5 Likes
Disputing the reality of evolution by discrediting Darwin or pointing to a handful of fraudulent paleontologists is like disputing the reality of gravity by discrediting Newton or pointing to a handful of frauds peddling perpetual motion machines.
8 Likes
Out of curiosity, what do you believe about the origin of humans, and why?
5 Likes
Thatâs the question to ask, isnât it?
No Macro and Micro evolution are legitimate divisions within the study of evolution.
Basically its a difference in the scope of how your looking at it. Macro being the long term changes, like speciation or vast changes in broad groups above that level over millions of years. And micro looking at subtler changes within species or population on shorter time scales.
The idiocy in the statement âmacro evolution isnât provenâ is that these are largely artificial distinctions we use to categorize our study of the subject. Not two separate isolated processes. So not only has macro evolution been proven (in fact Iâm pretty sure it was proven first) but its basically the exact same thing as micro evolution over longer time scales and looking at larger populations. So if micro evolution has been proven, then so has macro. The two are inextricable. Macro evolution is just the result of micro evolution observed over a long enough time scale.
Your confusing the practical ability to test a hypothesis right now (or at the time it was proposed) with being âuntestableâ in the scientific/rational sense. To be untestable something has to be just that. Untestable, unverifiable etc in any fashion. Not just the a the time it was proposed. It must be completely impossible to do so, by the very nature of the proposed concept. The atomic theory was and is testable, they just couldnât accomplish it at the time, and weâve tested it. That means it was verifiable it just took specific tools to verify. If I say, Hypothesise, that I have in my head a small animal that lives in my brain. And it is not observable. You canât see, smell, or detect it through any means. Directly or indirectly. This small animal is responsible for the emotion called love. Thatâs an untestable, unverifiable claim. Because by definition it precludes testing. Its not a practical concern of how we test it now, it precludes all observation or experimental verification.
5 Likes
Unless youâre invested in a specific answer, the real question to ask is: âwhat is the best theory we have regarding the origin of humans?â
5 Likes
The appropriate reply here would be to point out that string âtheoryâ should probably not be called a theory but rather a mathematical model.
A theory normally is a mathematical model, or contains one; e.g. Newtonâs laws of motion can be reduced to equations relating mass, force, velocity and time. Personally, I consider the various string theories to be religions, but I accept that my view is not the mainstream view of physicists, and has no status in the physics community. Equally, your âprobablyâ isnât a mainstream view. I hope that loop gravity is more productive. But thatâs because String Theory violates Occamâs Razor.
Isnât the questions thread in games?
2 Likes
firstly, I look at what scientists are up to regarding genetics at present,
and realize that this is where humanity heads. We have this urge to create
life and improve things, and will eventually upload ourselves into silicon
or so profoundly alter our DNA as to become something else than human.
Secondly, I believe (rightly or wrongly) that humanity has been at this
stage of development before and for whatever reason it ended, either at our
own hand of from some global catastrophic event. I live on the edge of the
pre-cambrian shield here in southern Ontario and in travelling north you
see cliffs and stratified rock formations hundreds of feet high jutting out
of the landscape at 30-40 degree angles. Nothing human would have survived
such force millions of square miles of area.
And also as recently as 10,000 years ago this part of north America was
under miles of ice.
One can speculate in the vacuum of a lack of empirical knowledge as to
where humans originated, but we need to look harder at our DNA and some of
the oddities in it and itâs distinctions from other animals on earth.
LLoyd Pye, who died recently, did some interesting work regarding anomalies
within human DNA and difference between humans and primates.
http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html
Are we an engineered race, manufactured by advanced technology by a
pre-existing culture or extra-terrestrials?
I donât know, but I do know we have to do the asking about such things,
because both science and religion have stopped searching and have become
dogmatic on the subject of where we come from.
Are you a Sitchin fan? Is that where this is going?
1 Like
From your linked article.
"Even Darwin realised the data of his era did not provide clear-cut evidence that his theory was correct. Especially troubling was the absence of âtransitional speciesâ in the fossil record. Those were needed to prove that, over vast amounts of time, species did in fact gradually transform into other, âhigherâ species.â
Did Kirk Cameron write this? Sorry for being harsh, but the first dozen paragraphs are lazy rhetoric, straw man arguments, and misinterpretations.
