Can you trust your thoughts if evolution is true? Um, yeah.

Theists like to argue that you cannot trust your thoughts if evolution is true. Despite the fact that what they call "evolution" is not evolution, the general question of random vs. ordered thoughts is answered by the order that exists at some level in our minds.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolution
• cdk007
• thoughts
• reasoning
• random
• incoherent
• coherent
• true
• sieve
• natural
• selection
• order
• theist
• creationist
• creationism
• can
• you
• trust
• your
• Brain
• Think
• Thought
• Trust
• Intelligent
• Design
• Creation
• God
• Bible
• Genesis
• Religion
• Logic
• Reason
• Philosophy
• Natural
• Selection
• Mutation
• Random
• Accident
• yt:stretch=16:9

[noelplum99]

One of the unseen aspects of unscripted videos are all the occasions you get almost to the end and then suddenly can't think of the right word or trip over your tongue and are left banging the desk and swearing!!!!

[Venaloid]

Yeah, but occasionally you get something like "stands up to water... holds water... stands up to argument... ya know what I mean", those are great, lol.

[utdfortreble]

@miggetymike1 genetic mutation, gives the kid a bigger brain, and bob's your uncle.

[blazereef]

creationists are just mentally incapable and the ones who are capable, are too pathetic and cowardly to admit that evolution is true (because of the literally millions of independent facts ALL supporting it) because they think that it goes against their god because of the lying scumbag apologists telling them it does

[Venaloid]

You are, however, correct in that if the first chemical assembly we would call "life" interacted, every single individual of that "species" that is, with its environment in such a way that they didn't exist long enough to produce others because of those detrimental interactions (i.e. responding to false stimuli or responding incorrectly) life would not have continued. The rationality of perception is WHY life exists at all.

[Venaloid]

I'm going to assume that by "capable of determining truth" you mean "capable of accurately receiving and interpreting stimuli from their environment". At its most basic level, life is a chemical "cause and effect" reaction. Those whose effect gets them killed or inhibits reproduction die out, while those whose effect prevents death or allows for reproduction pass on their genes.

[miggetymike1]

I asked How can two creatures who are incapable of determining truth produce an offspring that is capable of determining truth and your answer is "as soon as you get cognitive functioning that perceives the world...it is already perceiving [truth] correctly." You didn't answer the question, you just asserted that it happens. it's like if I asked you how do you make mustard and you answer: as soon as you get a little bit of mustard, you've got mustard.

[Venaloid]

Any additional input is now reacted to by the brain chemistry of the animal as well. But the fact that it's still simple action-reaction means that it IS still reacting to and experiencing the world correctly. The only difference with a brain, again, starting out with a very minor degree of cognitive ability, is that the chemistry of the input and output is much more complex and those individuals whose chemistry keeps making mistakes tend to get eaten or run off cliffs etc.

[Venaloid]

As soon as you get cognitive functioning (a brain of any kind) that perceives the world, the first of which would be capable of only a tiny amount of what we would deem as "perceiving", it is already perceiving it correctly for two main reasons - 1. If it weren't, it would die out and those that ARE perceiving correctly would survive. 2. Because before cognitive perception, you simply have biological cause and effect in the animal.