- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Since studying ‘the creation’ could only reasonably lead you to evolution by natural selection, but you say it leads you to some other conclusion (of which you do not seem able to give details), what is your other source of god-knowledge that overturns ‘study of the creation’?
Quote The book of Nature, Physics, Bodhitharta's Law of sexual reproduction which is: two opposing genders must be compatible reproductively within a single lifetime for reproduction to occur, this could not happen randomly over time because Mutations are not synchronized in different organisms this is a fact. Not only that you would need SRMs across the entire spectrum of the range of all species. OK, so you are making conclusions about natural history based on your observations. Does that mean if I can show you that your observations are wrong then you will change your ideas about it?
You do not have to have ‘mutations synchnonised in different organisms’ because, since we are talking about sexual reproduction, males and females do not have different genomes. There is a minor difference in regards to genes carried on the sex chromosomes, but in general they are the same.
Most mutations are either neutral or deleterious. Very often a significant deleterious gene will result in a non-viable foetus. Actually only about 1 in every 6 fertilized eggs makes it to implantation, and one of the significant reasons for the losses is that the foetuses are genetically not up to further development. If your god is responsible for this, then he is a greater abortionist than any human.
Let’s follow the progress of one of those rare advantageous mutations. The mutated version of the gene is passed on to a zygote and meets up with its matching counterpart from the other parent. At least one of the two alleles will be expressed in the new foetus. If the mutant version is allowed to be expressed, and there is an advantage to be had from the protein produced by the mutant, then that allele will be retained and passed on. Of course in practice it is that there are many different alleles present in the human population, giving us genetic variation. If particular characteristics become more advantageous than others then those will be favoured in reproduction (because their carriers are more successful at survival and reproduction) and those traits will appear more frequently.
The important part missing from your description is the basic fact that all of us, as sexually reproducing animals, have two copies of every gene, and those two copes may be different versions. There does not need to be more than one copy of the mutant allele for mutations to be included in the genome and expressed.
No need to make up a Law of the impossible in ones own name to describe something that does not need to happen at all.
Does the removal of this objection allow you to change your mind?
Stuart
Do you have a proper scientific disproof of Darwin?
Quote No need, the theory is helpful just like Paul of tarsus
Hmmm. That is a damning indictment by you then!Quote Now, what will happen to a child that is left untaught and unnurtured from birth?
It will not develop to what we might call its ‘potential’, which is I guess our collective expectations of what it may come to be able to do later in life.Quote Now how could this ever be overcome without the nurterer and teacher arising before the nurtured and taught?
There is no nurturing without a nurturer. However, most reptiles do not nurture their young, and in fact many of those young actually have to run away after hatching to escape being eaten by their parents!Quote Please don't try to wiggle just answer and by the way the Chicken came first.
We are not descended from birds!Your question, to take it seriously, must be answered in terms of human evolution and our non-human ancestry. We (and our ancestors, together) have been mammals since at least the lower Jurassic, 180 million years ago, when we shared an ancestor with the monotremes, essentially mammals that retained the capacity to lay eggs. You might be able then to go back a further 130 million years to the carboniferous and somewhere before the end of that journey find a kind of change from the reptilian sort of behaviour to ‘nurturing’ of live offspring. As with intelligence, and in fact any other trait, the advantage to be had from nurturing offspring will have arisen by slow increments. It is not as if a monotreme-like ancestor woke up one morning (or evening) and suddenly realised that he had better start nurturing.
The nurturing to which you refer started long before any of the participants could have been called humans.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,22:12) If it is wrong to marry prepubescent girls today, but it was fine in Mohammad’s time, then what is the point of religion? Quote The question is not only cultural but actually there is no problem if it is marriage because marriage is not pedophelia. Also may people were promised to each other from birth. There is no prohibition of age of marriage in any Holy book and nature determines if a woman is ready for motherhood. I found this here:
Islam, unlike other religions is a strong advocate of marriage. There is no place for celibacy like, for example the Roman Catholic priests and nuns. The prophet (pbuh) has said “there is no celibacy in Islam.
Marriage acts as an outlet for sexual needs and regulate it so one does not become a slave to his/ her desires.
Marriage serves as a means to emotional and sexual gratification and as a means of tension reduction. It is also a form of Ibadah because it is obeying Allah and his messenger – i.e. Marriage is seen as the only possible way for the sexes to unite. One could choose to live in sin, however by choosing marriage one is displaying obedience to Allah.
Do you agree with the sentiments of this writer? If you do then you would seem to be advocating pedophilia: if you are not then there is no way this definition of marriage is OK for the relationship that Mohammad allegedly formed with an underage girl.
