|
Replies: 59
| visibility 651
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Evolution isn't progression
1
Jan 29, 2024, 8:03 PM
|
|
"Evolution isn't a progression," said Lynne Isbell, a professor of anthropology at the University of California, Davis. "It's about how well organisms fit into their current environments." In the eyes of scientists who study evolution, humans aren't "more evolved" than other primates, and we certainly haven't won the so-called evolutionary game. While extreme adaptability lets humans manipulate very different environments to meet our needs, that ability isn't enough to put humans at the top of the evolutionary ladder."
https://www.livescience.com/32503-why-havent-all-primates-evolved-into-humans.html
|
|
|
|
 |
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Evolution isn't progression
2
Jan 29, 2024, 8:04 PM
|
|
I don't know why you believe this stuff when you could just suspend all logic and reason and be a mormon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20654
Joined: 9/2/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: So is Evolution gonna be like the climate change now ??
3
Jan 29, 2024, 8:17 PM
|
|
Lol the trump supporter who believes in talking snakes is gonna learn us something
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20654
Joined: 9/2/02
|
Its the commies that never learn.***
2
Jan 29, 2024, 8:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Thanks again captain non-sequitur***
Jan 29, 2024, 8:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: You missed the fact that the upright version of the series is black.
Jan 30, 2024, 9:34 PM
|
|
Why would i care about Darwin’s book?
You seem fixated on him for some reason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I'm about as much concerned with Darwin as you are with God.***
Feb 1, 2024, 9:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I'm about as much concerned with Darwin as you are with God.***
Feb 1, 2024, 9:09 AM
|
|
Neither of us care about Darwin. You are just proclaiming that I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17300]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14243
Joined: 12/14/98
|
God made heaven and earth ! And man! HTH all you atheists!***
1
Jan 29, 2024, 10:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: God made heaven and earth ! And man! HTH all you atheists!***
1
Jan 30, 2024, 6:40 AM
|
|
Yes and the earth is flat, we got it
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6474]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10128
Joined: 11/2/03
|
Re: God made heaven and earth ! And man! HTH all you atheists!***
Feb 2, 2024, 8:45 PM
|
|
Bible said Earth was a sphere when science said it was flat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: God made heaven and earth ! And man! HTH all you atheists!***
Feb 4, 2024, 7:58 PM
|
|
No, it says circle of earth and also says it has four corners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97751]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64883
Joined: 7/13/02
|
I beg to differ. In fact, humans may be the most intelligent life, period.
3
Jan 30, 2024, 8:40 AM
|
|
Certainly among the rare few, if not the only advanced life out there. So, for example, what species on Earth has ever done anything that another alien life form could detect that proves there's intelligent life on Earth? I mean you're an advanced alien living 20 light years away. You happen to detect a radio signal that's the second half of the 2004 Super Bowl, and you know, ok, that planet has advanced life. Prior to humans, WHAT SPECIES would have ever been able to signal to any other planet that there was advanced life on Earth? None.
Now, consider the fact that life has existed on Earth for 3,800,000,000 years. In ALL THAT TIME, with all that life, with all that evolution happening on Earth, how long did it take for life to evolve on Earth enough to send the first "thing" into space that would even allow other intelligent life in the universe to even know we exist? The answer is 3,799,999,912 years. SO..... not only does Earth have the perfect setup for life (many other planets likely do as well), but even with optimal conditions, it took 3.8 billion years to send the FIRST signals into space (or objects) that could show other advanced life out there that we even exist.
Furthermore, you would have to assume other advanced life would have to evolve the same way, and at some point they too would be able to send a signal into space. We have looked and found none to date. If advanced life was common, so too would be radio and other signals similar to what we send into space constantly, every day. Our earliest radio signals have traveled roughly 88 light years to date. To date we have heard nothing in that range, or much, much further. So we are exceedingly rare. Life may be common, or even very common, but life as advanced as humanity is today is either extremely rare, or possibly even non-existent in the observable universe.
Furthermore, as advanced as we think we are, humanity will fall one day. We will not evolve to be Star Trek or some intergalactic travelers. Nope. Life on Earth will evolve to have an advantage in the environment for which we are merely a part. For example, a bacteria or virus culled humanity. Those that survive to perpetuate the species (survive that virus) will also be those who go forth, and they may or may not be as "intelligent" by today's standards. We evolve to thrive in the conditions that limit us. There is no evolutionary benefit beyond the confines we are forced to deal with on Earth.
