Evolution, Christian Darwin's Theory, Now Proven Wrong

"
faerwin wrote:
still haven't answered how people of different colors came to be if humanity is traced back to adam and eve.


Joseph Smith's answer (at least for blacks and what about all the other races?) was "the mark of Cain". I believe that to be silly on a level similar to the OP. Which is meant to emphasize the point being made by faerwin.
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
"
鬼殺し wrote:
That's why you need to read the book, or at least watch the movie. It positions Christ as a creature ruled by a fear-love of God, which can result in a surprisingly assertive demeanour. Surprising for some I guess. Fear-love probably hews too close to Donnie Darko but there you go. If anyone would have struggled with the equilibrium between the two, surely it was Christ.

Curiously I think he'd lack a lot of credibility had he written his own books, because nothing says 'credible' like a slew of independent witnesses all saying pretty much the same thing.

Hippy-dippy is one way to put it. I'd call Christianity, at its purest and with utter respect to its namesake, weaponised love.



Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of "I wonder how his ideas would have matured and developed if he had lived to 63 instead of 33, and lived a chunk of that in exile."

Self-authoring a religion is inherently flawed, isn't it? I wonder, too, whether any single text-based religion is doomed to be badly realised.

I'm not sure the Gospels are independent witnesses saying the same thing, though. Witnesses are ... ["dim bulb goes off that there is a name for this and... google will have some stuff on it"] Yep -

"
The misinformation effect
To most people, the idea of conforming to misinformation from a co-witness can seem very unlikely, why would anybody take the word of someone else over their own in such a serious setting? What many individuals fail to understand is that during such occurrences, the eyewitnesses who conform to misinformation from others are not consciously aware that they are being influenced by someone else. Instead they would be convinced that they witness the misinformation first hand – leading eyewitness expert Elizabeth Loftus described this act of influence as the misinformation effect.

To understand how the misinformation effect works we must first understand the problems with memory encoding. When exposed to new information, an individual will be able to remember when and where that information was learnt, this is known as source monitoring. However, as time elapses the individual will be less likely to accurately remember the source from which the information was first discovered. Within an eyewitness setting, the memory of the witness will often be distorted (for reasons mentioned above). As a result, there would be gaps within their memory recall of the event. Due to these absences of information, it would become increasingly more difficult later on for eyewitnesses to be able to differentiate between information that they witnessed and information that they were exposed to afterwards. Therefore due to source attribution errors, eyewitnesses who are exposed to a post-event discussion will be at risk of mistakenly reporting misinformation from others in their own statements.


It's a fascinating branch of psychology, forensic psychology. Also seriously alarming how fallible human memory can be. Delve into the archives of the innocence project if you fancy. The story of Ronald Cotton is something else, not least that the two main players in the story are now friends.

And back to Jesus, I clearly need to read the book and then discuss :)







"
faerwin wrote:
still haven't answered how people of different colors came to be if humanity is traced back to adam and eve.


You obviously don't understand the subject of evolution and that's ok. We aren't born with this Fake Science knowledge.

Bottom line is, blacks, whites, etc, are not different species.

It's like dog breeds.

Today we have hundreds (if not thousands I don't know) dog breeds, that were NOT found in the wild.

We bred the dobermans, the german shepherds, the dolmations, the collies, the weiner dogs, the etc etc etc.

We bred them, in many cases, from a single breed of natural, wild dog.

This should answer your own question in part...

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY...

We were created, by God.

Adam and Eve as you mention, were 2 people, and the original.

But it in no way means no others were created, let alone no other animals, by God.

As it's written, Cain took a wife, from elsewhere.

Not his sister.

Apparently God created others, after Adam and Eve.

Which would leave open the possibility that blacks and whites and se asians etc, do not have common roots.

Personally I believe we all came from adam and eve but there is no proof. You'll get that proof when you die someday and are standing before the Lord.

The reason fossils don't show what we hoped they would in trying to prove evolution, is because God created life, and creates life.

The millions of years of fossil record, shows just this happening.

It doesn't show dinosaurs flapping their arms and sprouting feathers like the cartoons of evolution shows.

It simply shows, BAM, a new life form.

No, "the mammal evolved a nose that got pushed to the back of its head as it swam a lot in the ocean then it evolved eventually into a whale".

This bs only happens, in cartoons of evolution that "scientists" show people. Because they have no fossil record whatsoever, that helps them out.