The question remains: marriage would appear to REQUIRE a sexual relationship is islam. To not consummate the marriage would appear to be against islamic teaching. There is always the option of NOT MARRYING, to make it clear what the situation is! By today’s standards Mohammad was a pedophile: there is no reason to think otherwise. If that was OK then, are you saying it is OK now? If you are, what are the timeless values that islam upholds? Is this the only exception or are there more? If there are many exceptions, what is the point of religion at all?
Stuart
To Marry any particular person does not mean you are sexually attracted to that specific group of people nor does it mean that there is a particular feature that has attracted you.Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,23:55) Since studying ‘the creation’ could only reasonably lead you to evolution by natural selection, but you say it leads you to some other conclusion (of which you do not seem able to give details), what is your other source of god-knowledge that overturns ‘study of the creation’? Quote The book of Nature, Physics, Bodhitharta's Law of sexual reproduction which is: two opposing genders must be compatible reproductively within a single lifetime for reproduction to occur, this could not happen randomly over time because Mutations are not synchronized in different organisms this is a fact. Not only that you would need SRMs across the entire spectrum of the range of all species. OK, so you are making conclusions about natural history based on your observations. Does that mean if I can show you that your observations are wrong then you will change your ideas about it?
You do not have to have ‘mutations synchnonised in different organisms’ because, since we are talking about sexual reproduction, males and females do not have different genomes. There is a minor difference in regards to genes carried on the sex chromosomes, but in general they are the same.
Most mutations are either neutral or deleterious. Very often a significant deleterious gene will result in a non-viable foetus. Actually only about 1 in every 6 fertilized eggs makes it to implantation, and one of the significant reasons for the losses is that the foetuses are genetically not up to further development. If your god is responsible for this, then he is a greater abortionist than any human.
Let’s follow the progress of one of those rare advantageous mutations. The mutated version of the gene is passed on to a zygote and meets up with its matching counterpart from the other parent. At least one of the two alleles will be expressed in the new foetus. If the mutant version is allowed to be expressed, and there is an advantage to be had from the protein produced by the mutant, then that allele will be retained and passed on. Of course in practice it is that there are many different alleles present in the human population, giving us genetic variation. If particular characteristics become more advantageous than others then those will be favoured in reproduction (because their carriers are more successful at survival and reproduction) and those traits will appear more frequently.
The important part missing from your description is the basic fact that all of us, as sexually reproducing animals, have two copies of every gene, and those two copes may be different versions. There does not need to be more than one copy of the mutant allele for mutations to be included in the genome and expressed.
No need to make up a Law of the impossible in ones own name to describe something that does not need to happen at all.
Does the removal of this objection allow you to change your mind?
Stuart
Sorry, you misunderstood the principle, it's not about genes it's about genitals that would create gender they would have had to arise at the same exact time for the instance of sexuality to occur and the reproductive organs of both genders would have had to be reproductively viable.Do you understand now?
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,00:19) Do you have a proper scientific disproof of Darwin? Quote No need, the theory is helpful just like Paul of tarsus
Hmmm. That is a damning indictment by you then!Quote Now, what will happen to a child that is left untaught and unnurtured from birth?
It will not develop to what we might call its ‘potential’, which is I guess our collective expectations of what it may come to be able to do later in life.Quote Now how could this ever be overcome without the nurterer and teacher arising before the nurtured and taught?
There is no nurturing without a nurturer. However, most reptiles do not nurture their young, and in fact many of those young actually have to run away after hatching to escape being eaten by their parents!Quote Please don't try to wiggle just answer and by the way the Chicken came first.
We are not descended from birds!Your question, to take it seriously, must be answered in terms of human evolution and our non-human ancestry. We (and our ancestors, together) have been mammals since at least the lower Jurassic, 180 million years ago, when we shared an ancestor with the monotremes, essentially mammals that retained the capacity to lay eggs. You might be able then to go back a further 130 million years to the carboniferous and somewhere before the end of that journey find a kind of change from the reptilian sort of behaviour to ‘nurturing’ of live offspring. As with intelligence, and in fact any other trait, the advantage to be had from nurturing offspring will have arisen by slow increments. It is not as if a monotreme-like ancestor woke up one morning (or evening) and suddenly realised that he had better start nurturing.
The nurturing to which you refer started long before any of the participants could have been called humans.
Stuart
I'm sorry but you humour me, How would an organism “Just Know” to nurture or teach?Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,23:34) AI is designed by humans. So what? Quote It demonstrates that intelligence has to be created or “input” put in, unless you can show me otherwise in nature Look in the mirror. There stands a man with intelligence whose only origins are exclusively explained in science by natural selection. Life begets life. Magic does not beget life. By tiny increments the large human brain came to be, and its cognitive abilities produce the effect we know as intelligence.
