If you had 1% of this rigor when talking about religion you could almost look intelectually honest.

But unfortunately you never opened a bible of your life. And make cheap judgment on people who read it none the less.

What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology
By Addy Pross




Just some perpective to illustrate what can be meant by "low probability" and how "astonishing" it is to think life which is orders of magnitude more complex than a fridge would just popup like this out of the "primordial soup".

Not saying it's impossible, but just to weight the complexity and low probability of it.

Today people seem to have fascination for iPhone, consider google genius ( only using the tablet for a few week I want to hang à few of them),  but find it totally normal and natural that form of life popup like this with some natural chemistry. Kinda cognitive dissonance full throttle.


For me it still very basic metaphysics, and rather classic take on thermodynamics, he is not getting too wet on this one, but it already show something.


https://aeon.co/essays/paradoxes-of-stability-how-life-began-and-why-it-can-t-rest

The second insight is even more momentous. Evolution exhibits an identifiable driving force, a direction if you like, and this ‘teleological’ tendency acts at both the chemical and biological stages; that is, it operates both during, as well as after, what we think of as abiogenesis. Thus the purpose-driven character of life, the very thing that seemed to distinguish biology from the rest of nature, turns out not to be unique to life after all. Its beginnings are already discernible in certain inanimate syrstems, provided they are replicative and able to evolve. And this driving force can be described in strictly physical terms.

I have read some this most of the point are moot actually lol

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB402.html

I just pick this one among other, and Edelman explain how language formed.

Many other points are not up to date with latest science.

They have a very naturalist take on things, and it's already almost sure most brain advanced function are not made to understand natural environment but self and maintain cohesion among large group of individual.

But need to read Edelman, it out date most of the points in that link.

And it's based on experimental study of neurology.


http://www.agenthuman.com/product/evolution_social_consciousness_in_animals.html

=>

The Importance Of Categories

I see nowhere in this link and the external links where they even mention self understanding as the basics of consciousness evolution whereas from neurology study it show brain advanced function form to accomodate what they call "Primary consciousness" more than to understand nature / environment.





http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html


Intelligent design implies philosophical naturalism. As noted above, all science, industry, agriculture, and so forth is based on nature. That does not stop evolutionists, other scientists, engineers, manufacturers, and farmers from being able to look beyond the materialism and find spirituality in their lives.

The intelligent design crowd, on the other hand, seems unable to make that step. They seem to require objective, material evidence to back up their spirituality. But that, of course, makes their spirituality naturalistic. For all their complaints about materialism, people like Dembski and Johnson are trying to expand materialism into the field of religion.


This one also clearly lack philosophical perpective.

This is a very old debate that started between plato and aristotle in antiquity.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] argues that non-physical (but substantial) forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only objects of study that can provide knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] However, the theory is considered a classical solution to the problem of universals.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

The first references that are seen in The Republic to the Form of the Good are within the conversation between Glaucon and Socrates (454 c–d). When trying to answer such difficult questions pertaining to the definition of justice, Plato identifies that we should not “introduce every form of difference and sameness in nature” instead we must focus on "the one form of sameness and difference that was relevant to the particular ways of life themselves” which is the form of the Good. This form is the basis for understanding all other forms, it is what allows us to understand everything else. Through the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon (508 a–c), Plato analogizes the form of the Good with the sun as it is what allows us to see things. Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, “sun is not sight” but it is “the cause of sight itself.” As the sun is in the visible realm, the form of Good is in the intelligible realm. It is “what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower”. It is not only the “cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge”.

Plato identifies how the form of the Good allows for the cognizance to understand such difficult concepts as justice. He identifies knowledge and truth as important, but through Socrates (508d–e) says, “good is yet more prized”. He then proceeds to explain “although the good is not being” it is “superior to it in rank and power”, it is what “provides for knowledge and truth” (508e).




http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

This one is also inaccurate if not plain false.

Language, although symbolic, is still material.

It's even self defeating in the sense we have a word for god who according to them is not a material object.

Parmenides show the fallacy of this claim 800 bc.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB421.html

This one no comment ..

Maybe he should investigate who invented the first music scale, how and why.

It has nothing to do with social dancing.



90% of points in that link are not up to date science and ignore very basics of philosophy that are at the very root of rationalism.

John Crick who discovered dna and also LSD user told deep things on this link between all species through dna. He saw dna as common link between all forms of life.

It's generally easy to understand other animals or vegetals aka if a cat is meowing in demanding or agressive maner, or if a plante is in good health or not.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Mad_Pursuit

He was atheist but also didn't believe too much in earth abiogenesis, it's a bit cognitive dissonance where scientist get into if they are too much atheist.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/  

The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation. The most startling revelation in Overbye's article is that scientists have resuscitated a proposal once floated by Crick. Dissatisfied with conventional theories of life's beginning, Crick conjectured that aliens came to Earth in a spaceship and planted the seeds of life here billions of years ago. This notion is called directed panspermia. In less dramatic versions of panspermia, microbes arrived on our planet via asteroids, comets or meteorites, or drifted down like confetti.