It's ok to admit you're wrong. Part of being a real man or woman, is the ability to admit when we're wrong.

Even if i, never, ever, am wrong.

The Christians' theory of evolution, has been disproven by the fossil record... the very record they built, to prove evolution.

It's ok to move on, and use our brains to look into newer, better theories.

God created us.

This is a scientific possibility you should look into.

Instead of just accept the possibility of a creator, if it's some random alien race.

The hatred of God (not saying you hate God) is all too often so deep in people, they can't see the obvious, no matter how many billions of fossils they dig up.

"
erdelyii wrote:
"
The misinformation effect
To most people, the idea of conforming to misinformation from a co-witness can seem very unlikely, why would anybody take the word of someone else over their own in such a serious setting? What many individuals fail to understand is that during such occurrences, the eyewitnesses who conform to misinformation from others are not consciously aware that they are being influenced by someone else. Instead they would be convinced that they witness the misinformation first hand – leading eyewitness expert Elizabeth Loftus described this act of influence as the misinformation effect.

To understand how the misinformation effect works we must first understand the problems with memory encoding. When exposed to new information, an individual will be able to remember when and where that information was learnt, this is known as source monitoring. However, as time elapses the individual will be less likely to accurately remember the source from which the information was first discovered. Within an eyewitness setting, the memory of the witness will often be distorted (for reasons mentioned above). As a result, there would be gaps within their memory recall of the event. Due to these absences of information, it would become increasingly more difficult later on for eyewitnesses to be able to differentiate between information that they witnessed and information that they were exposed to afterwards. Therefore due to source attribution errors, eyewitnesses who are exposed to a post-event discussion will be at risk of mistakenly reporting misinformation from others in their own statements.
It's a fascinating branch of psychology, forensic psychology. Also seriously alarming how fallible human memory can be.
I have a theory on that.

The core concept of a word is that it is a single concept with a definition that combines multiple concepts. Words also have symbols that repreaent them, both visual symbols and audio symbols. If we remove the social component of a word entirely, we have a self-word, made of an arbitrary and personal mental symbol, and a definition that itself consists of mulyiple self-words.

There is a branch of computer science where we see similar behavior: compression. Compression is used to fit large amounts of data on limited amounts of memory for later recall. Thus, it would seem that concept definition (using self-words) is the evolutionary adaptation that allows human beings to hold so much in our brains. We know more than other animals because we have compression enabled, and they don't.

However, as a consequence of this a human being's memory is only about as good as their self-word vocabulary at the time the memory was first formed. This is why we typically remember nothing from when we are infants and little from when we're toddlers. It also explains why childhood traumas are so often the source of adult mental illness, as those with a limited self-word vocabulary are much more likely to form memories that are inconsistent with observable reality, such that those "truths" can cause trouble later on.

This is also why eyewitness testimony isn't nearly as accurate as we'd like it to be. We don't remember it as we saw it; we remember it as we described it to ourselves. Unfortunately, we're not always unbiased when we do so.

When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jul 15, 2018, 4:02:26 PM
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
I have a theory on that.

The core concept of a word is that it is a single concept with a definition that combines multiple concepts. Words also have symbols that repreaent them, both visual symbols and audio symbols. If we remove the social component of a word entirely, we have a self-word, made of an arbitrary and personal mental symbol, and a definition that itself consists of mulyiple self-words.

There is a branch of computer science where we see similar behavior: compression. Compression is used to fit large amounts of data on limited amounts of memory for later recall. Thus, it would seem that concept definition (using self-words) is the evolutionary adaptation that allows human beings to hold so much in our brains. We know more than other animals because we have compression enabled, and they don't.

However, as a consequence of this a human being's memory is only about as good as their self-word vocabulary at the time the memory was first formed. This is why we typically remember nothing from when we are infants and little from when we're toddlers.


Schema Theory?


"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
It also explains why childhood traumas are so often the source of adult mental illness, as those with a limited self-word vocabulary are much more likely to form memories that are inconsistent with observable reality, such that those "truths" can cause trouble later on.

This is also why eyewitness testimony isn't nearly as accurate as we'd like it to be. We don't remember it as we saw it; we remember it as we described it to ourselves. Unfortunately, we're not always unbiased when we do so.


