogical idea from?

What are these observations you claim to base all this "logical thinking" on? The ones that aren't any evidence?

 

[SnakeLord]

Intelligence is the key component of complexity.

Same fallacy as earlier. I bet every example you would use would involve humans making things - which you then decide to apply to the entire universe. Why?

You are missing the key, which is categorization. Most certainly, sausages and mashed potatoes are possible, but there is no logic behind this.

No, you are missing the key, which is categorization: Neither of these concepts are science and as such have no place in science class.

By saying intelligence, you do not imply anything further than intelligence.

Well, you're the one saying intelligence and it seemingly changes and adapts, (evolves if you will), as this thread continues. I think we need to be precise here because there are countless science students that would benefit from it.

"Hi guys, listen I just thought I'd mention that well, it's 'possible' some intelligence did it all. No, don't ask for any further clarification, I wont give you any. Just thought I'd mention it. Now, let's get back to science".

"Excuse me", student raises hand "what do you mean exactly?"

"Didn't I just tell you not to ask for further clarification!? Intelligence just means intelligence!"

Students all leave classroom.

Is that what you're after? If not, you'll need to be specific.

Think broadly; you are thinking specifically down to detail of content, which is irrelevant, because content has no logical basis.

I take it science was never your strong subject? How can detail be irrelevant? [lol]

Therefore, in them being the two possible concepts, we should teach them both.

1) See above.

2) I have already said I am ok with the idea. No really, I am - as long as it is in the appropriate place. Your detail-less 'something smart did it' statement has no place in a science class but don't let me stop you trying to get it taught in..... church perhaps - yes, that's the appropriate place for it. But wait, you don't mean god when you say god. Hmm.. maybe we could set up an "it's possible" class where we fill the kids heads with all kinds of "possibles".

Then what shall we teach? An alien civilization having created our universe, to me, is entirely a rational and logical idea; it's impossible to know, however.

And that is fine, start an X-Files fan club or something. Why try and shove non-science into science?

 

[Myles]

Just a quick hello, goodbye. Glad to be out of here. I like the idea of teaching "possibles". Just remember that the possibilty that Norsefire may be wrong has no place in the syllabus.