We will always be at the mercy of nature. We are part of it, not above or beyond it.
So yes, evolution is not necessarily a progression, depending on how you define "progress". It is a progression to survive, on Earth, under the conditions forced on humanity. Beyond that, there is no benefit to evolve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Interesting take, well put. You are likely aware that it has
2
Jan 30, 2024, 11:14 AM
|
|
knowledgeable proponents. The vastness (from our perspective) of the universe in space/matter produces large probabilities (other stars will have planets) while the vastness in time required for some things to happen produces some small probabilities, like the one you have described. One result is likely the evolutionary one you describe. You were discussing the changes in dna over time. One could also ask where dna came from, and I'm sure you know that the answer to that also has to deal with exceedingly small probabilities, much smaller than those involved in mutations to dna.
Atheists and believers alike know this, and both propose answers. Any of them could be correct, but each one that I have seen requires an ideological assumption.
Edit: This has nothing to do with that, just an interesting observation about our view of size. The speed of light is really fast: nothing with mass can go faster. E=MC2. But if you could back away far enough to see the entire Milky Way, and if you could see one beam of light making it's way across it, it would be so slow as to appear to stand still. For a really long time. And of course the Milky Way is itself just a dot. Light is very fast, but it is very slow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Simply put:
2
Jan 30, 2024, 12:02 PM
|
|
We really don't know enough to know how much we don't know. Speaking specifically scientifically, our understanding of the size of the universe may be even as small as 1.0X10^-10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...%
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I beg to differ. In fact, humans may be the most intelligent life, period.
2
Jan 30, 2024, 11:32 AM
[ in reply to I beg to differ. In fact, humans may be the most intelligent life, period. ] |
|
It's fun stuff to think about. We do have a great ability to manipulate our external environment, perhaps more so than other animals. Birds do build nests, and beavers build dams, ants build tunnels, etc. I actually had a family of racoons break into an old fishing shack once and build a barricade on the stairs to keep outsiders from getting up to their nest in the loft. Talk about hostile squatters.
On the other hand, I can't rearrange my internal environment, my organs, like a caterpillar does.
We also have the pretty rare ability to go outside of our home environment. That is, we don't see fish wearing scuba gear to breath water while they flop around on land. We can do that with spaceships, though I'm not sure what the value of that is in the big picture. A fish might say "Well, I have no need to leave the water, I'm perfectly attuned to it - why would I go elsewhere? Why do you bother going elsewhere?"
When we go elsewhere, we simply take our environment with us - sort of the advanced version of a turtle or a hermit crab toting their house around. We build a box, or a can, or a suit, that replicates the conditions here on earth as best as we can, and take it out for a drive to the moon or Mars. Sort of "Earth to Go."
I do hesitate calling us the most intelligent beings, though, since we are the ones making the assessment. A spider might say he's the smartest because he can spin a web without going to school, even in a weightless space environment. There's a fascinating video of a spider doing just that on the shuttle or the ISS from a few years back. His first weightless web was pretty crappy - maybe the worst looking blob of a web one can imagine.
But that spider actually adjusted to zero-gravity, and by the second or third try he spun a pretty good-looking web. Just a remarkable video of another creature adapting to its environment in real time. Not through slow genetic or mutational change, but by some form of mental reasoning? If that term even makes sense as it pertains to spiders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Careful, there. Approaching politically incorrect territory.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 12:23 PM
|
|
I didn't know that about the space spider. I'm gonna read about it.
Monarch butterflies. MissTulsa cultivates milkweed for them, gets all teary eyed when she sees them hatch in the yard, because of this:
Whenever a chrysalis hatches in our yard, it will live another month or so, during which time it will lay eggs on the underside of a milkweed leaf, and the cycle starts again. About 5-6 weeks from start to finish. This happens several times until fall. When that happens, something you can't make up happens: That final generation heads back to a town in Mexico, a place it not only has never seen but is several generations from seeing. But it knows exactly where to go. It will live there through the winter - no reproductive cycles - then in the spring will start back to our back yard (or close). But it will go only a few hundred miles, at which time it will lay eggs and die. The new ones will continue the journey, requiring several generations to make it back. Whether in SC or Mexico, the arriving Monarch is several generations from having been there, and it never interacted with its mother. But it knows.
