29 Jun 09
Obviously, the topic should be in the Science forum but seeing as it will degrade into creationists and realists bashing each other, I thought I would post it here instead. In that respect I suppose I am really just being a troll 😛!
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/04/chimps-apes-laugh.html
An analysis of the laughter, presented in the latest Current Biology, revealed that human laughter is most similar to that of chimpanzees and bonobos. Next in line, in terms of similarity, are gorillas, followed by orangutans and siamangs, which are lesser apes.
"These results coincide with the genetic topology of great apes and humans," Davila Ross said.
Obviously the fact that the degree of similarity in laughter between species closely matches the genetic relationships between them (and thereby, the current models of human evolution) in no way proves that we and they evolved from a common ancester. However, it is another set of data that lends further weight to the already mountainous amount of evidence for it.
--- Penguin.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by Penguinthe data can be right. The 'missing link' scenario has a point. The creationists have a foothold on truth.
Obviously, the topic should be in the Science forum but seeing as it will degrade into creationists and realists bashing each other, I thought I would post it here instead. In that respect I suppose I am really just being a troll 😛!
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/04/chimps-apes-laugh.html
[i]An analysis of the laughter, presented in the latest ...[text shortened]... hat lends further weight to the already mountainous amount of evidence for it.
--- Penguin.
Is this drawing too long a bow?
Can we reconcile religion and evolutionary theory? Or are they forever to be enemies?
29 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelAs I can see it: Evolution can very well be created by an intelligence. This can very well be a part of a religious belief system. But it cannot be treated as science. Because if it was science, then we should define this intelligence. And that cannot be done scientifically.
Can we reconcile religion and evolutionary theory? Or are they forever to be enemies?
However, within the domain of religion, this intelligence can be any god, not only the christian god. It could be a hindu god, a viking god, or a greek god. How would we know? Is it possible to do religious research? No, it isn't.
Bottom line: Religion and science cannot be mixed.
29 Jun 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell I think they're going to have to be 'mixed'.
As I can see it: Evolution can very well be created by an intelligence. This can very well be a part of a religious belief system. But it cannot be treated as science. Because if it was science, then we should define this intelligence. And that cannot be done scientifically.
However, within the domain of religion, this intelligence can be any god, not ...[text shortened]... e to do religious research? No, it isn't.
Bottom line: Religion and science cannot be mixed.
I take your points...all well made.
But really ...is not the universe a paradox?
Does it not entail at least two or more fundementally different viewpoints?
(i have heard you before when you said that science and religion do not mix. Well .. they're going to have to. Everything is to have a place ... 'in the new world'. God,now you got me sounding stupid. Still only your own doubt stops you)
The 'truth' will get through, whether it be religously based or scientificly based.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelIt's like an integer is either negative, or positive. You cannot find an number being negative and positive at the same time. (Zero is neither.) The both classes of integers are in separate domains, like religion and science. Treating positive numbers as they would be negative, or vice versa, doesn't give good results.
Well I think they're going to have to be 'mixed'.
I take your points...all well made.
But really ...is not the universe a paradox?
Does it not enatail at least two or more fundementally different viewpoints?
(i have heard you before when you said that science and religion do not mix. Well .. they're going to have to. Everything is to have a place . ...[text shortened]... ou)
The 'truth' will get through, whether it be religously based or sciaentificly based.
To be religious, I define, is to belive in supernatural fenomena.
A science can only deal with natural things, not supernatural things.
And religion is not needed in natural things, like the laws of physics.
So whenever we talk about 'an intelligent designer' then we are out of physics. Hence creationism cannot ever be scientific. And the science of evolution doesn't have a need for any supernatural being.
Therefore Religion and Science don't need to be mixed.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by FabianFnas(i choose zero)🙂
It's like an integer is either negative, or positive. You cannot find an number being negative and positive at the same time. (Zero is neither.) The both classes of integers are in separate domains, like religion and science. Treating positive numbers as they would be negative, or vice versa, doesn't give good results.
To be religious, I define, is to ...[text shortened]... need for any supernatural being.
Therefore Religion and Science don't need to be mixed.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by karoly aczel…is not the universe a paradox?
Well I think they're going to have to be 'mixed'.
I take your points...all well made.
But really ...is not the universe a paradox?
Does it not entail at least two or more fundementally different viewpoints?
(i have heard you before when you said that science and religion do not mix. Well .. they're going to have to. Everything is to have a place .. ...[text shortened]... ou)
The 'truth' will get through, whether it be religously based or scientificly based.
…
The universe is not a paradox.
If it was a paradox then it wouldn’t exist. But it does exist thus it isn’t a paradox.
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAgain i ask you: why does it exist?
[b]…is not the universe a paradox?
…
The universe is not a paradox.
If it was a paradox then it wouldn’t exist. But it does exist thus it isn’t a paradox.[/b]
Or more precisely, by what factors do you measure its existence.?
(because we are here and our imaginary thoughts aren't?)
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by karoly aczel…why does it exist?
Again i ask you: why does it exist?
Or more precisely, by what factors do you measure its existence.?
(because we are here and our imaginary thoughts aren't?)
…
How do you know there is a “why”? -I don’t presume there is a reason “why” it exists.
….Or more precisely, by what factors do you measure its existence.?
.…
I’m not sure what you mean -do you mean how do I know it exists? If so, I have already answered that.
(because we are here and our imaginary thoughts aren't?)
…
What are “imaginary thoughts” ?
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton1.goto 2
[b]…why does it exist?
…
How do you know there is a “why”? -I don’t presume there is a reason “why” it exists.
….Or more precisely, by what factors do you measure its existence.?
.…
I’m not sure what you mean -do you mean how do I know it exists? If so, I have already answered that.
(because we are here and our imaginary thoughts aren't?)
…
What are “imaginary thoughts” ?[/b]
2. humour me again?
3. imagenary 'religous ' thoughts and the like.You know what i mean? Stuff that people believe that is supposed to be outside the realms of 'existence'.
It does seem to shape our reality though....