https://youtu.be/WloXdTi8Ymg?t=3535 Time already Stamped at @58:55

Alexander Rosenberg - The other problem that we Naturalists face, and it goes back to the discussion of meaning, is a naturalistic account of semantic meaning, and Naturalists have been working for at least 50 years on this subject and with no interesting agreed upon consensus. And here there is a divide of which Terre represents a significant path. If we assume that the intentionality of written inscriptions and vocal disturbances in the air is due to the original intentionality of brain states then we need an account of how brain states can represent, can be semantically evaluable, can have Truth values, can express propositions via some kind of inscriptional devices, - At least so far we have not had an entirely satisfactory account of how that's possible, - and my own view which stems from reading a book called 'Content and Consciousness' a long time ago is that owing to the fact that our brains are Darwinian systems, we will never have such an account.

2 schools of thought

1: We have not had a satisfactory account of how it's possible to explain the origin of reasoning.

2: We will never have an explanation for the Origin of Reasoning.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

@Mode4Truthguy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cells

@Derek Nelson @Mode4Truthguy somtimes I cant give answers in 60 seconds

they dont apply their own debate ethics to themself as they do to others

i let the other guy speak for 10 minutes

Answering where did the origination of dna come from, with birds ‘evolving’ in New Guinea, is Not addressing the question. That is a deflection. Pretending it’s anything else, is disingenuous. Period. (Saying “you didn’t let him finish”, when he was clearly evading the question, is nonsense.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid

Reproducable, observable, provable. Where can i observe the creator?

@Funk Look well into thyself

How do you know that ribosomes makes proteins?

creator is faith based

I guess I have to use the 3 point checklist for science, made by random discord people who aren't scientist: Reproducable, observable and provable

i guess i will stick with actual scientist to explain what science is

Funk

come back

there is nobody there

derek muted himself

I'm in there

They died off. Survival of the fittest

Denial is a scary thing @Derek Nelson

@Funk Your pseudoscience peddling, is denial of scientific proof.

Pseudoscience is also belief based. Because it isn’t provable.

You mean like the creator?

I don’t pretend that I can prove a Creator. I can prove that all evidence points to it.

So scientists finding structurs, bones, human body in the ice being 10 000 years old, no conflict?

Fun fact: there are more than 3 bones in the human body

Don’t answer with a question. Prove what you say, or spare me your beliefs. Thank you.

My proof is human bones over 10000 years old, dinsaur bones millions of years old.

You can’t prove dinosaurs, or millions of years. Again, spare me your beliefs. You’re forcing your religion on me.

And the parents obviously cared for the children... they weren’t completely helpless

You see almost all species of mammal care for their children

So you deny that spesific evindence?, but ribosomes making proteins is true, those scientist you believe spesifically, you know that is confirmation bias, you choose to listen to the scientists which supports your fait

You just tried to float a belief as proof.

Stop, thank you.