Evolution (and some Creationism, too)
Posts:
682
Visited by
359 users
Original post
Posted by Götter, 08.04.2007 - 02:05
Okay, so what do we have? Evolution is at present (and, hopefully, in the future) THE way of seeing our world. It's the only one that has some scientific credibility tagged to it. These days, religions are rightfully required to adjust themselves to science, not the opposite; world-views that blatantly deny evolution, like intelligent design, are running out on their lease of life. I am not a qualified statistician or a seer, I cannot tell whether the entirety of religion is in its death throes, but creationism does seem to hint at something like that. Christianity had been slowly adapting itself to science when that heap of nonsense popped up in the twentieth century.
Now I am not trying to bash anyone just because they believe God created Heaven and Earth, but please look at the facts - the Theory of Evolution, despite its loose ends and controversies, is a working and proven theory. You should get used to it, or it's your loss. I know a lot of scientists are both religious and still they manage to accept evolution. In fact, despite what creationists would have us believe, there is no controversy in the scientific community regarding the evolution vs creation dispute. None at all - the scientists are unanimously in support of what Darwin started. What is happening in America is a bunch of overly religious people have found themselves in a situation where they can legally present their views as hard science and teach it in schools as such.
I guess me, being an European, shouldn't be overly concerned about all that - it'll never happen here. Yet if American children start getting such education, the entire world will be affected and our near future could get fucked up significantly. So I appeal to you all, especially Americans: fight against creationism (cretinism?) and for evolution. It's the only way.
Yes, I didn't actually post any scientific evidence for evolution, nor did I provide any links to sites containing that. What I also didn't do is refer to any specific creationist conspiracies and lies. The Internet is full of both of these things, look it up yourself. Start with Wikipedia, for instance. I do give a link to my current favorite song, "Creation Science 101" by Roy Zimmerman. Enjoy this, and common sense!
 Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by El Vikingo on 17.12.2007 at 08:33 Well this is a forum, and I'm so ignorant of your previous statements to assess your intentions. Please inform me then what a theory is.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240  |
Posts: 240
Look at my previous posts.
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777
I can only deduce with my small intellect the similarity of my definition, and dictionary definitions. - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. (Dictionary.com) - a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained (Oxford English Dictionary) - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. (Answers.com) And yes, of course it's a model, most things used to explain something are. Here, let me know if this is better: "A theory is a model, based on factual evidence, used in attempt to explain natural phenomena." Well?
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 240 |
Posts: 240 Written by Clintagräm on 17.12.2007 at 08:47 That sums it up pretty well to me. It is just that "an attempt to explain natural phenomena" was incredibly vague. Using that explanation, any shot in the dark could be called a viable scientific theory. THAT is the big misconception that the public seems to have.
---- "The worst kind of death is getting eaten by someone you love."
Loading...
|
| Pole Kitten
Account deleted |
|
 Posts: 8902 |
Posts: 8902 Written by [user id=27451] on 17.12.2007 at 11:25 As a Christian though, I don't discount that God exists based on the belief that if I can't scientifically prove Him, He therefore does not exist. God lives outside of my understanding and outside my ability to glean empirical data about the world around me. If I could prove that God exists with empirical data, He'd be too small a God for me.
---- (space for rent)
Loading...
|
 Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by Dane Train on 20.12.2007 at 22:48 This is one statement that I do like. But it arises a question: if one believes the Bible, then it's written that God has appeared to some people in person, more or less. Is it that you don't feel equal to them to deserve a chat with God, or does this have something to do with the Christian doctrine that the "age of miracles" (including direct revelations) is simply past. Because if God appeared to someone directly, and it could be caught "on camera", then that'd count as empirical evidence, no?
Loading...