And calling people Darwinists? The amount of loaded language is quite⌠Crazy.
4 Likes
Somehow read that as ânon-demin.â
5 Likes
But even if a disbelief in evolution is grounded in a somewhat particular set of theological axioms, for MOST people it is more of a tribal marker. And that is probably true on both sides of that divide. Itâs not like most people who accept evolution have actually put much effort into examining the fossil record or, indeed, reasoned thought about the scientific method. Look at all the fooforall about whether Pluto is a planet. âIt was a planet when I was a kid and that settles itâ As if the mere category that we put it in makes any real difference.
Iâve always thought that part of the reason that religious people are often so convinced that atheists have no empathy is because at some level, belief in the supernatural is an attempt to use empathy to explain natural phenomena. Why was there a flood? Because we were bad. So there is a perception that somehow atheists are dangerous because they must lack empathyâŚ
There isnât a divide. It is literally like asking âdo you like apples or pilot fish?â. The problem occurs when some says, " well I like apples so all pilot fish should also grow on trees".
If someone chooses a faith, then awesome! But the keystone is that it is faith . measuring the radioactive decay is the job of science, providing comfort is the role of belief.
4 Likes
Perhaps. And this might also why religious people find mystics even worse than atheists, as mystics are likely to point out that religion is not âmoralâ, people are. When the masses prefer to use some text as a code of conduct, they might react badly if one needs to explain "thatâs just a later exoteric interpretation for public consumption, whereas the esoteric interpretation (symbolic, for people who didnât take it literally) might have been something else entirely.
1 Like
In terms of what religious people thing about atheists. Iâm kind of unconcerned, its simple callousness for the most part. Because I donât just hear that stuff from religious people. I also hear that from people who are very specifically not religious, or âagnosticâ, or non-affiliated. Its a long standing, pernicious social assumption.
Otherwise what your describing is simple tribalism, its not unique or even characteristic of religious groups. Any given group, ideology, etc is going to engage in that sort of thing. In general the sort of people who pack a given idea simply because it is held by the majority of their in group, or because its accepted by the majority where ever theyâre at/from, can be reached. But in terms of evangelical groups, the sort of student the OP is dealing with, there is actually a specifically laid out theological explanation of why a young earth is necessary, why/how those who donât except it are non-christian, and why specific other claims (whether from science or other religious groups) are incompatible. So while thereâs definitely the politicized culture war aspect, and base tribalism, as well as the general âindoctrinationâ aspect where these people just arenât exposed to the base idea. But at the root of all that, and driving all that, just in this specific case thereâs something else at the root. Thereâs a reason why this debate is driven by young earth creationists from the American Evangelical tradition these days. There are more than a few Catholic creationists, there are many Jewish creationists, and there are probably more old earth creationists than young earth. But none of these groups are the driving force (these days Catholics used to be) behind the conflict. Neither are they typically unwilling to be even exposed to the idea of evolution. Because their respective groups lack a specific theological construct that requires the rejection of science, or evolution in specific. Thereâs a way to be an active member of those groups while accepting the idea of evolution (or the non-divinity of Jesus, or dancing not being sinful, etc). But for particular evangelical groups there isnât. You deny it or you are not a believer. Its not just about how members view outsiders but how members join themselves. By even acknowledging or considering something that causes that sort of conflict, they have fundamentally abandoned something that is inherent to their belief system. I think thatâs a big difference, and I think its a key reason why the rest of us (including most religious people!) perpetually fail to reach, or even pleasantly interact with the groups in question.
I also get rather frustrated with the tendency to lump all religious people in with the most vehement bunch. Thereâs a lot of differences there. And in my experience most theists are way better at engaging with the world around them honestly. Theyâre just quieter about it. Its a vocal minority kind of situation.
So youâre JAQing off in here. Beautiful.
5 Likes
At some point in time there would have to have been a something from which everything came from.
Science says big bang. religion says seven daysâŚ
From whence did we bang from?
What was going on before this remarkably accurate measurement of banging happened.
Religion is equally unclear on this one.
Poor kittyâŚ
Oh for FSM⌠Science and religion are not opposites. You donât need to prove religion with science, and science doesnât need any hand in religion.
Iâll answer âwhere did we bang fromâ when you answer âhow many angels can dance on a pinâ.
6 Likes