She read that, got in her car, and brought back milkweed. On a mission.
The Monarchs that don't come to the east coast go to the west coast, the Ohioans of the insect world. You guys could probably get some if you can find milkweed.
PS:
MissTulsa began by bringing the caterpillars inside, in a cloth mesh cage. They would form the cocoon in there, then hatch. She would then release them. She has several bushes they like, so they would leave the cage and stay in the yard. One year she had a few that hatched late in the year, nearly October. She released them, and boom, they were gone. Didn't even alight in the yard. Her story is that they felt the destiny of Mexico. Who knows, but they turned together and left in a straight line. She doesn't bother with that anymore, lets them take care of themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 317
Joined: 2/20/23
|
Re: Careful, there. Approaching politically incorrect territory.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 12:39 PM
|
|
But does the spider or the butterfly "know" they are doing it or do they just inherently do it? Humans are painfully aware of our own existence. WE know what we're doing in these instances. Or least we think we do. The butterfly instinctively travels as do the sparrows. Did they evolve to do this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Sure, that's the question. What something with essentially no brain
1
Jan 30, 2024, 12:49 PM
|
|
"knows" is ... well, can we really know what that is? MissTulsa says "Look in the mirror." With no input, it knows to go to a spot 1000 miles away, and when to go. But that isnt possible: the question is the nature of the input. I would say there no gene for that, no "go to Mexico" strand of dna, but I dont know how that works. Neither, apparently, does anyone.
For instance, explanations talk about "clock genes" in the antennae (sun position requires both time of year and day to point direction), but then I cannot find whether such a gene has been identified. And of course that doesnt describe motivation, why it decides to. And it doesnt describe how it puts meaning to the input: I too know where the sun is, and the day and time, but that doesnt say to me, "Mexico is thataway, and you need to go." All that is a program all it's own. What is it, and how did it get there?
Maybe somebody knows all that. I havent seen it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
That is wild. Thanks for the link. A thought just occurred, which I hate.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 2:18 PM
|
|
Getting only two a day, if I use 'em up early it's Andy Griffith reruns the rest of the day. But we often hear such behavior described as 'instinct'. But that word says only what it isn't, which is reasoning or conscious thought. Maybe we don't know what that is either, but saying 'instinct' is just saying, "I don't know what it is or how it got there'.
To only say, "evolution" is circular reasoning, imo. Evolution is random mutation favoring natural selection: that behavior is naturally beneficial to the species: thus, evolution. Okay. That is not a comment about what evolution does or does not explain - am not getting into that, other than saying that the evolution-vs-God debate is at best strawman - but I would like to know what causes that behavior. It has to come down to atoms and molecules somewhere. I would think a guy could win a lot of awards showing what it is. The elusiveness of it (NASA had to actually fly a spider into space simply to observe it) could say something all on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: That is wild. Thanks for the link. A thought just occurred, which I hate.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 2:43 PM
|
|
Indeed. The thing I got from that is that the spider can still spin his web anywhere. Zero gravity just makes it a more challenging task for him. But one he can still overcome. But none of that explains how he can build the web in the first place. And a web is no simple task, not like a reflex or instinct. The size of the area must be considered, the strength of the strands, the spacing of the strands. I can buy the orientation conclusion based on gravity or light, but what about all the rest of the decisions that have to be made to make a web? How are those explained?
Same as with the multi-generational butterfly migration. Or salmon returning home, or birds nests, or pick any number of other phenomena. There's just so much more than our limited perception allows us to see or understand. Through a glass darkly.
>It has to come down to atoms and molecules somewhere. I would think a guy could win a lot of awards showing what it is.
Newton, Einstein, Bohr, and others have done a pretty good job of explaining how thinks work, but what about the why? So many mysteries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 317
Joined: 2/20/23
|
Re: That is wild. Thanks for the link. A thought just occurred, which I hate.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 3:34 PM
|
|
"Considered"? Design "decisions"? I didn't realize that spiders were capable of rational thought. I know nothing about spiders, outside of the fact that I'm not a fan. The spiders spins it's web to catch dinner correct? Whatever that may be or wherever that may be. Catches me every morning when they build one between my truck and the tree next to it. It doesn't "decide" that a great big human is walking by and I need to make this thing big and strong. It's instinctive behavior for survival.