This is not a case of me showing you otherwise. You are the one making a claim about some supernatural being that cannot be seen or heard by sane people. You will have to show ME ‘otherwise’. Actually there is no other scientific model of how you came to be intelligent.
To claim AI means that intelligence has to be created is to make the logical fallacy of composition. Just because we designed AI does not mean that our intelligence was designed.
Stuart
Of course it does STU, Intelligence is not natural it is taught and therefore it cannot be explained by letting nature take its course.You are losing this debate quickly at this point as I am going to clamp down on all of your silly excuses that you yourself learned verbatim and never experimented nor studied yourself?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:40) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,22:12) If it is wrong to marry prepubescent girls today, but it was fine in Mohammad’s time, then what is the point of religion? Quote The question is not only cultural but actually there is no problem if it is marriage because marriage is not pedophelia. Also may people were promised to each other from birth. There is no prohibition of age of marriage in any Holy book and nature determines if a woman is ready for motherhood. I found this here:
Islam, unlike other religions is a strong advocate of marriage. There is no place for celibacy like, for example the Roman Catholic priests and nuns. The prophet (pbuh) has said “there is no celibacy in Islam.
Marriage acts as an outlet for sexual needs and regulate it so one does not become a slave to his/ her desires.
Marriage serves as a means to emotional and sexual gratification and as a means of tension reduction. It is also a form of Ibadah because it is obeying Allah and his messenger – i.e. Marriage is seen as the only possible way for the sexes to unite. One could choose to live in sin, however by choosing marriage one is displaying obedience to Allah.
Do you agree with the sentiments of this writer? If you do then you would seem to be advocating pedophilia: if you are not then there is no way this definition of marriage is OK for the relationship that Mohammad allegedly formed with an underage girl.
The question remains: marriage would appear to REQUIRE a sexual relationship is islam. To not consummate the marriage would appear to be against islamic teaching. There is always the option of NOT MARRYING, to make it clear what the situation is! By today’s standards Mohammad was a pedophile: there is no reason to think otherwise. If that was OK then, are you saying it is OK now? If you are, what are the timeless values that islam upholds? Is this the only exception or are there more? If there are many exceptions, what is the point of religion at all?
Stuart
To Marry any particular person does not mean you are sexually attracted to that specific group of people nor does it mean that there is a particular feature that has attracted you.
In that case wasn't Mohammad mocking what islam would eventually say about marriage?Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:44) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,23:55) Since studying ‘the creation’ could only reasonably lead you to evolution by natural selection, but you say it leads you to some other conclusion (of which you do not seem able to give details), what is your other source of god-knowledge that overturns ‘study of the creation’? Quote The book of Nature, Physics, Bodhitharta's Law of sexual reproduction which is: two opposing genders must be compatible reproductively within a single lifetime for reproduction to occur, this could not happen randomly over time because Mutations are not synchronized in different organisms this is a fact. Not only that you would need SRMs across the entire spectrum of the range of all species. OK, so you are making conclusions about natural history based on your observations. Does that mean if I can show you that your observations are wrong then you will change your ideas about it?
You do not have to have ‘mutations synchnonised in different organisms’ because, since we are talking about sexual reproduction, males and females do not have different genomes. There is a minor difference in regards to genes carried on the sex chromosomes, but in general they are the same.
Most mutations are either neutral or deleterious. Very often a significant deleterious gene will result in a non-viable foetus. Actually only about 1 in every 6 fertilized eggs makes it to implantation, and one of the significant reasons for the losses is that the foetuses are genetically not up to further development. If your god is responsible for this, then he is a greater abortionist than any human.
Let’s follow the progress of one of those rare advantageous mutations. The mutated version of the gene is passed on to a zygote and meets up with its matching counterpart from the other parent. At least one of the two alleles will be expressed in the new foetus. If the mutant version is allowed to be expressed, and there is an advantage to be had from the protein produced by the mutant, then that allele will be retained and passed on. Of course in practice it is that there are many different alleles present in the human population, giving us genetic variation. If particular characteristics become more advantageous than others then those will be favoured in reproduction (because their carriers are more successful at survival and reproduction) and those traits will appear more frequently.
The important part missing from your description is the basic fact that all of us, as sexually reproducing animals, have two copies of every gene, and those two copes may be different versions. There does not need to be more than one copy of the mutant allele for mutations to be included in the genome and expressed.