|
 Posts: 10110 |
Posts: 10110
lol i like the topic subcategory "common sense".. @gotter i think it has something to do with the fact that he, knowing he would be caught 'on camera' he won't appear at all, since then the whole aura of mystery around him would dissipate. back when everyone was believing in gods and everyone thought so lightly of divine revelations it was almost mundane to have such encounters, or at least say you had such encounters. nowadays everyone is so much more serious about it and he might not want to break the ice like that. i know i made no sense 
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 4936  |
Posts: 4936
I would point out something about theories: A scientific theory has any worth only insofar it bears consequences that can be witnessed. According to Karl Popper, the proper scientific method is to make assumptions and then try to disprove them. You can never prove a theory, you can only find evidence that supports the theory or evidence that disproves the theory. Even if you see a million white swans in your life, you cannot know that all swans are white. However, you can have a fairly believable scientific theory that all swans are white. I may be getting slightly off-topic here, but I hope to offer some perspective into debate whether there is a god behind evolution. If there is, what visible consequences does that have? How can you test it, and what kind of empiric observations would support or disprove the theory? The fact is, like Kant already told us ages ago, that we cannot know God in the way we know things our senses detect. Saying God does not exist is completely unscientific; you have absolutely no evidence that way, nor do you have evidence to the contrary. All in all, you cannot say anything, positive or negative, about God scientifically. The moment you do, you break the paradigm of science which demands methodological naturalism from the scientist. So debating God's role scientifically is, to put in bluntly, bullshit. As for the demand that science must give in and adapt to science, I think that's bollocks. You have no grounds to demand that of anyone. A scientific world view, as popular as it is nowadays, is no more certain than a religious one. Neither one can be proven with anything outside their own assumptions and use of language. Why does science tell us the truth? Because it's scientifically correct, as defined by the rules of science? Ha, that's circular logic. And it's unavoidable when you try to prove that science can find the universal turth. If you can actually do that, write a book and become the world's most famous philosopher. Personally though, I choose to "believe" in evolution and science in general. Scientific theories are statements I accept in my daily life, because that seems to be reasonable, useful and there's no convincing arguments to the contrary. However, I am not naive enough to think I know, or even can know, the truth. In some ways, I am religious as well, and that has nothing to do with science. After Immanuel Kant, few have bothered to try creating a synthesis of empiric knowledge and faith. They cannot be understood in the same way.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by IronAngel on 23.12.2007 at 01:33 Of course it is. Besides, scientists have better things to do. But I will say that God is an extremely improbable and illogical thing. This is the philosophical approach, but based on our ever-expanding knowledge of the real world. Would you trust a chemist or an alchemist to explain the world to you? Written by IronAngel on 23.12.2007 at 01:33 Fine. Go and jump off a high rise. If you give me your weight and a few other relevant factors, I am sure I can calculate the exact height you will be at after n seconds, effectively proving that the Theory of Gravity and the formulas included, for instance, are totally true. Should you still feel that scientific rules that apply to science are but one way of viewing things and not necessarily the correct one, you can tell me so afterwards. How can anyone have the guts to claim that the scientific methods of determining and measuring reality are wrong if they are based on actual hard observations and crystal logic?
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 3894  |
Posts: 3894
With all due respect, isn't genetic engineering based on the fact that cells can reproduce at various rates and on study of of passing genetic traits? Thats one way I think that Evolution shows in the science world, much how cells mutate under different conditions and etc. I.E. use in making vaccines or activating enzymes to produce insulin hormone in cows, I think.
Loading...
|
 Posts: 1727 |
Posts: 1727 Written by Götter on 23.12.2007 at 22:22 Firstly, I don't think she wanted to say that scientific methods are wrong. They work very well when it comes to explanation and prediction of empirical phenomena (the questions concerning social change may be much more difficult). But science is quite ineffectual in answering moral, or aesthetic questions, for example. And the same thing applies to religious questions as well, whether you see them as important or not. Also, not seeing science as a measure of absolute truth doesn't mean jumping into the religious fundamentalist/creationist bandwagon, not by a long shot. I am probably as much opposed to creationism as you are, although maybe not so passionate about it. And finally, the myth that scientific methods are based on "actual hard observations and crystal logic" may have been believable in the beginning of the 20th century, but the philosophy of science nowadays has left this view behind a long time ago. Observations can always be interpreted, there are no "actual hard observations". Your example may only work only because the observation of jumping in the air is relatively unproblematic. As for "crystal logic", today there isn't only one kind of logic, there are many. I am no expert in logic, but at least I can bring out the difference between the classical and intuitionist logics - the first accepts the law of excluded middle (p V ~p), the intuitionist logic dismisses this law. Also, Kurt Gödel proved a long time ago the incompleteness theorem that shows that complex mathematical systems can't be reduced to complete number of axioms. So logic as a science (I myself see this as a science) isn't so unproblematic, at least it's far from being crystal whatever that might mean. When you approach these questions philosophically (and in your post wrote about philosophical approach) you can't be so sure about what you have said. And to answer your question, I believe in evolution, although "believe in" has some religious connotations and I would like to avoid them. Btw. Your avatar is lovely.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by John Barleycorn on 24.12.2007 at 13:39 LOL, what? Science, done correctly, is the only way to absolute truth - as far as absolutes are achievable at all to infidels not believing in an absolute God. Of course science and the results gained can be abused to suit the researchers personal ideologies, like Nazi eugenics or Intelligent Design. But thankfully most scientists are quite liberal, open-minded and atheistic in their approach. Written by John Barleycorn on 24.12.2007 at 13:39 Look. We cannot see atoms or electrons, their existence is determined through interpretation and was first considered through philosophy as far as in ancient Greece. But does any person in their sane mind doubt the existence of particles nowadays? I don't think so. Written by John Barleycorn on 24.12.2007 at 13:39 I disagree on both sentences, at least partially. First, science can (at least at some point in the future) determine whether a snail or a cat or a dolphin can experience pain or not, or whether five months old human fetuses can. This can lead to many important ethical revisions. And while science cannot prove to us that the supernatural does not exist, they can dispel more and more ancient myths that have been held to be true for way too long, and the supernatural vanishes with it. Science cannot give us a formula or a chemical reaction that plainly shows God's nonexistence, but only because God doesn't exist in the first place. Written by John Barleycorn on 24.12.2007 at 13:39 I know. Merry Christmas. 