I think you're accounting for the effect of trauma without it being in the equation. There is not such thing as "observable reality" when we're talking about how we experience sensory input, memory, consciousness, I don't even know what word to use. Have a read of this and you might see why the trauma colours everything. I've put it in a spoiler box because it's pretty "heavy". People with trauma be advised.

Spoiler
"Complex developmental trauma: Complex trauma refers to the impact of children's exposure to traumatic events on their development and long-term outcomes, in the context of interpersonal relationships with caregivers (Cook et al., 2003; Cook et al., 2005). It is thought that in this context, the neurological development of the brain becomes distorted such that the "survival" mechanisms of the brain and body are more dominant than the "learning" mechanisms (Atkinson, 2013), resulting in wide-ranging impairments in arousal, cognitive, emotional and social functioning.

Although the description of complex trauma resonates with many practitioners, the lack of rigorous evidence in support of complex trauma as a construct, as well as paucity of evidence in favour of interventions for complex trauma, has meant that it has not yet been accepted as a formal diagnostic category by mental health professionals (DSM-V: APA). Unfortunately, published studies cited as demonstrating the impact of complex trauma tend to have included children who meet criteria for discrete post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rather than those children raised in the context of maladaptive care (e.g., De Bellis et al., 2009; Gabowitz, Zucker, & Cook, 2008; Teicher et al., 1997; Teicher et al., 2004). This does not mean that complex trauma is not a valid construct, simply that there is a lack of empirical research in the area. Researchers have yet to develop agreed ways to define and measure complex trauma so that an evidence base for intervention can be established.

Neurosequential model: One popular description of the impact of early adversity and complex trauma in the context of neglect and abuse links these environmental events to chronic disruption of the child's stress hormones - leading to chronic hyper-arousal and ongoing sensitivity to stress (e.g., Perry, 2006, 2009).

Chronic stress hormone dysregulation is thought to lead to changes in the sequential development of brain structures and brain functioning, through the process of "use-dependent" synaptic pruning (Perry, 2009). These changes may be addressed, at least in part, by regular and intensive intervention that regulates the more "primitive" regions of the brain, through repetitive and rhythmic activities in the context of continuous therapeutic relationships (e.g., Perry, 2009; Perry, & Dobson, 2013).

While animal studies have supported the basic premise of a link between early stress and hormone dysregulation, there isn't yet parallel research that demonstrates the impact of early adversity on human brain development (Moffitt, 2013; Shors 2006; Teicher, Tomoda, & Andersen, 2006) nor research that demonstrates the impact of interventions that target brain development. Collaboration between practitioners and researchers is needed to advance this field and to document the effectiveness of services based on this model.

More research is needed to establish the relationship between the wide range of early life stressors, including changes in brain and hormone functioning and child development (McLaughlin, et al., 2014; Moffitt, 2013). There is great potential to draw on practitioner-research partnerships to better document, evaluate and inform emerging models of intervention for children in care. This will be an important step in developing and justifying interventions directed towards children in care (McCrory et al., 2011; Moffitt, 2013)."

So, yes the schemas are fucked-up, but this is a byproduct, not a reason.


I'm not sure about schemas being involved in faulty memory. maybe so.



Last edited by erdelyii on Jul 20, 2018, 8:12:50 PM
"
erdelyii wrote:
Sort of. I don't believe schemata would be used by the human brain at all if it wasn't for their utility at memory compression; theoretically, if a consciousness had infinite storage, it would have little need for schemata and would think differently. (I only skimmed that document for now, I might read it in full later.)
"
erdelyii wrote:
There is not such thing as "observable reality" when we're talking about how we experience sensory input, memory, consciousness, I don't even know what word to use.
This is false. Perception (in the proper epistemological sense of: data from one's senses) is objective, but ephemeral. Schemata are indeed subjective and durable, but (as Scott Adams might say) the worth of your (subjective) "filter" is in its ability to predict the future (perception). Reality is merely a medium to which one mind can influence (ex: through motor impulses to the limbs of its body) and from which that mind can perceive its influence (that is, see the results of those motor impulses). Knowledge of reality is not innate, but you can watch infants develop it as a stronger and stronger hypothesis, using inductive reasoning (that is, a proto-scientific method), in real time, until it is finally elevated to theory and fully believed. If you didn't believe in reality, you wouldn't have even been able to reply to me.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Jul 20, 2018, 10:09:44 PM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info