Disney has ruined every one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: That is wild. Thanks for the link. A thought just occurred, which I hate.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 8:16 PM
|
|
I think that would make for an interesting discussion - instinct vs. decision.
For instance, a spider has to choose where to build a web. He can't build one everywhere, he has to pick one spot. Now, that spot, for him, can mean the difference between life and death. Whether he gets swatted away by a human, or whether he catches no flies.
I'm not saying he can factor in every contingency, like who will walk by and swat him away, but if it's not a choice, then what is it? How does the spider know where flies will be unless he knows, somehow, where flies will be? That, to me, is decision based on input.
At my home, it's our west facing windows. Bugs see light there at night and are attracted to them, and the spider goes where the bugs are. But the spider isn't a robot, he's deciding which specific window to build at, because we have multiple ones.
And if he has a web somewhere else (because he's not aways at my windows), he has picked it for similar reasons I suppose. Those, to me, are choices. And since his other location is not my other window, that other web presumably is a different size and a different configuration- so all his webs aren't carbon copies of each other. That's adaptive design to me, not instinct.
Now, I might consider the 'urge' to build the web to be instinct - that's his tool to live, and one definition of instinct is "an innately complex act animal act." But beyond that basic innate initiative, choices have to be being made, whether we understand them or not. The spider's actions aren't completely random, nor are they carbon copies, nor are they completely reflexive. To me, that only leaves choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: That is wild. Thanks for the link. A thought just occurred, which I hate.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 8:49 PM
|
|
Here's another example. My wife and I were having a picnic last year at a local park and saw a bird building a nest - on an electrical transformer of all things. Now, that was a bad choice, not bad instinct, in my mind.
There were plenty of trees around, high off the ground, but this bird picks a low, flat surface to make his home. Maybe the flat surface made sense to him, but he clearly didn't factor in location. Sort of like a human building a house in a low river valley because flat surfaces are so easy to build on. Who wouldn't build their home in the lowest, most accessible spot possible? Some design decisions are good, some not so good.
Anyway, we watch this guy bring bits of straw, and leaves, and pieces of paper and scraps of whatever back for the better part of an afternoon...all very hard work for the bird. Why he chose each piece only he knew, but they weren't all the same size or material. He could have used just paper, but he didn't. Or, he could have used just twigs and leaves, but he didn't. I don't know what was going on in his literal 'bird-brain', but he made some interesting choices and after several hours had a pretty good start on his home.
Then, as we were packing to leave, a small child saw the bird's low-lying home and came up to swat it away. All those precious bird-hours of work destroyed by a random toddler appearance. I felt sorry for the bird, because he was off gathering materials and when he came back I'm sure he was shocked to find no home. Again, I'll say the initiative to build the nest may have been instinct, but I'll stand by that bird making some bad decisions along the way when better, more viable, and more lofty options were available to him. Like a nest in any number of trees, or possible pre-fab housing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 317
Joined: 2/20/23
|
Re: That is wild. Thanks for the link. A thought just occurred, which I hate.
1
Jan 31, 2024, 8:40 AM
|
|
I see where you're going. But maybe the transformer was warmer. Maybe the vibrations or whatever in the transformer attracted the bird. I don't think a bird would build a nest too small to use. Is that a "decision" the bird makes? I think not. If the bird instinctive nests, it will use material that is can carry and manipulate into a nest. As for the "Bird nest fail" pic, maybe it was a bird that doesn't nest in a box. I don't know, I'm shooting from the hip here. I still believe we're a little anthropomorphic when it comes to the animal kingdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
We don't know much about science and biology,
2
Jan 30, 2024, 5:06 PM
[ in reply to Careful, there. Approaching politically incorrect territory. ] |
|
We compare ourselves to the oldest civilized people we can and claim 'intelligence,' relative to them. In 100 years people in the year 2125 will look back on us like we all lived in caves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: We don't know much about science and biology,
1
Jan 30, 2024, 5:09 PM
|
|
ok? Are you saying we don't know more than the oldest civilized people though? I mean there is clear progress.
What's wrong with that exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
No.
2
Jan 30, 2024, 5:16 PM
|
|
I'm saying that the layfolks who claim science is advanced enough to know or discover the origin of the universe are full of themselves due to comparing us to cavemen.