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 4936 |
Posts: 4936
Could you prove why science is so absolute? Why is it that your observations which support a given theory are truly objective? Here's a quote from you: "But does any person in their sane mind doubt the existence of particles nowadays? I don't think so." Referring to popular belief to validate a belief is hardly scientific of philosophic. Set aside the fact that you're used to accept science and the scientific method, and that it has worked fine so far. Can you rationally, with no circular logic or room for doubt, prove how science is the objective, universal truth whereas religion says nothing of that truth? Hells, I'd even settle for evidence that science is at least a little better. Of course it's easy to believe such a thing as it's the common thing to do nowadays, but let's be critical for a while, and play the Devil's advocate. Can you please prove this claim: "Science, done correctly, is the only way to absolute truth" The belief that science is going to dispel religion died a long time ago. Schleiermacher is not the only one to have given religion a place in life alongside science. Equally outdated is the belief that you can observe anything about the real world directly. Again, I direct you to Immanuel Kant; the Copernican revolution simply made so many metaphysical questions irrelevant that one must be familiar with his ideas. I'm not denying science as a practical thing. But trying to elevate it above other forms of human experience, let alone make in indepent of humans, is an attempt with flimsy backup. Perhaps this discussion is better continued in another thread, but right now I'm off to celebrate a religious holiday.  And it's good to see ol' Götter's still around.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 1727 |
Posts: 1727
@Götter: I will answer shortly. About absolute truth, I am thinking about a complete description of reality, so that all the facts could be described - past, present and future. And your post didn't give any arguments for the position that science would be able to provide us with that kind of description. In fact the idea of an absolute truth may well be incoherent itself. Our descriptions are at least partially determined by our conceptual systems and practices and we can't step completely outside all of our conceptual systems because the descriptions themselves can only be given in conceptual form. The idea of a pure fact not tainted by our concepts is a positivist myth, completely demolished by philosophers such as Quine, to mention one. As for your second point - there do exist sane people who doubt in the existence of particles. There are for example constructive empiricists in philosophy of science who claim that we can't actually say whether they exist or not. According to them, particles are only theoretical postulates for explaining and predicting observable phenomena. And many of the positivists who seem to represent views that are quite similar to yours, claimed the same. And when in todays physics particles can also be seen as waves then at least according to Aristotelian logic, strictly speaking, they shouldn't exist. Oh, btw. I haven't heard that Greeks ever considered the existence of electrons? About the third point, I am not sure whether it can be ever completely determined whether animals experience pain. Maybe. But whether it can or not, that has got nothing to do with the JUSTIFICATION of ethical propositions. I know that some idiots have tried to justify a certain kind of ethics through natural selection but we shouldn't draw any normative statements from evolutionary theory. And same applies to aesthetics. Finally, since you seem to doubt that any reasonable person can doubt in scientific method, I'll give an example. Paul Feyerabend, who was a philosopher of science, at home both in science and history, presented a thesis of epistemological anarchism which claims that ALL methods should be considered when it comes to describing the reality so that everyone should choose what to study, be it magic or science. He was an atheist by the way I am not saying that we should agree with Feyerabend. I don't. But his argumentation surely was rational. Argumentation can be rational, whether it brings to true conclusions or not. Besides Feyerabend, most of so-called continental philosophers are totally unimpressed when concerning science. And they are also no idiots.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300
Now, look everybody... I don't know what strange ideas you have about science or why it is popular here to give religion a chance it doesn't deserve, but let me explain in symbolic terms how I see science and its superiority over other methods of perceiving reality. Science is braving an overgrown forest path from one village to another close by. Religion and similar is taking a helicopter to do that. Science is the way that requires the most work, but is still one's most logical choice. Religion is the lazy man's way out. Hardly anything is needed if you know your destination. With the scientific approach to the journey you can not only get where you want to, but you can also find out a lot more on the way. Religion only gives an overhead view of things, with stuff passing by very quickly without a chance to see how things really are. The worst thing that could you happen to you on a scientific journey is a broken leg if you're careless. With religion you could crash land and if you survive, after this hard fall you need the scientist in the forest to rescue you. Hiking keeps you healthy. Sure there are lions and tigers and bears in the woods, but an expert hiker knows how to avoid them. Flying a helicopter all the time makes you weak and helpless. Believers are so utterly enslaved to their imaginary friends that few have the strength to snap out of it.