No need to make up a Law of the impossible in ones own name to describe something that does not need to happen at all.
Does the removal of this objection allow you to change your mind?
Stuart
Sorry, you misunderstood the principle, it's not about genes it's about genitals that would create gender they would have had to arise at the same exact time for the instance of sexuality to occur and the reproductive organs of both genders would have had to be reproductively viable.Do you understand now?
Had you considered the fact that many species of animal, and indeed flowering plants, carry both sets of reproductive organs?Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:46) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,00:19) Do you have a proper scientific disproof of Darwin? Quote No need, the theory is helpful just like Paul of tarsus
Hmmm. That is a damning indictment by you then!Quote Now, what will happen to a child that is left untaught and unnurtured from birth?
It will not develop to what we might call its ‘potential’, which is I guess our collective expectations of what it may come to be able to do later in life.Quote Now how could this ever be overcome without the nurterer and teacher arising before the nurtured and taught?
There is no nurturing without a nurturer. However, most reptiles do not nurture their young, and in fact many of those young actually have to run away after hatching to escape being eaten by their parents!Quote Please don't try to wiggle just answer and by the way the Chicken came first.
We are not descended from birds!Your question, to take it seriously, must be answered in terms of human evolution and our non-human ancestry. We (and our ancestors, together) have been mammals since at least the lower Jurassic, 180 million years ago, when we shared an ancestor with the monotremes, essentially mammals that retained the capacity to lay eggs. You might be able then to go back a further 130 million years to the carboniferous and somewhere before the end of that journey find a kind of change from the reptilian sort of behaviour to ‘nurturing’ of live offspring. As with intelligence, and in fact any other trait, the advantage to be had from nurturing offspring will have arisen by slow increments. It is not as if a monotreme-like ancestor woke up one morning (or evening) and suddenly realised that he had better start nurturing.
The nurturing to which you refer started long before any of the participants could have been called humans.
Stuart
I'm sorry but you humour me, How would an organism “Just Know” to nurture or teach?
Genetics and environment. The genetic propensity to behave in an advantageous way is reinforced by the environmental example for the nurturer of its own prior nurturing. In humans, it is well established that teachers teach how they were taught themselves.Now ask me another chicken and egg question, maybe one that I have already answered even!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,10:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:40) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,22:12) If it is wrong to marry prepubescent girls today, but it was fine in Mohammad’s time, then what is the point of religion? Quote The question is not only cultural but actually there is no problem if it is marriage because marriage is not pedophelia. Also may people were promised to each other from birth. There is no prohibition of age of marriage in any Holy book and nature determines if a woman is ready for motherhood. I found this here:
Islam, unlike other religions is a strong advocate of marriage. There is no place for celibacy like, for example the Roman Catholic priests and nuns. The prophet (pbuh) has said “there is no celibacy in Islam.
Marriage acts as an outlet for sexual needs and regulate it so one does not become a slave to his/ her desires.
Marriage serves as a means to emotional and sexual gratification and as a means of tension reduction. It is also a form of Ibadah because it is obeying Allah and his messenger – i.e. Marriage is seen as the only possible way for the sexes to unite. One could choose to live in sin, however by choosing marriage one is displaying obedience to Allah.
Do you agree with the sentiments of this writer? If you do then you would seem to be advocating pedophilia: if you are not then there is no way this definition of marriage is OK for the relationship that Mohammad allegedly formed with an underage girl.
The question remains: marriage would appear to REQUIRE a sexual relationship is islam. To not consummate the marriage would appear to be against islamic teaching. There is always the option of NOT MARRYING, to make it clear what the situation is! By today’s standards Mohammad was a pedophile: there is no reason to think otherwise. If that was OK then, are you saying it is OK now? If you are, what are the timeless values that islam upholds? Is this the only exception or are there more? If there are many exceptions, what is the point of religion at all?
Stuart
To Marry any particular person does not mean you are sexually attracted to that specific group of people nor does it mean that there is a particular feature that has attracted you.
In that case wasn't Mohammad mocking what islam would eventually say about marriage?Stuart
No. Islam is explained in the Quran which is the Authority everything else is speculation.Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:49) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,23:34) AI is designed by humans. So what? Quote It demonstrates that intelligence has to be created or “input” put in, unless you can show me otherwise in nature Look in the mirror. There stands a man with intelligence whose only origins are exclusively explained in science by natural selection. Life begets life. Magic does not beget life. By tiny increments the large human brain came to be, and its cognitive abilities produce the effect we know as intelligence.
This is not a case of me showing you otherwise. You are the one making a claim about some supernatural being that cannot be seen or heard by sane people. You will have to show ME ‘otherwise’. Actually there is no other scientific model of how you came to be intelligent.
