Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by Brokenman123, Apr 25, 2019.
Religion vs science and Creation/Creationism vs evolution are false dichotomies. I know that's not the point you were getting at and I'm not attacking you but there are a couple important points that need to be addressed.
1) there is no war between religion and science since they both hand and hand and explain different aspects of the nature of reality with science attempting to explain the natural world and religion attempting to explain what may lie beyond the natural world... there shouldn't any conflict between the two as long as religion doesn't impede science and if possible vice versa.
2) With respect to evolution vs creation, that's a false dichotomy because evolution doesn't rule the existence of God and in fact, has no answer to the question of whether or not a God or Gods exist and also creation has to do with the origin of life while evolution doesn't answer the question of the origins of life... abiogenesis does that. So there doesn't need to be this conflict between believing in God/having faith in a higher power and evolution, heck, even many Christian scientists accept evolution and abiogenesis as being true. It's quite possible that if a God or God's exist, He/She/It/They could have used evolution.
I agree that one's perception of religion/faith can influence their perception of this topic but I try to keep my perception of faith/religion out of it. Personally, I honestly don't know if there's a God or not and I don't know what to believe with respect to the God question, I'm just really confused right now... I've been on a journey trying to find the truth and I've been going back and forth trying to find an answer but haven't found a definitive one as yet so yeah, I guess I can call myself a skeptic. There are good arguments for and against both sides of the debate though.
I appreciate your thoughts
I knew someone might accuse of doing that and TBH you may have a point but it's not an appeal to authority fallacy since they are actual experts in their field... the fallacy is only valid if they aren't an expert in the field but claim to be one or if they're cited as an authority in the field when they're not. If I'm wrong, please let me know. So do you think they're lying or that they're mistaken?
Because that's where the evidence leads.
Sorry for the typos everyone... I was typing really fast.
Hmmm, you may be onto something but all out wars and parents killing kids? Are there inter-species wars in other species or instances of parents savagely killing their kids for no good reason? I also expect better from humanity given our intelligence and sense of rationality which should in theory lead us away from wars and killing each other since it leads to us killing off our species but I guess it doesn't work that way in practice.
You're confusing an appeal to questionable (or false) authority with appeals to authority. The former should be disregarded, however, because ALL authorities should be questioned. The masses expect these people to tell them what the world is like. If there is ANY possibility of them being wrong (and the past 500 years have shown that there's a huge chance), then authorities should not be trusted. They should be questioned and criticized. If then and only then can they hold up to both, should their words be considered.
With that, the answer is in the name. You are appealing to authorities because you say that you trust them to deliver unto you as well as the masses good, thorough information. Whether they are experts is irrelevant, it's still an appeal.
The only individual you should trust to tell you what the world is like is yourself. It's still entirely possible that the opinion of an authority or an instituiton of authority is completely wrong about a topic. Consensus would be irrelevant since the Scientific Method itself was made to rid the sciences of it.
As for your question, some could be lying. Most are mistaken. Either way, no. Evolution, especially in the sense of cross-speciation, doesn't exist. You can't even call it a scientific theory, actually, not to my knowledge.
Evolution is a popular theory. Thats as far as it goes. Evolution doesnt even meet all the scientific methods critera to actually be considered fact because it has never been replicated. Animals are clearly able to adapt to their environments and natural select makes plenty of sense but not evolution.
We caused directly or indirectly the extinction of our closest competitors, the Neanderthals. We also waged war against wolves in Central Europe that made it virtually extinct there. Wolves are daytime pack hunters just like us that feed on similar pray and compete heavily for the same game and/or domesticated livestock. We also wage war against viruses and bacteria causing the extinction/virtual extinction via vaccines of many diseases that have plagued humans. Those are just a few examples.
Examples of species that kill their young are very plentiful. Scorpions come to mind right off the bat.
Evolution is not a complete theory of life but it's a correct one. Whenever there's someone arguing against it, you can tell with near certainty that they never bothered to study nature in the first place. A creationist's dislike of biology is the same disease as a flat earther's dislike of physics.
yes, which is why I mostly agree with it
What would you argue emotions are then? Here is an article to think about: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes
No. I would say rather that instinct has been observed. Animals might have a sense of what to do in a given situation, based either on training or instinct, but they don't have a moral sense of right or wrong.
I'm not sure I follow that.
Each has a unique mind and body, and we know it (self awareness). We have a character of our own as well. Etc.
Yes. I believe in microevolution. Also macro, but not without God. What I don't believe is that billions of years ago we were a single cell of life or whatever, and that we evolved completely on our own to the point where we are now, because of the difference between sentience and rationality, not because it would be physically impossible. I'm not even going to get into how a single cell could develop or before that.
Intelligence, maybe. Rationality, not.