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by John Barleycorn on 24.12.2007 at 16:58 Whether constructive empiricists or Harlem cannabis planters debate the actual existence of particles is hardly relevant. The fact is that physics and chemistry work right under the assumption that they do exist, and this would be a coincidence of titanic proportions if they weren't actually there. Written by John Barleycorn on 24.12.2007 at 16:58 Photons, the stuff that light is made of, has the attributes of both particles and waves. True, they aren't completely understood yet, but at least scientists don't ascribe them with divine properties or similar shit because of that. Just read some wacky Creationist ideas on light. Written by John Barleycorn on 24.12.2007 at 16:58 Not electrons, but I think it was Democritus who proposed the existence of atoms. Atomos meaning "undividable" or similar. Written by John Barleycorn on 24.12.2007 at 16:58 This has a lot to do with the justification of ethical propositions. I believe that all forms of life that can experience pain must have the same rights as humans. Exactly the same. Meaning a human wouldn't be a gram more "important" or "valuable" than a pain-capable cat or a squirrel.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by IronAngel on 24.12.2007 at 16:53 You're getting ridiculous here. It's the same as doubting whether the sky really is blue or if the glass is really green. I mean, we could always be suffering from some strange optical disorder or be wearing sunglasses. Written by IronAngel on 24.12.2007 at 16:53 It has worked out fine for a few centuries now. Religion never worked. Never ever. It stayed dominant for that long simply because people never questioned it. They had no better suggestions for the world. The ancient philosophers were the first ones to exhibit some thinking, although the matters they debated were usually different. Written by IronAngel on 24.12.2007 at 16:53 Well, if we consider science in this case to be done according to the best traditions, i.e according to observable reality, according to the way things are, then this is the only obvious outcome. Relying on the actual world and its properties that can be studied through veritable methods, we can say that the truth about the physical world is best found out through science. Written by IronAngel on 24.12.2007 at 16:53 Wait, what? Since when was Kant a source for empirical truth? For one, he was religious and secondly, his ideas were rather stupid. We can observe the real world directly through our five senses. At least these are the most direct methods of observation that have developed on this planet Earth. To have a point of reference, we simply have to refer to them as direct sources of information. Or we could be forever caught in an endless web of unverified theories and philosophies. If you don't trust your eyes and ears, what do you trust anyway? Written by IronAngel on 24.12.2007 at 16:53 If you're referring to religion as an alternative form of human experience, then you're wasting your time. Religion is a bundle of ancient myths and hallucinations, not worthy of a modern thinking person. To compare it to science is to offend the latter and the people who have done so much work in the name of knowledge.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 1727 |
Posts: 1727 Written by Götter on 24.12.2007 at 22:00 Since I want to sleep I will only argue against this point. The problem with justifying ethical statements doesn't lie in the question whether animals feel pain or not, it rather lies in the question what are rights and what are the criteria of ascribing them (is the ability to feel pain a necessary condition for ascribing rights to someone, for example). I for one, have my doubts when it comes to the notion of right itself, and even if we are justified to ascribe them I am not sure whether the ability to experience pain is a necessary or sufficient condition here. And for a more general point - questioning science and its methods (or rather - sciences and their methods) doesn't mean embracing creationism. It just comes to philosophical sensitivity and healthy skepticism. Good humor is also important and this is something that creationists and also quite a few scientists doesn't seem to understand. I would also like to add an imaginative thought-teaser. In Sumerian mythology, and not only Sumerian, there is this creation myth (Urukagina 15) according to which the world is created when the heaven (An) has sex with the Earth (Ki). Now, the creation is pictured as An inserting its seed into Ki's womb. Funny part is that Sumerian word "A" means both seed and water, so that An shooting his sperm means the same as rain. I would dare to say that this myth actually presents us a truth from a Sumerian perspective - without rain, vegetation in Mesopotamia would not have been possible, so in a sense rain really makes life or the world for Sumerians possible. At least it is hard to say in what sense Sumerian creation myth would contradict natural sciences - those pictures are just too different. The ideas about Heaven, Earth, sex and rain are fathomed so differently from us today. I am already waiting for angry comments against not being critical enough and so on. The view I hold is that myths enable to shape our lives, enable imaginative flights, give food for thought and can even be truthful, if we manage to listen and feel a certain empathy towards the forms of life that shaped those myths.