To claim AI means that intelligence has to be created is to make the logical fallacy of composition. Just because we designed AI does not mean that our intelligence was designed.
Stuart
Of course it does STU, Intelligence is not natural it is taught and therefore it cannot be explained by letting nature take its course.You are losing this debate quickly at this point as I am going to clamp down on all of your silly excuses that you yourself learned verbatim and never experimented nor studied yourself?
You sound a little desperate there BD.Are you claiming that there is no genetic aspect to intelligence, that the only factor affecting what we measure as intelligence is education? That is obviously not true.
“Clamp down” as much as you want. I'm afraid that will involve you actually providing references to back up your assertions.
Good luck with that.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,10:27) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:44) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,23:55) Since studying ‘the creation’ could only reasonably lead you to evolution by natural selection, but you say it leads you to some other conclusion (of which you do not seem able to give details), what is your other source of god-knowledge that overturns ‘study of the creation’? Quote The book of Nature, Physics, Bodhitharta's Law of sexual reproduction which is: two opposing genders must be compatible reproductively within a single lifetime for reproduction to occur, this could not happen randomly over time because Mutations are not synchronized in different organisms this is a fact. Not only that you would need SRMs across the entire spectrum of the range of all species. OK, so you are making conclusions about natural history based on your observations. Does that mean if I can show you that your observations are wrong then you will change your ideas about it?
You do not have to have ‘mutations synchnonised in different organisms’ because, since we are talking about sexual reproduction, males and females do not have different genomes. There is a minor difference in regards to genes carried on the sex chromosomes, but in general they are the same.
Most mutations are either neutral or deleterious. Very often a significant deleterious gene will result in a non-viable foetus. Actually only about 1 in every 6 fertilized eggs makes it to implantation, and one of the significant reasons for the losses is that the foetuses are genetically not up to further development. If your god is responsible for this, then he is a greater abortionist than any human.
Let’s follow the progress of one of those rare advantageous mutations. The mutated version of the gene is passed on to a zygote and meets up with its matching counterpart from the other parent. At least one of the two alleles will be expressed in the new foetus. If the mutant version is allowed to be expressed, and there is an advantage to be had from the protein produced by the mutant, then that allele will be retained and passed on. Of course in practice it is that there are many different alleles present in the human population, giving us genetic variation. If particular characteristics become more advantageous than others then those will be favoured in reproduction (because their carriers are more successful at survival and reproduction) and those traits will appear more frequently.
The important part missing from your description is the basic fact that all of us, as sexually reproducing animals, have two copies of every gene, and those two copes may be different versions. There does not need to be more than one copy of the mutant allele for mutations to be included in the genome and expressed.
No need to make up a Law of the impossible in ones own name to describe something that does not need to happen at all.
Does the removal of this objection allow you to change your mind?
Stuart
Sorry, you misunderstood the principle, it's not about genes it's about genitals that would create gender they would have had to arise at the same exact time for the instance of sexuality to occur and the reproductive organs of both genders would have had to be reproductively viable.Do you understand now?
Had you considered the fact that many species of animal, and indeed flowering plants, carry both sets of reproductive organs?Stuart
Yes, but wiggle as you may how would they develop both at the same time? You lose Stu.Bodhitharta's Law is rock solid and eventually is being peer reviewed.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,10:39) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,10:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:40) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,22:12) If it is wrong to marry prepubescent girls today, but it was fine in Mohammad’s time, then what is the point of religion? Quote The question is not only cultural but actually there is no problem if it is marriage because marriage is not pedophelia. Also may people were promised to each other from birth. There is no prohibition of age of marriage in any Holy book and nature determines if a woman is ready for motherhood. I found this here:
Islam, unlike other religions is a strong advocate of marriage. There is no place for celibacy like, for example the Roman Catholic priests and nuns. The prophet (pbuh) has said “there is no celibacy in Islam.
Marriage acts as an outlet for sexual needs and regulate it so one does not become a slave to his/ her desires.
Marriage serves as a means to emotional and sexual gratification and as a means of tension reduction. It is also a form of Ibadah because it is obeying Allah and his messenger – i.e. Marriage is seen as the only possible way for the sexes to unite. One could choose to live in sin, however by choosing marriage one is displaying obedience to Allah.
Do you agree with the sentiments of this writer? If you do then you would seem to be advocating pedophilia: if you are not then there is no way this definition of marriage is OK for the relationship that Mohammad allegedly formed with an underage girl.
