A Challenge ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Chirality of molecular chains, with special regard to those utilized by known living organisms. That kind of chirality.
Hehhehh eeyeah.
I could have guessed (and did) that MM would not appreciate the information. In any event, the question was asked!No, the scientific definition of a guess, opinion, or idea is a hypothesis. There is a small caveat in that any hypothesis is based on at least some observation.
A theory can be, for all intents and purposes of the layman, proved. That is not to say that they cannot later be proved wrong, in part or whole. However, in order to graduate from a hypothesis to a theory at least some observations were testable and proven.
That is the difference between scientific language and the language of faith, because one is a language of absolutes where none exist, and the other is a language of qualifications despite the existence of absolutes (number/mathematical theory).
Entirely true! Are you familiar with E.O. Wilson (Ed)? Sociobiology. He's on ted.com (as is that V.S. Ramachandran I posted).
The idea (or theory, or hypothesis, if you will) is called punctuated equilibrium. It's a fascinating concept.
Well, when one is arguing apples versus sausage, yes, it does become a conundrum with no conclusion. Two completely different beasts. One does not really "belong" in the same spectrum as the other, which has been my whole point from the beginning. Science would not, and can not, explain God (or Shiva, or whatever deity you select), it has no business trying to do so, as the efficacy of religion IS its reliance on pure faith in absence of evidence. Likewise, however, should religion or faith not endeavor to explain science, as it has no business trying to explain solely on faith that which, by definition, MUST be testable and provable based upon observation.
No. There are examples of other animals reasoning and thinking. Maybe not on the level of, or in the same manner as, human, but they do. Cognizance is the biggest difference I see between us and other animals, but I consider it no coincidence that embryonic fish look exactly as embryonic humans do, nor do I consider it coincidence that I animal organs can substitute for human, or use many of the same components, or that they bleed red as we do.
Nor are those observations based on faith alone, you know as well as I do they are exactly what they are.At this point, let me introduce you to E.O. Wilson, the father, of sorts, of sociobiology. There was a time when his ideas were sourly rejected, but now they are widely accepted. Humans work in many, many provable ways by instinct. We are not alone.
mockingbird131313
Well-Known Member
Dear Seamaiden,
I have never heard of Wilson. Almost all I know about creation v. evolution I learned in a class called History of Geology. To me the most amazing part of this issue is that people argue with such passion about one position are another. Yet the facts remain the same. Either position cannot be proven, conclusively.
mb
I have never heard of Wilson. Almost all I know about creation v. evolution I learned in a class called History of Geology. To me the most amazing part of this issue is that people argue with such passion about one position are another. Yet the facts remain the same. Either position cannot be proven, conclusively.
mb
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Best, most intelligent observation I've seen yet in this thread
mockingbird131313
Well-Known Member
Thank you Dank.
medicineman
New Member
Mock-dank, slap slap slap
Last edited:
ViRedd
New Member
The more of your posts I read, the more inclined I am to believe in Evolution and the premise that humans are descended from monkeys.
Vi
</IMG>
email468
Well-Known Member
... i am to believe in Evolution and the premise that humans, apes, and monkeys are all descended from a common ancestor.The more of your posts I read, the more inclined I am to believe in Evolution and the premise that humans are descended from monkeys.
Vi
</IMG>
fixed that for you
We TaRdED
Well-Known Member
Email, that was hilarious..HAHAHA ~LOL~... i am to believe in Evolution and the premise that humans, apes, and monkeys are all descended from a common ancestor.
fixed that for you
Who knows, maybe ViRedd meant what he said. "We ARE decedents of monkeys. " Hahaha, jk jk
email468
Well-Known Member
i knew what he meant - he could insult med and disparage evolution in one fell swoop - i was just being an ass (as usual).
Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
Mockingbird, with all due respect, it appears that you missed my point (and email's, and Joint's) completely, which is that, with regard to the scientific definition of a theory, evolution IS proved. That is not to say that a theory cannot be adjusted (punctuated equilibrium, better knowledge not just of genetics, but epigenetics), or even proven entirely wrong at some point in the future. It is to say, though, that to this point there is no evidence disproving it as a theory and plenty that proves it, not just supports.
Again, that is the difference between science and religion -- one practically strives to be proved wrong, the other, by definition (faith) cannot. What is there, in actual evidentiary terms, to prove anything that is based on faith?
You say yourself that your knowledge (read: education) on the subject is incredibly limited. So, how can one say such a thing in one sentence and then go on to make a declarative statement presuming to demonstrate any actual knowledge on the given subject in another?
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Seamaiden, The reason he said what he did is because Neither side can be proved...
(thus the most enlightened and intelligent comment in the thread)
Each side of the argument ends up pissing in the wind. Neither Side wants to give one inch.... Personally it is not important how we got here, it what we do while we are here that matters.
Although I grew up in a Christian Household, I see religion as a way to control the masses through fear.
(thus the most enlightened and intelligent comment in the thread)
Each side of the argument ends up pissing in the wind. Neither Side wants to give one inch.... Personally it is not important how we got here, it what we do while we are here that matters.
Although I grew up in a Christian Household, I see religion as a way to control the masses through fear.
AlphaNoN
Well-Known Member
Not only are we decedents of "monkeys", we are "monkeys", relatively hairless great apes (if you want to get picky) that just got too smart to keep living in the jungle..
We're animals, no more, no less. Our true lord's name is N-A-T-U-R-E, it's bible is written into the very stone and etched into our dna, it isn't omnipotent, it didn't talk to a prophet, it has little patience for those that don't help themselves, it doesn't care what your sins are, it has lasted the span of time and created us all from the fiery forges of the stars. When you die and the last thought you have is "what's next?" the question will remain unanswered. Don't waste your true heaven, life on earth, prostrating yourself in an attempt to please a being that only exists in the over-active imaginations of a lucky species of "monkey"...
Last edited:
email468
Well-Known Member
It may be the most "enlightened" and that is debatable but intelligent? Hardly. If you are talking about absolute-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-no-way-in-hell-we-could-be-wrong-proof, then yeah - NOTHING can be proven under those conditions. But to avoid that absurd situation (absurd relative to understanding the world around us), we have to be comfortable with error margins. Within error margins, evolution through natural selection is a theory substantiated with proof. You are free to disagree but to pretend like there is another side to evolution that is equally valid, scientifically speaking, is simply not true.
For my part, you are right - i won't budge in inch from the above until substantial evidence dissuades me from it. Why would or should I?
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Can you tell me who it is significant whether we came from Monkeys or not?
What relevance does it have today? None.
Other than the fact that Man is only one DNA marker off from simians.
Other than that, it's not really important.
How important is it that we were created from some invisible man who lives in the sky? It isn't.
People get hung up in trivial bullshit (and that is what divides the country) and do not focus on what's important.
What relevance does it have today? None.
Other than the fact that Man is only one DNA marker off from simians.
Other than that, it's not really important.
How important is it that we were created from some invisible man who lives in the sky? It isn't.
People get hung up in trivial bullshit (and that is what divides the country) and do not focus on what's important.
email468
Well-Known Member
It is significant in many, many ways.
First, some folks value truth for its own sake. Others would like to utilize that knowledge to understand more about us and the creatures around us.
Isn't the world fighting holy wars enough proof of the significance of believing in some invisible man who lives in the sky?
Studying genetics and DNA improve our medical technology and help save and improve lives (not just humans either) - why wouldn't this be significant today?
But mainly understanding the past gives us a pretty good idea where we are going.
Frankly i'm amazed that i had to point out these very simple things. Now that i've got you started, I'm sure you can come up with many, many more reasons why this is relevant and significant.
But if you don't care - why throw your hat in the ring?