Loading...
|
| Posts: 12300 |
Posts: 12300 Written by John Barleycorn on 25.12.2007 at 01:04 Here you are right. Skepticism is very important, in fact the one of the most important things about science, one that truly advances it. It is not discovering a new fact that makes a scientist most proud and happy, it is disproving something thought to be true beforehand, disproving something that you had your doubts about. I completely understand and agree with this attitude. But healthy skepticism does not mean, for instance, that one should question evolution just for the sake of it, as mr. Dane Train is doing. There are scientific claims which have never been and might never become disproven, simply because they are right. Written by John Barleycorn on 25.12.2007 at 01:04 Well, what is so special about that? All the mythologies in the world are full of such allegories. Prometheus bringing fire from the heavens, but also creating mankind. The ancient Greeks had no knowledge of human prehistory and the time before the invention of fire, they simply put the human spirit and fire together into one myth. Ingenious and scientific? No. Inventive and somewhat logical? Yes. Written by John Barleycorn on 25.12.2007 at 01:04 Again I agree. I love mythology. But I do grab for my gun when I hear people using myths to explain and lead present day lives. You can see yourself where this can lead to - Creationism which can seriously hinder human development by corrupting the most powerful nation in the world.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 533  |
Posts: 533
"Photons, the stuff that light is made of, has the attributes of both particles and waves. True, they aren't completely understood yet, but at least scientists don't ascribe them with divine properties or similar shit because of that. Just read some wacky Creationist ideas on light." Even electrons display wave particle duality, its the principle used in electron microscopes if im not mistaken.
---- Here is my actual theory beyond the huge, hilarious jokes I have: If you're so pro-life and you're so pro-child, then adopt one that's already here, that's very unwanted and very alone and needs someone to take care of it. - Bill Hicks
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 533 |
Posts: 533
"Not electrons, but I think it was Democritus who proposed the existence of atoms. Atomos meaning "undividable" or similar." I agree, as far as i can remmber democritus inded did propose the idea of the smallest possible particle that could not be divided. He called it the atom (or equivalent in greek), of course he could nver observe any of his proposals but the concept came from him. As for the electron question, no i dont think they knew about electrons as they had no concept of subatomic particles just the idea of the indivisible particle (note that what democritus described as an atom is NOT the same as what we call an atom today, as we CAN split atoms.) . The name electron comes from greek though, democritus (i think) discovered that static electricity can be produced by rubbing a piece of amber on your clothes, it just turns out that the greek word for amber is electron i guess the arbitrary name "electron" that we use for a negatively charged subatomic particle is just a little tribute to the ancient greek. Pls feel free to correct any likely mistakes in the above.