The question remains: marriage would appear to REQUIRE a sexual relationship is islam. To not consummate the marriage would appear to be against islamic teaching. There is always the option of NOT MARRYING, to make it clear what the situation is! By today’s standards Mohammad was a pedophile: there is no reason to think otherwise. If that was OK then, are you saying it is OK now? If you are, what are the timeless values that islam upholds? Is this the only exception or are there more? If there are many exceptions, what is the point of religion at all?
Stuart
To Marry any particular person does not mean you are sexually attracted to that specific group of people nor does it mean that there is a particular feature that has attracted you.
In that case wasn't Mohammad mocking what islam would eventually say about marriage?Stuart
No. Islam is explained in the Quran which is the Authority everything else is speculation.
OK. So Mohammad married a little girl. Do you find that reasonable ethically?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,10:40) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:49) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,23:34) AI is designed by humans. So what? Quote It demonstrates that intelligence has to be created or “input” put in, unless you can show me otherwise in nature Look in the mirror. There stands a man with intelligence whose only origins are exclusively explained in science by natural selection. Life begets life. Magic does not beget life. By tiny increments the large human brain came to be, and its cognitive abilities produce the effect we know as intelligence.
This is not a case of me showing you otherwise. You are the one making a claim about some supernatural being that cannot be seen or heard by sane people. You will have to show ME ‘otherwise’. Actually there is no other scientific model of how you came to be intelligent.
To claim AI means that intelligence has to be created is to make the logical fallacy of composition. Just because we designed AI does not mean that our intelligence was designed.
Stuart
Of course it does STU, Intelligence is not natural it is taught and therefore it cannot be explained by letting nature take its course.You are losing this debate quickly at this point as I am going to clamp down on all of your silly excuses that you yourself learned verbatim and never experimented nor studied yourself?
You sound a little desperate there BD.Are you claiming that there is no genetic aspect to intelligence, that the only factor affecting what we measure as intelligence is education? That is obviously not true.
“Clamp down” as much as you want. I'm afraid that will involve you actually providing references to back up your assertions.
Good luck with that.
Stuart
The capacity for intelligence is also another indication of intelligent input you cannot escape the fact that there is no intelligence that is not learned and fostered. Capacity that is unused is useless.Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,10:46) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,10:27) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:44) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,23:55) Since studying ‘the creation’ could only reasonably lead you to evolution by natural selection, but you say it leads you to some other conclusion (of which you do not seem able to give details), what is your other source of god-knowledge that overturns ‘study of the creation’? Quote The book of Nature, Physics, Bodhitharta's Law of sexual reproduction which is: two opposing genders must be compatible reproductively within a single lifetime for reproduction to occur, this could not happen randomly over time because Mutations are not synchronized in different organisms this is a fact. Not only that you would need SRMs across the entire spectrum of the range of all species. OK, so you are making conclusions about natural history based on your observations. Does that mean if I can show you that your observations are wrong then you will change your ideas about it?
You do not have to have ‘mutations synchnonised in different organisms’ because, since we are talking about sexual reproduction, males and females do not have different genomes. There is a minor difference in regards to genes carried on the sex chromosomes, but in general they are the same.
Most mutations are either neutral or deleterious. Very often a significant deleterious gene will result in a non-viable foetus. Actually only about 1 in every 6 fertilized eggs makes it to implantation, and one of the significant reasons for the losses is that the foetuses are genetically not up to further development. If your god is responsible for this, then he is a greater abortionist than any human.
Let’s follow the progress of one of those rare advantageous mutations. The mutated version of the gene is passed on to a zygote and meets up with its matching counterpart from the other parent. At least one of the two alleles will be expressed in the new foetus. If the mutant version is allowed to be expressed, and there is an advantage to be had from the protein produced by the mutant, then that allele will be retained and passed on. Of course in practice it is that there are many different alleles present in the human population, giving us genetic variation. If particular characteristics become more advantageous than others then those will be favoured in reproduction (because their carriers are more successful at survival and reproduction) and those traits will appear more frequently.
The important part missing from your description is the basic fact that all of us, as sexually reproducing animals, have two copies of every gene, and those two copes may be different versions. There does not need to be more than one copy of the mutant allele for mutations to be included in the genome and expressed.
No need to make up a Law of the impossible in ones own name to describe something that does not need to happen at all.
Does the removal of this objection allow you to change your mind?
Stuart
Sorry, you misunderstood the principle, it's not about genes it's about genitals that would create gender they would have had to arise at the same exact time for the instance of sexuality to occur and the reproductive organs of both genders would have had to be reproductively viable.Do you understand now?