Its so small it doesn't affect the race
Because our emotions can override basically every instinct we have
Unfortunately I will not have much access to a computer after today for this weekend, so don't expect a reply until monday or tuesday
Thanks for clarifying things for me but what exactly do you want me to do, because as far I can tell, the scientists have all the access to the data and I don't, so it's not like I can go and test the evidence for myself? Besides I see no reason to not trust these scientists, since these guys have spent hours and some have dedicated their lives to painstakingly analysing their work for errors while also using the scientific method to get rid of their biases and allowing for criticism of their work through peer review and all that. And the scientific method doesn't deal in absolute claims to truth, even evolutionary biologists have concluded that the theory is provisional and subject to being revised or even wholeheartedly rejected if newer, better evidence came to light.
I don't get what the motivation to lie would be and how do you know they're mistaken? Have you painstakingly studied evolution for yourself like they have and found it wanting? If you have that would be huge, you could probably get a Nobel prize, no joke. Like seriously, if you have evidence that would overturn the theory or have found it holes in that disprove it, I'd like to hear those. Speciation has been proven unless your definition of cross speciation is different from what I think it is.
Evolution actually is a scientific theory and it's the most scrutinized one out there... what's not scientific is creationism since it's unfalsifiable and doesn't really make any predictions or hypothesize about anything, evolution on the other hand has made predictions and hypothesized certain things and they have come true but still though, evolution vs creationism is a false dichotomy since creationism deals with origins and evolution doesn't, so evolution doesn't rule the existence of a creator.
I don't know if you'll read it but this articles discusses it.
Adaptation and natural selection are aspects of evolution and no it isn't just a popular theory... there's actually evidence supporting it and if new evidence comes to light that contradicts evolution, it would be rejected in favour of some other theory. But I addressed all these points in my post to the other guy:
I understand the Neanderthal example and the second example about the wolves but the first example about the wolves and the example about the bacteria don't count as interspecies wars, do they unless you count wolves and bacteria as belonging to our species?
Damn, didn't know, thanks for sharing, so I guess it is a natural evolutionary thing. I would still think humans would be know better than to do that given our intelligence and sense of rationality but I guess nature takes precedence? But even then, if it is natural why do we feel as though it's immoral? If it's just nature, it's amoral or indifferent, so it doesn't make sense for humans to feel bad about it if it's natural.
I just assumed this to be the case.
Again assumed to be the case. You really think though that animals can be capable of having free will though?
Yeah I agree. That's why I said earlier that evolution is subject to change if newer information or evidence comes to light... scientists don't have all the answers right now.
I'd say emotions are patterns of physical activity in the brain as a reaction to external stimuli but I'll give your article a read.
But there have been studies done which show that animals do have a moral sense that's similar to humans where they display empathy, fairness, kindness etc when they very well could have been selfish. It mightn't be exactly the same as humans but it's pretty close and we ourselves act on instinct and training too in certain moral situations. Don't we teach kids how to interact in a moral manner while some of the stuff they do is based on instinct?
It makes sense for morality or moral traits like empathy, kindness, compassion, etc to develop among social species since it helps with the development and sustaining of the species... that's how evolution can account for morality.
Well as I said earlier, evolutionary biologists don't have all the answers. Maybe there's an answer to this out there already that scientists have found, IDK but if isn't explained now or in the future, in naturalistic, evolutionary terms then I guess we'll have to say I don't know. Maybe it's possible that a God imbued us with that sense, IDK.
Well the origin of the first cell would be abiogenesis (and there have been some steps made in explaining that) not evolution but I respect your position. I also find it difficult to imagine that sentience and rationality arose all on it's own but it's possible science could answer that in the future and if it can't, well maybe it might have been God, IDK.
Well we humans invented logic and the laws of logic so that could explain our sense of rationality.
Yeah I guess so and I guess it's competition too now that I think about it but it certainly doesn't help with the survival of the species.
OK it's fine.
Definitely not interspecies. I was just pointing out that wars are fought all of the place for survival. Across species, within species, even culturally (but that's a totally different discussion).
I can't say whether humans and (other) animals have free will or not but I'm pretty sure that the answer is the same for both. I see no reason to elevate humans to an above-animal state - dogs, ants, pigs and mice have obviously less complex lives than we do but not fundamentally different.
Of course relativity's subject to change, all knowledge is. Einstein discovered that Newton was wrong even though for 200 years everyone had thought he had been right. And it's just as possible that we'll find out relativity and quantum mechanics are not right even after having them tested more precisely than any other scientific theory.
But it's also important to say that 99.99% of our technology is built as if Newton were correct. So in some sense, he was correct and I think it's the same with evolution. I don't think Darwin got everything right* and I'll be damned disappointed if we won't make any new discoveries. But the main idea - that life is not static but continually changing and we're a result of that process - is as true as the fact that the Earth is round.
*In fact, we already know he didn't - genes can be transformed by other ways besides passing it parents to children! Turns out DNA can be transferred between unrelated organisms and it's been happening ever since life began, it's how we got mitochondria.