---- Here is my actual theory beyond the huge, hilarious jokes I have: If you're so pro-life and you're so pro-child, then adopt one that's already here, that's very unwanted and very alone and needs someone to take care of it. - Bill Hicks
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 4936 |
Posts: 4936
That's a long post quoting me. Yet you fail to address almost all my arguments. Let's look at them again, preferrably with less rhetorics and more arguments. Why is it "ridicilous" to be hesitant about embracing a common belief as absolute truth? Do you honestly believe that you can, with 100% certainty, know that the sky is blue, where "sky", "blue", and "is" can only have one universal meaning? It's one thing to accept these as "good enough" facts in our lives, but quite a leap of faith (yes, faith) to expect to be able to prove it. You go on to saying science has worked better for centuries and religion has never worked. How should they work, however? Why is something that works, true? The aforementioned Sumerian myth was equally functional in explaining the creation of life, yet it's not scientific and I seriously doubt it's true. Aristotelian physics worked pretty well too, but they're no longer considered valid. All in all, the pragmatic notion that that which works must also be considered true, is not believable. If we accept "truth = usefulness", we are not looking at universal truths but systems that make life easier. Which is fine with me, but at least acknowledge your pragmatic stance and state it. As for human senses relating pure data about the world, I urge you to prove it. With logic, please. Granted, Immanuel Kant wasn't omniscient, but he had pretty convincing arguments. If your argument against him relies on the fact that he was religious instead of disproving his epistemology/metaphysics, aren't you being quite biased and unphilosophic? Just because he have to trust our senses to get by doesn't mean they're undeaniably correct. If you were given an equation, 2X=5, 1<X<2, and you just had to pick a value for X, that doesn't make the equation true, does it? It's a simple question: Why are senses 100% correct? As for your comment about religion being a waste of time, that's not based on very strong arguments. It's purely an opinion disguised in empty rhetorics. You cannot deny the fact that religion is an alternative form of human experience. Whether it's a better form, or a completely useless one, is up to debate. But dismissing it "because it's not science" is, in my humble opinion, not worthy of a modern thinking person.
Loading...
|
| Harmonic
Account deleted |
Harmonic
Account deleted Written by IronAngel on 26.12.2007 at 15:02 After having read through your posts in this thread, I wanted to commend you on the clarity and precision of your reasoning. Well done! Religion has its flaws and its role in human society has diminished under the influence of science, but the same close-minded human tendencies that enshrined religion as absolute in ages past now threaten to elevate modern science to a god-like status that it does not deserve. I attended university for long enough to learn most scientists are quite fond of presenting themselves as the self-styled priests of the modern era. Their tendency to dismiss any serious discussion of things outside the pale of the scientific method with shallow counterarguments borders on the absurd, in much the same way that some religious people insist their world view is correct because their Holy Book says so. Science is a very powerful tool when acting within its own sphere of influence, but wholly ineffectual when applied elsewhere. The notion that science will eventually "explain everything" is a wildly improbable and arrogant assumption. Again, it is good to find someone who is willing to think and reason as a free man. Keep it up! 
Loading...
|
| Aei Ontos
Account deleted |
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by [user id=30512] on 03.03.2008 at 15:39 Okay, I'm not familiar with this story, but how do you explain the similarity of all organisms? Organically, physiologically, and reproductively? (Traits similar in all organisms are drawn from common ancestors.) By the way, a link to this story would be much appreciated. Thanks! Written by [user id=30512] on 03.03.2008 at 15:39 Alright, well, first we indeed do know the rate of decay of Carbon-14, it's 5730 years I believe. Second, it's not a matter of how much is in the body, but how much is in it in relation to Carbon-12. Since all living things absorb equal amounts of C-12 and C-14, and after death only C-14 starts to decay, you can measure the amount left in mortal remains in relation to C-12. We're both not very educated in this field, but I suggest looking a lot more into this, especially if you don't believe it works. I'm not sure where you got the idea that C-14 couldn't be measured. Written by [user id=30512] on 03.03.2008 at 15:39 So lastly, if one bogus "theory" were to dispel a belief, then religion would be out of the picture in no time. You can't compare religious belief with scientific theory, they are two very different areas. One is based on faith, the other on empirical evidence and method. One thing I ask is, so you just strait up don't believe evolution, in any form? Micro or macro? And if not, how do you believe life got how it is today?
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
| Harmonic
Account deleted |
|
|
Posts: 222 |
|
| Posts: 5777 |
Posts: 5777 Written by [user id=22888] on 03.03.2008 at 21:10 Yes, but what would you said to people who literally believe the story? And while I'm sure the biblical authors were learned people nonetheless, I fail to believe that they would use this metaphor to postulate the "emergence" of humans, especially since by most cliche biblical reference, God simply "created" us. However, these are very interesting ideas that we can no doubt apply to all stories of faith. Again, the creation of humans, where God says "Let us make man in our image." People have pointed to God and animals as "us" and people often attribute man's "higher" consciousness of being to our "God" half. I believe both G.W.F. Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach both touched on this "God and human consciousness" theme, though both at separate ends of the spectrum. However, while we can postulate these themes in our day and age, it seems to further discredit religion, because when does everything stop becoming a metaphor and start to become real? What would stop the idea of God from being a metaphor then? It's all interpretation, and thus, isn't universal truth, in my opinion.
---- The force will be with you, always.
Loading...
|
|
Posts: 222 |