Had you considered the fact that many species of animal, and indeed flowering plants, carry both sets of reproductive organs?Stuart
Yes, but wiggle as you may how would they develop both at the same time? You lose Stu.Bodhitharta's Law is rock solid and eventually is being peer reviewed.
When you say develop, do you mean evolve? Do you understand about how bacteria share genetic material, and about the slightly more organised processes of isogamy?What exactly is your 'Law'?
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,10:50) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,10:40) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:49) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,23:34) AI is designed by humans. So what? Quote It demonstrates that intelligence has to be created or “input” put in, unless you can show me otherwise in nature Look in the mirror. There stands a man with intelligence whose only origins are exclusively explained in science by natural selection. Life begets life. Magic does not beget life. By tiny increments the large human brain came to be, and its cognitive abilities produce the effect we know as intelligence.
This is not a case of me showing you otherwise. You are the one making a claim about some supernatural being that cannot be seen or heard by sane people. You will have to show ME ‘otherwise’. Actually there is no other scientific model of how you came to be intelligent.
To claim AI means that intelligence has to be created is to make the logical fallacy of composition. Just because we designed AI does not mean that our intelligence was designed.
Stuart
Of course it does STU, Intelligence is not natural it is taught and therefore it cannot be explained by letting nature take its course.You are losing this debate quickly at this point as I am going to clamp down on all of your silly excuses that you yourself learned verbatim and never experimented nor studied yourself?
You sound a little desperate there BD.Are you claiming that there is no genetic aspect to intelligence, that the only factor affecting what we measure as intelligence is education? That is obviously not true.
“Clamp down” as much as you want. I'm afraid that will involve you actually providing references to back up your assertions.
Good luck with that.
Stuart
The capacity for intelligence is also another indication of intelligent input you cannot escape the fact that there is no intelligence that is not learned and fostered. Capacity that is unused is useless.
Assertion, assertion, assertion.Do you have any facts or are you just going to carry on regaling us with WHAT YOU RECON?
It's like watching islamist apologists on Al Jazeera.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,10:47) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,10:39) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,10:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:40) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,22:12) If it is wrong to marry prepubescent girls today, but it was fine in Mohammad’s time, then what is the point of religion? Quote The question is not only cultural but actually there is no problem if it is marriage because marriage is not pedophelia. Also may people were promised to each other from birth. There is no prohibition of age of marriage in any Holy book and nature determines if a woman is ready for motherhood. I found this here:
Islam, unlike other religions is a strong advocate of marriage. There is no place for celibacy like, for example the Roman Catholic priests and nuns. The prophet (pbuh) has said “there is no celibacy in Islam.
Marriage acts as an outlet for sexual needs and regulate it so one does not become a slave to his/ her desires.
Marriage serves as a means to emotional and sexual gratification and as a means of tension reduction. It is also a form of Ibadah because it is obeying Allah and his messenger – i.e. Marriage is seen as the only possible way for the sexes to unite. One could choose to live in sin, however by choosing marriage one is displaying obedience to Allah.
Do you agree with the sentiments of this writer? If you do then you would seem to be advocating pedophilia: if you are not then there is no way this definition of marriage is OK for the relationship that Mohammad allegedly formed with an underage girl.
The question remains: marriage would appear to REQUIRE a sexual relationship is islam. To not consummate the marriage would appear to be against islamic teaching. There is always the option of NOT MARRYING, to make it clear what the situation is! By today’s standards Mohammad was a pedophile: there is no reason to think otherwise. If that was OK then, are you saying it is OK now? If you are, what are the timeless values that islam upholds? Is this the only exception or are there more? If there are many exceptions, what is the point of religion at all?
Stuart
To Marry any particular person does not mean you are sexually attracted to that specific group of people nor does it mean that there is a particular feature that has attracted you.
In that case wasn't Mohammad mocking what islam would eventually say about marriage?Stuart
No. Islam is explained in the Quran which is the Authority everything else is speculation.
OK. So Mohammad married a little girl. Do you find that reasonable ethically?Stuart
I already stated to you that there is no prohibition against marriage to anyone that it is lawful to marry, you can play all you want but all your eally saying is that there should be no large age gap between two individuals getting married as the calculations are always the same a 40 year old with a 25 year old means that when the 40 year old was 20 the 25 year old was 5.Arranged marriages were common and still are today but still there is no evil in it and it is not prohibited in any HOLY BOOK. In-fact even Evolution supports early involvement as oppose to later relations. You lose again and why? Because I don't try to accomodate you like other Christians not wanting to confront the truth head on.
But when I say you lose, I really mean you win because you are receiving the truth here today.
Learn!