Most science professionals I know are much more humble than most of us. They have achieved wisdom through knowledge and understanding. The realize they can't evaluate the volume of the unknown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: No.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 6:33 PM
|
|
>I'm saying that the layfolks who claim science is advanced enough to know or discover the origin of the universe are full of themselves due to comparing us to cavemen.
So I don't know anyone on this board or in real life that claims science is advanced enough to know the origin of the universe (although i see no reason to preclude that it one day COULD, supposing we get sufficient information).
I do find a bit odd that you would call that "full of themselves", but you don't consider your own position to be that. You are claiming, without any verifiable evidence, that God created the universe.
So by your own standards, how are you not "full of it"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 317
Joined: 2/20/23
|
Re: We don't know much about science and biology,
1
Jan 31, 2024, 8:35 AM
[ in reply to We don't know much about science and biology, ] |
|
This is what I was getting at in my "how do you know what you know post". I'll say it again, the hubris of each generation to think "we got this figured out" is almost comical. We know more now than we did 100 years ago. Some of the things we "knew" 100 years ago turned out to be wrong. But the folks 100 years ago thought they had it figured out also. But now the scientists and researchers don't have the market cornered on that hubris. It's crept into the mind of the average person on the street. "they know". And don't hesitate to tell you or call you out on something. We didn't know then, but now were smarter and now we know. Bollocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: We don't know much about science and biology,
1
Jan 31, 2024, 8:57 AM
|
|
> I'll say it again, the hubris of each generation to think "we got this figured out" is almost comical.
Ok but you keep claiming it's the scientist doing this when they continually will tell you there is always more to learn and are ammenabel to new information.
It's the religious people who are claiming the thoughts of ancient people have "got this figured out".
A scientist will tell you that the math only confidently tells you what happened up to the plank era. A religious person will claim to know that a diety existed before that, without any scientific evidence mind you.
>We didn't know then, but now were smarter and now we know. Bollocks.
dude, all I'm saying is that we know MORE now than we did, if you deny that I don't know what to tell you. I did not say were are smarter than they were. Nobody on this board is saying that we have it all figured out, the only bollocks thing here is your strawman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 317
Joined: 2/20/23
|
Re: We don't know much about science and biology,
Jan 31, 2024, 11:18 AM
|
|
I'm not looking for an intellectual sparring match as to who is right or wrong. I understand perfectly that yes, we do know more than we did. I'm trying to dig a little deeper on things rather than taking them at face value.
Everything we "know" at this moment is "framed", if you will, by our current understanding and everything that has come before. I'm not trying to go down any religious path here. But what I'm seeing and hearing is how all this "knowledge" is used to form decision making. Whether or not it's actually valid seems to irrelevant. Covid, climate change, the culture wars, gender is all falling under the cries of "you can't argue with science!". That's what I find to be bollocks.
I'm not arguing climate change one way or another. But since it has morphed from science to political ideology it would make sense to understand that, based on the current frame, we know as much as we can. Do we know enough to completely change the current world operates? Are we that smart?
As an aside, believing in a deity that exists without any scientific evidence is called faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: We don't know much about science and biology,
Jan 31, 2024, 11:36 AM
|
|
>But what I'm seeing and hearing is how all this "knowledge" is used to form decision making.
what else are you proposing we use?
>Covid, climate change, the culture wars, gender is all falling under the cries of "you can't argue with science!"
You won't find many serious people who say you can't argue with science, the claim is that it's the best way we currently have to determine how the universe works, and I agree with that. Again, nobody serious is claiming it's a perfect process.
Also, the solution to bad science is better science, not no science.
>As an aside, believing in a deity that exists without any scientific evidence is called faith.
I'm aware, that's pretty much the definition. It's belief in the absense of evidence. It's a terrible way to determine the truth.
Answer this: is there any belief you couldn't hold if you are just using faith? Remember, absolutely no evidence is required to have faith in something.
If you believe something on faith alone, I'd argue it's not worth believing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 317
Joined: 2/20/23
|
Re: We don't know much about science and biology,
Jan 31, 2024, 1:43 PM
|
|
I'm not proposing anything. I'm merely interested at how we arrive at certain conclusions and how it seems to be a fight to the death with those that disagree.
the serious people aren't saying that. The ones that are saying it seem to get the most air time. Depending on the agenda.
Never said anything about "no science". This is more of an exercise in how we learn and what we do with the knowledge gained.
We live in an society that now creates their own truth. Am I looking for absolutes? not in a million years. Wouldn't that be a fools quest?