But it's the problem a little in our modern society, scientist hate religion because of certain number of nuts ( who very often know very little of their own book and often do the opposite of what is told in it), and religious hate scientist because of the coldness and lack of interest in human affairs.

The thing is i see you more insulting religious people, with full of a priori, while you didn't even study religion, than making scientific point on evolution, other than anti religious points.

Being anti religious doesnt make you more scientific.

And I see you more making scorning comments on other than posting interesting facts or studies.

There is very few scientist who are atheist btw.

Nothing, it was probably too complicated for you to understand. Go back to your lab.

Picasso  

https://youtu.be/nceAGqfdykQ society suicide.


Maybe you should watch the serie "missions" on mars, it show a good view of "higher intelligence"

I dont really see the connection but ok ..

This guy look like an asshole.

What is said is more that he explain this repression because of lack of food resources during ice age.

But it stay very speculative.

If anything the concept of wedding and marriage come more from religion than science.


Rape is like ego- libido = narcissism, and  carry no reproductive value.

There is the section "selfish genes" that talk about this in the badcock ( lol The name   ) paper.


Freud is not perfect, but he is into the few ones who dare to see intelligence in "instinct" and evolutionary drive.

I like Edelman more but he is harder to grasp, and he still follow on Freud on many things.

http://www.academia.edu/5437452/FREUDS_FORGOTTEN_EVOLUTIONARY_PROJECT




This show how biology can repress things due to "intelligent" process.



There are plenty of things in Freud not well known studied that show the mind can direct evolution, by repressing biology.

There are better demonstration than this.

And it show also how the effect of mutation is not known advance and tend to show intelligent pattern in evolution.


This one is good too

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289952422_PsychoDarwinism_The_New_Synthesis_of_Darwin_Freud

Having irrational and ignorant bias against religion doesnt make you more scientific.


https://youtu.be/CAj5aJRB3HE 

Vandal & the dsc no time to gaze 

There is very little empirical evidence of it.

Most of the evidence is finding only certain species at a certain time, with c14.

Lot of darwin work, and the more interesting is not empirical. There are some empirical study with morphology etc that seem to point in an evolution, but even in the creationist theory that would not be too surprising all creature of a same god in the same universe would be similar.

But we still have no idea how to turn a monkey to einstein.

Even turning a mussel to oyster would be a scientific miracle.

But the amount of work / computational power to achieve this is tremendous.

The biggest mining farms are for 256 bit hash, which much less work than finding all the good genes for any animal.

In any case science say very little about the force at play with this.

Even saying it's "random" mutation is an admition of their lack of knowledge of this force.

Collection of facts is not science.


Science is not a collection of facts; it is a process of discovery. Robert Zubrin



The Scientist must set in order. Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.

Henri point carré.



You dont even know what science is lol

Yes ok you are right, you know everything, I didn't study anything, go play with your molecules in your lab, and make blanket statement out of the blue like it looks smart and scientific.

Im not even evolution deniers,  that's just how much you know about everything, and how much you study things before making statements.

But maybe you can point where I denied evolution. Or maybe your just a drones full of a priori on everything with zero capacity of analysis

Planetbase also was pretty funny

Well when someone start to ressort on

"It's obvious that Xxx"

"The scientific community say that xxx"

"Xxx is ridiculous"

" i doubt that Xxx"

You know they are very short on scientific arguments and critical thinking.

I dont need a Flock of drones to study things. I have a brain of my own + internet + books + computer.

https://youtu.be/O5eU9B8Kt4s

Saptrem the aventure of consciousness

Here is a guy who understand evolution !

Yeah of course, studied plenty into cognitive system, dna as information system, bio dynamics, philosophy & all

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rcQYQXVm3g8&t=270

Captain hook - human design  

You just like to control the universe and you dont know enough magic to do so

Dont tell me you give much shit about poor african and child abuse outside of proving a point on the forum.

And of course men have nothing to do with running the african continent, it just happened by god magic with a thunder right ?

With all this great science known by such great person as yourself, and all this WORK WORK WORK would think it would be over right ?

God happen in the spirit,  not in the material world.

God have little to do with this, especially if he doesnt exists. Who hate african then ?

One can be happy being poor, and sad being richest man.

Doesnt look like all this science and real world matrix of wallet street doesnt help that much

You sure do look very knowledgeable about groups of people lol
Are you a bot or something ? Lol

Do you live in soviet union where you divide people between the politically correct who believe the good theory and the others ?  

Of course evolution poped out 100% correct day one 200 years ago, never moved, and it formed a group of  borgs who are all part of the same first group and all agree on every single bit of how we got there  lol

Just look around you, inside you.

Then you can make your own god too