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,10:52) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,10:46) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,10:27) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:44) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,23:55) Since studying ‘the creation’ could only reasonably lead you to evolution by natural selection, but you say it leads you to some other conclusion (of which you do not seem able to give details), what is your other source of god-knowledge that overturns ‘study of the creation’? Quote The book of Nature, Physics, Bodhitharta's Law of sexual reproduction which is: two opposing genders must be compatible reproductively within a single lifetime for reproduction to occur, this could not happen randomly over time because Mutations are not synchronized in different organisms this is a fact. Not only that you would need SRMs across the entire spectrum of the range of all species. OK, so you are making conclusions about natural history based on your observations. Does that mean if I can show you that your observations are wrong then you will change your ideas about it?
You do not have to have ‘mutations synchnonised in different organisms’ because, since we are talking about sexual reproduction, males and females do not have different genomes. There is a minor difference in regards to genes carried on the sex chromosomes, but in general they are the same.
Most mutations are either neutral or deleterious. Very often a significant deleterious gene will result in a non-viable foetus. Actually only about 1 in every 6 fertilized eggs makes it to implantation, and one of the significant reasons for the losses is that the foetuses are genetically not up to further development. If your god is responsible for this, then he is a greater abortionist than any human.
Let’s follow the progress of one of those rare advantageous mutations. The mutated version of the gene is passed on to a zygote and meets up with its matching counterpart from the other parent. At least one of the two alleles will be expressed in the new foetus. If the mutant version is allowed to be expressed, and there is an advantage to be had from the protein produced by the mutant, then that allele will be retained and passed on. Of course in practice it is that there are many different alleles present in the human population, giving us genetic variation. If particular characteristics become more advantageous than others then those will be favoured in reproduction (because their carriers are more successful at survival and reproduction) and those traits will appear more frequently.
The important part missing from your description is the basic fact that all of us, as sexually reproducing animals, have two copies of every gene, and those two copes may be different versions. There does not need to be more than one copy of the mutant allele for mutations to be included in the genome and expressed.
No need to make up a Law of the impossible in ones own name to describe something that does not need to happen at all.
Does the removal of this objection allow you to change your mind?
Stuart
Sorry, you misunderstood the principle, it's not about genes it's about genitals that would create gender they would have had to arise at the same exact time for the instance of sexuality to occur and the reproductive organs of both genders would have had to be reproductively viable.Do you understand now?
Had you considered the fact that many species of animal, and indeed flowering plants, carry both sets of reproductive organs?Stuart
Yes, but wiggle as you may how would they develop both at the same time? You lose Stu.Bodhitharta's Law is rock solid and eventually is being peer reviewed.
When you say develop, do you mean evolve? Do you understand about how bacteria share genetic material, and about the slightly more organised processes of isogamy?What exactly is your 'Law'?
Stuart
To perform the act of coitous both organisms must have viable reproductive systems so the very first couple of organisms would have had to reach this point exactly at the same time in a single lifespan in order to be succesful.Do you get it , yet?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,11:03) I already stated to you that there is no prohibition against marriage to anyone that it is lawful to marry, you can play all you want but all your eally saying is that there should be no large age gap between two individuals getting married as the calculations are always the same a 40 year old with a 25 year old means that when the 40 year old was 20 the 25 year old was 5. Arranged marriages were common and still are today but still there is no evil in it and it is not prohibited in any HOLY BOOK. In-fact even Evolution supports early involvement as oppose to later relations. You lose again and why? Because I don't try to accomodate you like other Christians not wanting to confront the truth head on.
But when I say you lose, I really mean you win because you are receiving the truth here today.
Learn!
Where was I objecting on age difference?This is about development. A nine year old girl is in no position to be agreeing to arragements about sexual relationships with adult males, whether they will be comsummated at that stage or not.
This is child abuse from whatever angle you look. That is what the law of your country says too, and I am a bit alarmed that you seem to be saying that what your country now calls child abuse, was OK in traditional islamic society (and indeed in other non-muslim cultures).
Not sure what 'truth I have learned here'. You are stuck in the transmit mode required by your faith, but that does not mean you are transmitting anything of value.
I think by most Western secular standards what you are describing here is unethical.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,11:06) To perform the act of coitous both organisms must have viable reproductive systems so the very first couple of organisms would have had to reach this point exactly at the same time in a single lifespan in order to be succesful. Do you get it , yet?
While it may seem trivially obvious, it is actually a demonstration of your ignorance about your distant ancestry.You are assuming some kind of instant divine creation model then criticising natural history because it does not match your mythology.
The problem, whichever way you consider it, is that your model does not match reality. Time to change the model!
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