I have faith every morning when I drive to work. Will I be in a life threatening accident? The probability exists, but I have faith that it won't. I can point to no physical evidence that when I venture out I will safely arrive at my destination. None. Does that keep me frozen, afraid to go outside? No. Ever been in an Uber or a cab? You're putting faith in someone you do not know. You assume that since the person driving the car and has a license, they know what they're doing. But you don't really know. How about an airplane? Statistically safe. But still there's a little faith involved when you board.
I'm not searching for the truth or even and absolute truth. I don't think that I will ever know what that is. Not here on earth anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: We don't know much about science and biology,
Jan 31, 2024, 2:01 PM
|
|
> the serious people aren't saying that. The ones that are saying it seem to get the most air time. Depending on the agenda.
I agree
>Never said anything about "no science". This is more of an exercise in how we learn and what we do with the knowledge gained.
Didn't mean to imply "you" thought that way, just an observation.
>I have faith every morning when I drive to work. Will I be in a life threatening accident? The probability exists, but I have faith that it won't. I can point to no physical evidence that when I venture out I will safely arrive at my destination. None. Does that keep me frozen, afraid to go outside? No. Ever been in an Uber or a cab? You're putting faith in someone you do not know. You assume that since the person driving the car and has a license, they know what they're doing. But you don't really know. How about an airplane? Statistically safe. But still there's a little faith involved when you board.
This is not the same at all. You know there are risks in driving. You've probably seen accidents or been in one your self. There is HARD EVIDENCE that accidents exist. You are weighing the probability of getting in an accident vs sitting at home.
I have seen a taxi cab driver safely get people to their destination more times than not. You are just talking statistics here, that's not faith.
What I have not seen is God do anything, ever, in any capacity. So to believe him requires pure faith, i.e. believing without hard evidence.
>But you don't really know. How about an airplane? Statistically safe. But still there's a little faith involved when you board.
So again, no, not the same thing. I'm TRUSTING the process that i've seen work a million times. I don't have FAITH that it takes off and lands safely, I have hard evidence that is what airplanes do all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: We don't know much about science and biology,
1
Jan 31, 2024, 9:08 AM
[ in reply to Re: We don't know much about science and biology, ] |
|
"I'll say it again, the hubris of each generation to think "we got this figured out" is almost comical."
Isn't that exactly what christians claim?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29879]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8845
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: So you're saying...
1
Jan 30, 2024, 9:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I beg to differ. In fact, humans may be the most intelligent life, period.
2
Jan 30, 2024, 11:49 AM
[ in reply to I beg to differ. In fact, humans may be the most intelligent life, period. ] |
|
>In fact, humans may be the most intelligent life, period.
The article didn't say we weren't the most intelligent, just that we weren't the "most evolved". I.e. evolution isn't a progression from non-intelligence to intelligence. It's just a matter of "what works".
Yes, 100% we are the most intelligent on this planet and for all we know anywhere in the universe until proven otherwise.
>If advanced life was common, so too would be radio and other signals similar to what we send into space constantly, every day. Our earliest radio signals have traveled roughly 88 light years to date.
That is true but those radio signals get drowned out pretty quickly. They are almost indercernible at that distance. Furthermore, our galaxy alone is 105,700 light years! That's just our galaxy!
That's like grabbing a drop of water from the ocean and concluding there are no fish. We haven't searched one iota.
Also, as you've mentioned, the time overlap would be crazy. We could be billions of years ahead or behind other specifies.
I would be surprised if we COULD detect much less communicate with any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I beg to differ. In fact, humans may be the most intelligent life, period.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 11:51 AM
[ in reply to I beg to differ. In fact, humans may be the most intelligent life, period. ] |
|
Yes the article addresses the fact that humans excel at things that no other species have been able to, but points out that creatures like ants far outnumber humans and have been around for about 150 million years. So from a survival standpoint, ants are more advanced than humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Do we know what ants evolved from?
3
Jan 30, 2024, 12:11 PM
|
|
I'm not sure we can assess the age of man by our limited vision on evolution. Not yet.
What confuses me is that we allow for billions of years to be the age of the universe and pretend we can with confidence be sure of how old anything really is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Do we know what ants evolved from?
2
Jan 30, 2024, 12:14 PM
|
|
>What confuses me is that we allow for billions of years to be the age of the universe and pretend we can with confidence be sure of how old anything really is
"Pretending with confidence" is a religious man's game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It's true.
2
Jan 30, 2024, 1:51 PM
|
|
We all pretend with confidence. Anyone to claims to know what which is impossible to disprove is doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: It's true.
2
Jan 30, 2024, 1:53 PM
|
|
I'm a little shocked you admitted that, but that's great progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Think I do know what said you. Not in case, again word. I am thanking.***
2
Jan 30, 2024, 1:55 PM
[ in reply to It's true. ] |
|
Edit:
"Anyone who claims to know what is impossible is pretending with confidence." Is that close?
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: Think I do know what said you. Not in case, again word. I am thanking.***
2
Jan 30, 2024, 2:49 PM
|
|
Yes and much better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Think I do know what said you. Not in case, again word. I am thanking.***
2
Jan 30, 2024, 3:53 PM
|
|
I agree with you. Claims of open mindedness rarely make it past the word 'Jesus'. The room becomes a collection of experts on what has happened and what cant happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Think I do know what said you. Not in case, again word. I am thanking.***
2
Jan 30, 2024, 4:11 PM
|
|
Nah, it's the opposite, you have a myopic view. You dismiss every other divine or supernatural claim that doesn't comport to "jesus".
I am open-minded to any claim that can be supported. There is exactly the same verifiable evidence that Jesus rose from the grave as there is for Caesar ascending into heaven: literally zero.
I don't think either happened because there is nothing in my experience that shows anyone has ever ascended to heaven or rose from the grave.
Am I claiming to be an 'expert' when I say i've seen no evidence someone has ascended to heaven? That seems like a pretty unnecessary thing to say on your part.
Let's make something very clear, I'm not saying what can and can't happen. I'm saying I've seen no evidence that it can. And you have nothing beyond claiming someone else saw it happen.
There is only a single difference that matters here: People claim that someone rose from the dead, you believe it without further evidence, I don't. For any other supernatural claim, you'd call me ridiculous for just believing the claim, but you don't view yourself that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: It's true.
2
Jan 30, 2024, 3:20 PM
[ in reply to It's true. ] |
|
"We all pretend with confidence."
That's not true at all ClemsonTiger1988®.
Our friend CUintulsa® likes to pretend that everyone is biased, but I would venture to say the number of "agnostics" in this world dwarfs the number of stone cold atheists.
Evolution is equally as mind blowing as the idea that a single being created all that we see, I will readily admit that.
Logically though, it makes much more sense than the Christian worldview...can we agree on that point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I'm not sure they are equal.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 4:51 PM
|
|
I admit that most evolutionist ignore Christians as ignorant (uneducated) children. Most agnostics I know believe evolution is how man developed from a simplistic one-celled creature and plants evolved from that same critter.
The majority of agnostics don't ascribe to evolution. All atheist do and an embarrassing number of Christians believe God used evolution to produce modern man.
Of course, there are millions here in America that ignore religion and evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [981]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1415
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I'm not sure they are equal.
2
Jan 30, 2024, 5:06 PM
|
|
>I admit that most evolutionist ignore Christians as ignorant (uneducated) children.
Ignorant in the "lacking knowledge" sense, sure. "uneducated or unsophisticated" no, I don't think that.
>Most agnostics I know believe evolution is how man developed from a simplistic one-celled creature and plants evolved from that same critter.
>The majority of agnostics don't ascribe to evolution.
I think there is a typo in there or something as those are contradictory statements.
> All atheist do and an embarrassing number of Christians believe God used evolution to produce modern man.
If it's embarrassing to accept a wealth of evidence, I don't know what to tell you.
>Of course, there are millions here in America that ignore religion and evolution.
And that's fine, no harm done ignoring either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I'm not sure they are equal.
2
Jan 30, 2024, 5:48 PM
|
|
I don't think they lack knowledge, they just twist it it to match their beliefs. The New Testament itself is a perfect example of that.
Human nature is a fascinating thing. We will lie to ourselves just as much as we will someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I'm not sure they are equal.
1
Jan 30, 2024, 5:50 PM
[ in reply to I'm not sure they are equal. ] |
|
"an embarrassing number of Christians believe God used evolution to produce modern man."
Why is that embarrassing?
The evidence is telling us that's what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2156]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2575
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 59
| visibility 651
|
|
|
50
